Why Does Liz Cheney Hate America So Much?

by: hubiestubert

Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 13:04:16 PM EDT


Bookmark and Share

There has been a fair amount of push to derail the Justice Department from doing their job. And one of the culprits of this idiocy has been Liz Cheney. Her latest efforts to keep her father's involvement in less than savory practices during the last Administration has come from a web based attack on our own Justice Department.

Crossposted to The Suicidal Cactus Hour

hubiestubert :: Why Does Liz Cheney Hate America So Much?
Keep America Safe is ironically named, because its rasison d'etre is to keep American justice from playing out. By targeting attorneys doing pro bono work and providing the legal counsel that is every accused's right in this country, she condemns not only these attorneys, but our entire system of justice.

I am hardly the only Republican who thinks her witchhunt is a bad idea. I join Ted Olson, Bush's own Solicitor General, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and even Kenneth Starr.

Politico has this:

"I of course think it's entirely appropriate for members of the legal profession to have provided legal services to detainees. It is a part of the responsibility of lawyers and in the finest tradition of the profession to represent unpopular persons who are caught up in the criminal justice system or even in the military justice system. I think that people who do so, do so honorably.

"But I also think that some of the people being highly critical now of the criticism of the lawyers in the Justice Department, have been completely silent when it came to attacks - vicious attacks - on lawyers in the Department of Justice and the Defense Department who were providing legal assistance and advice to the United States of America during the last administration in connection with the attacks on the United States by terrorists.

"So lawyers should be encouraged to provide legal advice conscientiously to their clients. And that goes for people in the Bush administration and the Obama administration."

Mind you, Liz Cheney is hardly alone in this effort, and her partner in all this, Bill Kristol, has long been an opponent of reason, or justice. Sadly, Bill Kristol has best been summed up in his career as of late by Jon Stewart: "Oh Bill Kristol, are you EVER right?"

Inherent to our justice system is the right to counsel. Even the worst has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is how our system of justice works, it is that assumption that is the cornerstone of our courts. While the public, and those in the military, and even our own agents may know and have witnessed folks doing horrible things, even the worst get their day in court.  At least, that is the promise that we have made to ourselves.  That we will apply justice fairly and evenly, and that the attacks on attorneys who are providing defense for those accused is very much in keeping with the tradition of our courts. Even going back to our Revolutionary days, when John Adams defending British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

What bothers me about this idiocy, isn't that Liz and Kristol and the rest of her band of insincere asshats think that folks are guilty--they may very well be--but that they wish to interfere with the justice process, and short circuit it.

"They hate us for our freedoms!" is a common tirade for our War On Terror. The problem being, when we short circuit our system of justice for short term gain, we lose any hint of a moral or ethical high ground, and it only proves that terrorists can cow the greatest nation on Earth. When we pull back from the principles that this nation is founded upon to tuck our tails between our legs out of fear--or worse, out of expediency--we only give those enemies ammunition for their cause.

Moreover, that Liz Cheney's involvement is a thinly veiled attempt to shield her own father's possible malfeasance and to throw folks off the trail to track down how badly our own legal and ethical standards were skewed in the capture of many of our detainees is not lost. The raft of appearances to shed investigations and introspection at the policies that have ballooned Gitmo, and other holding facilities, and often without the process of law place the Cheneys and their supporters at the AEI on not only the wrong side of the law and history, but against the very foundations of our rule of law.

Liz: why do you hate America so much?

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bookmark and Share

More fuel to the fire that is devouring the far right. (2.00 / 4)
The "Coffee Party" has gained enough momentum to be on CNN today (160,000 FB fans), and while just another mote in the MSM dustpan it is interesting how a reasonable voice contrasts with insanity.

Stoke the fires around your house, Liz.  See how that works out.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon


I tink Liz has got a few things going on here. (2.00 / 3)
The Republicans have owned the national security issue politically for years now.  With this administration/DOJ doing things differently and being seen as successful the Cheney types lose their edge.

