I am so mad at Rick Perry. I just saw a commercial touting his dedication to public education. He also praised himself for giving a merit pay raise and a $2000.00 raise to all TX teachers.

But did you know...

They raised the retirement age for teachers, because they want to keep qualified teachers in the profession longer. They decreased retirement payments by taking our highest 5 years and dividing that to find out our retirement payments. (They did take the highest 3.)

They gave teachers a $1000.00 pay raise a few years ago... then took away half... then took the other half away. So that pay raise he is bragging about just replaced the $1000.00 they took away and gave us another $1000.00. (Remember 8 years ago when they promised a $6000.00 pay raise to be paid in two years? They gave the first $3000.00, but the next year they decided not to give the other half.) The public hears about the raises, but does not know about the times they take things back...

Then the merit pay raise only goes towards teachers in core subjects and only IF the administration deems it necessary. They are not required to do it... so it is worthless to non-core teachers, and pretty much everyone.

This makes me want to quit teaching. With the Social Security offset, the government giving and taking our money away, increasing retirement age, less retirement benefits, and low wages to begin with... why would anyone want to come into this profession OR stay???????????? (Oh yeah... the kids.) But with discipline problems on the rise, how long with that be a benefit???

GOVERNOR PERRY HAS DONE NOTHING FOR ME or TEXAS STUDENTS.

Oh yeah... don't even get me started on that damn TAKS test. Worthless.

The rich are rich because of good business decisions. If they inherited it, then they have either wasted it to nothing or are still rich due to wise decisions. Business is run in a particular way, and if you get rich you get rich. But labor ends up paying badly for citizens trying not to live on the government, but for noncitizens or those living off the government they pay pretty well and that is the majority of ppl who work those jobs, so therefore the raises will not be raised by much because ppl are content with their wages. I do believe that many professions are underpaid, including teachers, but it also depends what school district you teach at, many teachers at many schools make a lot of money. An average teacher, with experience, probably makes a little more than my mom does every year. I mean, we have everything we have ever needed and/or wanted and are happy. However there are other professions that should be paid more

Ma·chi·a·vel·li·an (mk--vl-n) Pronunciation Key

adj.

1. Of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism.
   
2. Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.

Machiavelianism

Machiavelism Mach"i*a*vel*ism, MachiavelianismMach`i*a*vel"ian*ism, n. [Cf. F. machiav['e]lisme; It. machiavellismo.] The supposed principles of Machiavel, or practice in conformity to them; political artifice, intended to favor arbitrary power.

Mach‧i‧a‧vel‧li‧an  /ˌmækiəˈvɛliən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mak-ee-uh-vel-ee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1.of, like, or befitting Machiavelli. 2.being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. 3.characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead. –noun 4.a follower of the principles analyzed or described in The Prince, esp. with reference to techniques of political manipulation.

Also, Mach‧i‧a‧vel‧i‧an.

And on behalf of public school teachers, PLEASE take your child to a private school. We deal with enough ignorance now as it is.

Ma·chi·a·vel·li·an (mk--vl-n) Pronunciation Key

adj.

1. Of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism.
   
2. Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.

Machiavelianism

Machiavelism Mach"i*a*vel*ism, MachiavelianismMach`i*a*vel"ian*ism, n. [Cf. F. machiav['e]lisme; It. machiavellismo.] The supposed principles of Machiavel, or practice in conformity to them; political artifice, intended to favor arbitrary power.

Mach‧i‧a‧vel‧li‧an  /ˌmækiəˈvɛliən/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mak-ee-uh-vel-ee-uhn]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1.of, like, or befitting Machiavelli. 2.being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. 3.characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead. –noun 4.a follower of the principles analyzed or described in The Prince, esp. with reference to techniques of political manipulation.

Also, Mach‧i‧a‧vel‧i‧an.

And on behalf of public school teachers, PLEASE take your child to a private school. We deal with enough ignorance now as it is.

This is totally off topic from the quote that I used. Point is he was a great political thinker. Would you rather Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, Marx (whom I despise), who? All people have their great flaws in their perception of the world. The problem is the people who think that it rains gumdrops and daisies, and everything can be fixed with one switch of power. That is the true ignorance. Machiavelli's advice is good, just because you do not fully understand what is being said (obviously) or context that it is used in, does not mean that I or anyone else is ignorant. I like Machiavelli, as a matter of fact Im using his theory to write a paper about abortion in the United States right now. You guys need to see beyond the obvious and look in depth to the reality, get past the cover the shell of a politician and see into them. They all lie, cheat, scandalize, but thats because they must to win the vote, which is contradictory I know, but they must make EVERYONE a friend, which is impossible, so therefore they make neither friends nor enemies.

OPEN YOUR MINDS! And I swear if you are a teacher and you had to look up Machiavelli in a dictionary or encylcopedia, then wow is all I have to say, wow. Ive known of Machiavelli for somewhat 3-4 years now.

This is totally off topic from the quote that I used. Point is he was a great political thinker. Would you rather Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, Marx (whom I despise), who? All people have their great flaws in their perception of the world. The problem is the people who think that it rains gumdrops and daisies, and everything can be fixed with one switch of power. That is the true ignorance. Machiavelli's advice is good, just because you do not fully understand what is being said (obviously) or context that it is used in, does not mean that I or anyone else is ignorant. I like Machiavelli, as a matter of fact Im using his theory to write a paper about abortion in the United States right now. You guys need to see beyond the obvious and look in depth to the reality, get past the cover the shell of a politician and see into them. They all lie, cheat, scandalize, but thats because they must to win the vote, which is contradictory I know, but they must make EVERYONE a friend, which is impossible, so therefore they make neither friends nor enemies.

OPEN YOUR MINDS! And I swear if you are a teacher and you had to look up Machiavelli in a dictionary or encylcopedia, then wow is all I have to say, wow. Ive known of Machiavelli for somewhat 3-4 years now.

You are putting us on, right?

The Prince is not the Prince of darkness, but there is not that much difference. Most people would be insulted if compared with Machiavelli or if their policies were called Machiavellian.

If you are not putting us on, then would you agree that Karl Rove is a Machiavellian character?

OPEN YOUR MINDS! And I swear if you are a teacher and you had to look up Machiavelli in a dictionary or encylcopedia, then wow is all I have to say, wow. Ive known of Machiavelli for somewhat 3-4 years now.

I can't speak for Poodles, but I would bet my next meal, that she was trying to Open your eyes and mind, and only used a printout in BLACK AND WHITE to prove her point.

You have to take parts and use the symbollism in his words and the wisdom that he shares since he is a philosopher, and therefore is higher ranked than any one other than other philosophers, therefore you must respect his thought since he can put it all together in a reasonable manner, and therefore he must have some good thoughts which one can