I think she thinks that we are at war and that creates a different set of rules.  Instead of pointing out that people became detainees through all kinds of ways that have nothing to do with probable guilt she'd rather focus on the method used to get some of the innocent out of Gitmo finally.

I also think she's trying to shore up her father's legacy by whatever means necessary.

Shes sets herself up nicely when there is an attack on Americans somewhere but claiming to be able to say, "See we told you so."

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette


But... (2.00 / 4)
She is also doing something I reckon most current Republican incumbents wish she would stop, namely keeping the Bush-Cheney legacy alive in contemporary media narratives.  They would be delighted to put some distance between themselves and the former administration and I reckon they can screw things up for themselves well enough without her unprincipled help.  The real story here isn't the messaging from Keep America Safe, it is the chorus of "STFU" which it inspired from a chorus of conservatives.

[ Parent ]
Which is why I don't think that this is about preserving a legacy for her father (2.00 / 5)
or about continuing failed policies that have caused so many embarrassments.

This is about trying to cow folks from taking folks to court, where things that might lead to indictments against folks from the last Administration will come out.

This is not about party unity, this is all about ass covering. This is Dick, his daughter--who did her part in the last Administration as well, on some ethically shaky ground in securing some contracts--and a few others they shared office space with, from doing perp walks.  


[ Parent ]
Agreed (2.00 / 3)
To me, however, keeping her father out of court is probably first prize in 'defending his legacy.'  But your point is well taken.  

[ Parent ]
You don't think some of the folks left behind at State, CIA, DOJ (2.00 / 2)
haven't sanitized their respective office buildings?  Or, at the risk of sounding like I'm into CT, that there aren't folks who have been giving firm warnings, "keep your mouths shut or else."  I wonder how many of those burrowed in weren't busy scrubbing memories and memory drives.

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
Because Liz is an authoritarian loving (2.00 / 2)
right winger.  DADDY is always right. If we all just practiced keeping their paternalistic, Daddy knows all, world view, we could all be protected, enslaved and happy.  

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


While I am no fan of the Neocons (2.00 / 2)
and the horrible things that their coalition with the Religious Right has done to my party, I won't do the disservice of thinking that their motivations are quite that simplistic.

Neocons are ideologues, and fervent in an Ivory Tower ideal of what their policies are supposed to bring about, and inevitably, when they fail, it is the fault of the execution, not the foundation of principle for those policies. This does not mean that they are making these policies out of simple partisan loyalty, but from a place where they actually think that these policies have a purpose.

That they are willing to do terrible things with their own children, as well as all of ours in the name of these ideals is incredibly dangerous, because they are believers. Believers in a world where torture can be justified, and sacrificing their own countrymen, and entire generations of someone else's countrymen are acceptable to profit a tiny class of fellow travelers.

Neocons aren't knee jerk in this approach. You have to truly believe to build the mechanizations to justify things that are so terribly alien to our system of justice and government. They are what happens when folks are educated far beyond the limitations of their own intellect.  


[ Parent ]
I understand what you are saying but (2.00 / 2)
honestly I know women like Liz Cheney.  They see themselves as liberated, educated women with a world view of a modern women.  But they still talk about their fathers with a "Daddy says" mentality.  

Now I LOVED and adored my father.  He was my hero.   But politically we clashed.  While he was never an ideologue he bought into the Reagan mentality.   He saw the Ronald Reagan of the movies, the John Wayne of the movies and identified with them even though their views and ultimately Reagan's policies hurt him in so many ways.  Financially he was screwed by their anti union, anti public servants beliefs.

Liz and her ilk cannot separate their paternal love from their belief system.  Daddy Knows Best.   That's what I see and hear when Liz speaks.  

They think people like me must not have loved our fathers very much to go against them politically.  My father was a registered republican but he believed in teaching his children to think for themselves, to be curious, to learn.  I don't see Liz as a person with a world view of her own.

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
I don't know if it's a "daddy knows best" thing but I think it is (2.00 / 2)
a "Cheney" thing.  She kept her maiden name presumably because she's proud of it and the accompanying cachet; I'd guess she doesn't want her name to to associated with folks labelled as war criminals (whether she agrees with such label or not).

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
I don't think Cheney believes he will be prosecuted. (2.00 / 5)
This is about history and ego. An arrogance that knows no bounds. Somday it may be said that most damaging thing Bush did was put Cheney back in the government.  

I'm Guessing... (2.00 / 3)
History will identify Cheney as the de facto executive and his name will forever be associated with attempted abuse of the constitutional powers of the executive branch, whether he is actually prosecuted or not.  The verdict of history is usually pretty harsh in these matters and it is already apparent that the neo-conservative experiment was a costly and painful mistake on a vast scale.

I can't think of a bigger failure of US policy in a century of history with the possible exception of Wilson's well intentioned "Fourteen Points."


[ Parent ]
I'm slightly amazed by this... (2.00 / 2)
Not to mention the pushback from Conservative Jurists, including (incredibly) Ken Starr against this idiocy.

I'm more amazed at the principles of common law. As Hubie says:

What bothers me about this idiocy, isn't that Liz and Kristol and the rest of her band of insincere asshats think that folks are guilty--they may very well be--but that they wish to interfere with the justice process, and short circuit it.

In our shared common law, every defendant is granted the right to a fair trial. A high court judge would probably condemn this group for contempt of court, because they are publicising the notion these defendants are already guilty. If they are, this would help their case, because any subsequent trial would be deemed unfair because of the publicity, and they would walk scot free.

In short, Lyn Cheney is helping terrorists walk free.

Also, I ought to remind you, during my youth we have dozens of deadly bombings in British cities courtesy of the Provisional IRA. Many 'public safety' trials were held of the alleged bombers. In the hue and cry of the moment, police were desperate to get convictions and 'make Britain feel safe'. Net result...

A good proportion of those verdicts were eventually overturned on appeal, and the so called bombers released. The evidence was scant, and often completely contradictory. Many (if not all) of the suspects spent years behind bars for something they hadn't done.

Panic and fear is not a good way to run a justice system. Quite the opposite. It's the first flush of authoritarianism.



The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'


This is excellent (2.00 / 1)
Sadly, I think most Americans, including many progressives ignore or excuse much of this.
**Corporate America has been gaining power since Reagan....
** have been and still are trashed by not only the right but by the left.   The right has successfully demonized unions and many young progressives buy into it.   I cannot tell you how many young "independents" tell me stories of how unions allowed bad workers/bad teachers to stay. Yet explaining to them that it is the job of the management, the administration to do their job and prove incompetence, rather than the job of the union to help to fire, they look at me like I am speaking greek.
**The first thing people want cut in schools is the art......in the sixties and seventies teachers pushing the arts were mocked and derided as hippies.
**Sexism......think 2008.   Much of the left in power was as tolerant of sexism as the right is.

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
Corporations have been on the rise since the days of the Robber Barons (2.00 / 2)
Which is one of the reasons that folks formed unions in the first place.  Let's be fair here. Reagan was hardly a fan of unions--perhaps because of his experience in the Screen Actor's Guild, and perhaps from pushback from his handing over of folks to the FBI and HUAC--but despite his crappy labor relations, he was far from the first straw on this particular camel's back.

Unions have gotten bad press from some pretty crappy practices.  The problem is that the labor in this country decided to stick together and NOT decry the corrupt when they saw them.  That goes for the rank and file as well.  

The NWU has treated me pretty well.  Then again, that has something to do with an active membership. Teachers' unions have shot themselves in the foot time and time again--as a protective measure to shield their members, they've managed to put themselves in some bad places, at least the unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO--but more so, their parent unions have demanded that teachers' unions support some craptastic policies.  And this is where unions come under fire: when you have organizations as large and as differentiated as the AFL-CIO, it is hard to keep the rank and file informed and active.  There's just a lot going on, and few in the rank and file can keep abreast of all the things going on.

Which is where misunderstandings, and outright corruption can occur.

Schools cutting...that is a measure of how folks hate taxes.  And love to hate on schools for spending their money, and blame their property taxes on Johnny and Betty going to high school together.  Education is a hodge podge in this country, and the sad thing is, our schools are doing their best given that standards change, communities hate to fund them, hate to support them, but LOVE to cheer their teams, but then hate the bills.  We are a schizophrenic nation when it comes to education, and just when schools get their shit together to deal with the NEW standards that their communities give them, the community then realizes that the schools are short on something, and then blame the teachers and Principals for not being better equipped, when the School Boards keep slashing and reappropriating their budgets.

We have the education we have asked for. Our teachers keep giving us exactly what we've asked for.  And that's the problem.  School Boards filled with folks who aren't actually trained in education, and a prevailing attitude that since everyone went to school, that they're experts in the field.  How hard can it be, right?  Unions, unfortunately, tend to NOT address the schizophrenic nature of the beast, and level a good deal of ire onto the Administration--who is still beholden to the public on the purse strings.  

This isn't so much a Liberal vs Conservative issue, but a need to address the dumbasses who keep thinking that we can turn out future leaders with less and less invested in education.  Unions and Administration both get screwed by their communities, but unions could be better at articulating that.

In part, this country needs to discard some of the very generalities that you brought in your post.  Because they do a disservice by painting issues as far simpler than they are.  It essentially buys into the idea of a quick fix, and that is the more popular way to go, but it short changes us all in the end.  


[ Parent ]
What's the Chances... (0.00 / 0)
That if we ditched the local taxes = school budget methodology and had a genuinely national education system we'd be better off?  No more Texas School Book Depository controversy and so forth.

[ Parent ]
I would gladly support a shift to a national educational system (2.00 / 2)
It would end the tireless duplication of effort, it would consolidate a good many school districts, it would save the tax payers a crap ton of cash, it would end the plethora of tests that teachers are faced with to qualify for certification--and with tests that are duplications, and often inferior to the National Teacher's Exam that they already have to take.

It would mean an end to the corruption that abounds within the testing community.  It would take out conflicting, and often contradictory policies that only make sense if you Honk for Jeebus, and the savings within the framework of NOT duplicating effort would mean over all savings all around.  We could afford then to increase teacher wages, we would have even standards across the board, and it would mean an end to laymen being in charge of school districts.

We need to reprofessionalize teaching in the public mind.  Teachers' unions already have pressed for higher standards, and a crap ton of professional development--not only to justify pay raises, but to keep their skills sharp--since the rank and file and actual educators are involved in the running of teachers' unions.

People will still scream about the cost.  And the taxes that will come about.  Even if you shave off the costs of schools from the property tax, people will then kvetch about a NEW TAX WE DON'T NEED!

Essentially, in this country, education is supposed to be free. Teachers, administrators, schools, bussing. All of it. Totally free, and volunteered, and HOW DARE TEACHERS ASK FOR PAY!  

We are amazingly schizophrenic when it comes to the public schools, and yet, mention private schools, and folks line up to tell you how much cash they dropped to send their Sunshine Flower, and damn proud of that fee as well.

Education in this country makes me want to line up folks on walls, and just start cockpunching folks at random--because the chances of hitting someone who doesn't have some asinine belief about education is so dramatically small that I feel comfy with the odds.  


[ Parent ]
Well... (2.00 / 1)
I take that as a 'yes.'  It would solve a lot of problems.  And create a few too, I suppose.

In Port Washington, NY, a leafy suburb on Long Island, my eighty-three year old mother pays 13k a year in property taxes, most of which goes to the local schools.  And, fair enough, I went to school there and had a great education.

But the kids in Queens or Wantagh probably don't get the same treatment.  Here in Australia it is 'one size fits all' and that's not to say we don't have issues but at least we all get the same treatment.  The school budgets are all provided by national income tax, filtered down through the disreputable accounting of the states on a 'as needs' basis.  My kid went to a little, rural primary school which was just great, and they were desperate for enrollments because their budget was tiered on numbers and he put them over a threshhold, luckily enough.  He was the 200th kid.  But it's a pretty good system.  All for one and one for all.


[ Parent ]
And you think the fight over HCR was bad? (2.00 / 2)
We had armed civilians in the streets. If there was any kind of serious effort to create a national education system then we'd have armed civilians in the street and they'd be shooting.  

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
Well, Then... (2.00 / 1)
It sounds like the new national curriculum should include a high school course in civics.

[ Parent ]
Would that be the civics class where they teach kids (2.00 / 2)
the most important amendment is the 2nd and that bearing arms is a form of free speech?

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
No (2.00 / 1)
That would be the civics class where they discuss the seperation of powers, the proper principles of the Constitution, remind us that Congress only can declare war, emphasise the reponsibilities of good citizenship, reiterate the benefits of the greater good for the most of our countrymen and countrywomen and identify the appropriate context for dissent.

[ Parent ]
You know, I am sorry (2.00 / 4)
but I am really fed up with the "teacher's unions" protect crappy teachers' meme.  I really am.
That blanket statement is simply not fair.

Unions protect "due process" for teachers. I have been an active union member my entire life. I have helped my union convince two teachers to "leave" the profession.  
I KNOW of other situations where teachers have been pressured to resign, to do other things.

Do we get all the bad ones out?  Of course not.  Do doctors get all the bad doctors out?  Do lawyers?  Does any profession do that?

And pray tell who decided who is a "bad" teacher?  A student? A parent?  A staff? A principal?   For many years that's all it took. An angry parent, or an unscrupulus administrator to fire a teacher who perhaps dared defy some stupid directive.

So sorry, this blame the teachers' unions will not fly with me.  Unions, like management have some bad apples.  Getting rid of them is the job of the rank and file. Did they always do it? NO?  Does management always get rid of the bad apples in the banks, in the front office of a corporation?  NO?

When teachers break blatant rules, and it is documented and proven, they are gone.  Tenure does not protect a teacher who hits, who molests, who steals, who downloads porn.....who misses duties and it is documented.  

But when a teacher is simply not good at teaching, it is harder to prove. Some parents adore teachers or are strong disciplinarians, and who give the kids packets of paper work.  Drill sheets, assignments.  I had one such teacher across the hall from me.  Her kids never got recess, always came early and stayed late.  The worked on practices sheets, and often were kept out of PE or Art or Music because they needed to finish their work.  That teacher was won an award.  Why?  Because in this  working neighbor hood some parents loved her authoritarian approach and gave this teacher free reign.   Other classes approached it differently.   Hands on science, exploring ideas, debating, deciding.   Sixth grade can be tough but it is, imo, when critical learning, problem solving starts.  But allowing kids to think is messy, and loud.  And laughing is allowed.
Scorewise, the authoritarian class did not better than, and often worse than the other classes.  

But parents walking by classes, some administrators walking by classes saw the silent, diligent paper work as "wonderful," and the loud discussions as not as good.  

So who should have been awarded?  Who fired?  The union represented both teachers and protected both.

No union is perfect.  And sorry, I still think the start of the anti union, anti worker mentality got stronger when Reagan was elected.  

People in this country refuse to acknowledge reality.  In many European countries, children start with a second language in K.  Teachers have been pushing for that for years.   In many countries where there are higher scores, guess what..they are still NOT testing ALL kids.  Some kids are peeled off to trade schools and apprentice ships.  Here ever kid no matter where they want to head in life, takes the ACT.  I have had juniors tell me they blew because they resented being forced to take it when they do not want to go to college.  They want to do a trade or the military.  But they are not valued.  So we treat all child as if they all MUST read Shakespeare and be tested on because ?????

We do not value labor in this country and we start early on telling our kids that plumbers, carpenters, etc are not as valued as lawyers and wall street brokers.

OK I have to stop.  I really need to just give up on this.  Everyone is an expert in education because everyone went to school; therefor they know.

Whatever........it angers me beyond reason and I can no longer even deal with it.  People are going to blame teachers and their unions.  It makes them feel better because no one wants to face the truth.  Greed and the desire for stuff is valued way above educating children.


"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
I agree with a lot of that Jjc. (2.00 / 1)
I also think that in some cases Unions are their own worst enemy. Quite often short term greed defines a unions actions more than long term goals. But you could say that about Americans in general I think.My mother was a charter member of the union in Michigan, the MEA I believe its called.But later in life she was appalled at the quickness the union would strike over things that the majority of Americans don't recieve. Tenure, cost of living raises, gold plated insurance and retirement plans. None of theese things are bad, but when the communities that support them are going broke because of recession and market realignment, the teachers unions tend to ignore this and plow forward. It comes off as arrogant quite frankly.

 The fact that a child that live on the wrong side of the street gets less of an education than another is a crime. Its immoral. Its so fucking idiotic I can't fucking stand it. I get pissed off just sitting here thinking about it. WHat a fucked up country!


[ Parent ]
Well that was her experience (2.00 / 4)
Mine was this.  We struck to keep the right to a master agreement.  
We won.
In the late 80s, thanks to the right, our economy was in shambles here.  We, the teachers, agreed to and took a wage freeze for three years.  In the years before and after there our average wage increase was usually about 1.5%.  Even when the cost of living increases were much higher we never got it.
As a general rule, in every teachers' union I have been on, our biggest fights were over the "right to collective bargaining, health care costs, and educational issues (class size, duty free lunch (we had to fight to get a whole 30 minute lunch with no duty)

Unions are the people who join them.  I did my responsibility.  I was a rep for a good 15 years. I went to meetings. I read the news and info handed out and attended union meetings always.  Sometimes when I was rep, I had five out of 30 members attend.  And when they came and complained and asked why did they do this, I asked if they voted; did the come to the meeting.  So yea, sometimes the lazy rank and file were outvoted by the activists.  Just like in democracy.  

But the bottom line, the blanket blame of "unions" is over used, unfair and uninformed.   Half the people I talk to who bad mouth unions never belonged to one but heard from this friend or that friend......

urban myths get old after a while.

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
We agree that blanket statements are useless, (2.00 / 2)
and you will always (i'm guessing ;~) be an unfliching advocate for unions.  But (there's always one of those, eh?), criticisms of unions can still be well-earned.  Half the people you talk to may only know rumors, but the other half (like me) have real experiences.  Unions need to be hyper-vigilant against the failings that (at least half of) their critics have seen first hand.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
Union MEMBERS (2.00 / 3)
have to be hyper vigilant and active.  
Just like citizens.
Unionization, like our government, is not an entity into itself unless we allow it to be so.  We are, or should be, our unions. We are, or should be, our government.

You and I may not agree on things, and if we were in the same union, perhaps we would be against each other on different issues. But, just like in a democracy, what should happen is that we both actively fight for what we believe the union should or should not do/represent.  And actively engage members to go with our point of view.
If I won, and I put into place the things I represented, you could be as unhappy as you want, but still, the union would be speaking for its members.

Here's my beef. I think many people think if the union does not represent their particular point of view, then the union is bad.  But if the union represents the majority of its members then it is doing its job despite the disgruntled minority.
I had a few teachers totally angry at me because NEA supported politicians that were pro choice.  Had a fit.  I tried to explain that NEA polls all of us, we get a vote, starting at the local, on to the state, and then to the national who to support based on their educational beliefs, support, etc.   But she thought because she was pro life the union had no right to speak for her.  Well, I told her, then do not be a member.  Opt out.  Teachers can do that every year...opt out.  But of course they do not get the benefits......

It's all about decisions, beliefs, and understanding no one union leader, no one politician represents your views 100% of the time.
My beef here and with our society in general is that because of a few bad unions, too many are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  One bad union, or even ten bad unions, does not = ALL UNIONS ARE BAD anymore than one bad teacher = ALL teachers are bad.

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
One Big Union (2.00 / 1)
Give it time.  What the unions struggled so hard to achieve people take for granted these days.  Anyone with a sense of history knows the unions are an essential part of our social fabric that we dishonour at our own peril.

[ Parent ]
Very well said. (0.00 / 0)
n slash t.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

[ Parent ]
My point was not that unions are responsible for poor educational policy (2.00 / 2)
But, that some unions are better than others.

The poor standing that many unions have comes not just from the Rabid Right, but from teachers themselves who are often caught in the middle of pissing matches between parent unions, and their own districts.

My point is that we cannot make blanket statements about unions without looking at specifics. Not all unions are created equal.  Not all districts are either--which is in part why I would support national standards for education.  There is room for improvement, and teaching professionals need to be demanding more, not just of themselves, not just of their unions, but of the public, and their own districts.

You do hit the greater crux of my post though: that the profession, and the system are often held accountable when they do exactly what is asked of them.  We have a system that holds teachers and schools accountable for doing what is asked of them to the letter, and then folks are appalled that things didn't magically improve--because laymen and non-teaching professionals are at the heart of the policies that they want the schools to enact.

That schizophrenia is very much at center of things. Folks want great schools, they want winning teams, they want the sky, but damned if they want to pay for it.  Nor own up to their own failed policies when it comes down to teachers and administrators doing exactly what is asked of them, and held accountable for those policy failures.

It should anger you. It should anger all of us, that folks who themselves didn't get education degrees feel that they know what's best for their schools. They want to fiddle and poke and prod, because they all went to schools, and dammit, they turned out OK, right?  Save, that they weren't really paying attention to the process or the craft, or the underlying policies that shaped their education, and the idea that some Ivory Tower Elitist knows better than them, when they turned out OK is insulting to them.

They should be insulted though. The same as a fella who figures that he's eaten a few great meals qualifies him to run a restaurant.  He KNOWS good food, because he's been there at the table.  My business is littered with failed restaurants because of this attitude--only, we can't really let our schools continually fail because of idiots.

And they don't usually fail.  That's the miracle of our educational system--that despite the hurdles placed in front of them, we have cadres of excellent teachers and administrators who jump through all the hoops placed in front of them, and do amazing work.  Inspire kids, get kids at least the basics, despite poor parental involvement, and often disastrous home environments, and under funding, and so much more. And that boils down to the professionalism and sheer chutzpah of our teachers and administrators.

That doesn't absolve unions when they screw up.  That doesn't absolve teachers when they screw up.  It does illustrate though, why we can't make a lot of blanket statements to the condition of our schools.  Until we can possibly dismantle the crazy house that runs our local districts--and not all districts are run poorly, taking my own point--we need to address specifics.


[ Parent ]
The problem is that many teachers (0.00 / 0)
like me, do get angry.  We put years and years into fighting the system.  We hit our heads against wall after wall.  We join unions, many of us, not because the unions are the perfect answer, not because we want to get rich, but because they are the only way we get a voice.

I once stood in front of a room filled with administrators, teachers, and parents.   It was the usual discussion of what we should do to solve some problem with the district.  And while the school board came to pretend they were listening to the teachers, to the parents, in the end they were listening to the "tax payers".   It was not about what was good for kids.  It was about what was good for the pocketbooks of the politically power. I knew it.  They said they wanted to empower the students. I countered that if they wanted to empower students, they needed to empower their teachers.

In the end, the board listened to the richer, more politically power citizenry, closed the school of the poor end of the community, dispersing their child by bus to other schools.  It was the third school in the poor end of town to be closed in a decade.  Who did it benefit?  The taxpayers, the rich citizens who did NOT want THEIR children bussed "there". Not the kids. Not the teachers.

The union was caught in the middle.  The only thing people like me got was the right to be heard without being fired.
If there was no union, there is no way I could have said anything without then being either fired, or placed last among all the teachers who had to find a new place to go.

Poor children get cheated, not only because they have an uphill battle in all segments of their lives, but also because their parents do not have the same political clout as their rich counterparts.  
But at least the teachers in their schools get to do battle, to fight for funding, to fight against school closures, to let the public know that system will discriminate when allowed.  We don't always win, but at least unions give us a voice.  And in some cases we did win because the teachers could speak without fear of losing their jobs.

This notion that teachers' unions are about money and benefits only is nonsense. If that was true, most teachers would not join cause guess what, in MOST districts, compared to counterparts with the same amount of degrees and education, we do not even come close.

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both."
- Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
Hence my call to re-professionalize teaching in the public mind (2.00 / 1)
And to remove the local politicians from the process.

It is more pipe dream, than solid plan though. Education is sort of like hairstyles and religion: folks like to spend a fair amount of time and money fiddling with it, and for the most part without any real discernible change, save that they wasted some time and effort to do pretty much the same thing they were doing a few months ago.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think in Lyn Cheney's world any of these people ever sees the (2.00 / 2)
light of day.  That's the point of the military tribunals or, hell, just holding them at Gitmo until we forget about them.  Never mind that some of them are innocent.  Never mind that none of the few military tribunals we have had has resulted in a conviction (I believe).  The point is that we're at war and we have to keep all the Muslims we catch indefinitely because they hate us.

Le me tell Liz Cheney: if you kept my 14-year-old son locked up, uncharged, for half a dozen years I'd hate you and the country that allowed it to go on.

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette


[ Parent ]
So Brit's Point... (2.00 / 3)
Is well taken.  She's a recruitment tool for militant Islamicists and a civil liberties threat to the rest of us.  What a sweetie.  But as Creamer noted above, imagine what it must have been like growing up in the shadow of that.  Sheesh.  Princess Leia she ain't.

[ Parent ]
Imagine being one of her five kids. (2.00 / 2)
Mom and Grandma screwing with you.

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
Sigh (2.00 / 3)

Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him.

Groucho Marx



[ Parent ]
Sorry. (2.00 / 1)
That was supposed to read "Mom and Grandpa screwing with you" although I wonder if momma Cheney isn't a bit of a whatever, too.

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (2.00 / 3)
I notice how close the 'm' and 'p' keys are.

[ Parent ]
Sexism on display? (2.00 / 1)
;~)

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
Jerk! :) (2.00 / 2)
I'd say something about a Freudian slip but...I'm going home.

He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say anything.... (2.00 / 2)
...about a Freudian slap.... because you never know what might happen.

Oh. Wait.

Since this is a Lyn Cheney diary, can I tell a sad old joke.

How many Freudians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Two, one to screw in the lightbulb, the other to hold the penis... I mean ladder

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'


[ Parent ]
But Groucho's still right. :) (2.00 / 2)


He's a vicious f****er. First he kicks The Donald in the nuts, laughs about it, and then orders two bullets to the head of OBL. I voted for him out of hope but the second time will be out of fear. ~ oldskool on the Wonkette

[ Parent ]
It Would Make an Interesting Topic... (2.00 / 1)
For a relationship counseling session or a good-natured dinner table discussion among tipsy couples, that's for sure.

[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Blog Roll
Andrew Bacevich
Angry Bear
Angry Black Lady
Balloon Juice
Black Kos
Booman Tribune
Charles P. Pierce
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Five Thirty Eight
Huffington Post
Juan Cole
Maddow Blog
MYDD
P.M. Carpenter
Political Wire
RumpRoast
Scholars & Rogues
Talking Points Memo
The Field
Washington Monthly
Wonkette
VetVoice
Moose With Blogs
Atdleft
Barr
BorderJumpers
Brit
BTchakir
Canadian Gal
Charles Lemos
Cheryl Kopec
Curtis Walker
Douglas Watts
Hubie Stubert
Intrepid Liberal
ItStands
Janicket
JoeTrippi
John Allen
LibraryGrape
MichaelEvan
National Gadfly
Senate Guru
Zachary Karabell




Advertisement


Back to Top

Posting Guidelines  |  FAQ  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact the Moose  |  Contact Congress
Powered by: SoapBlox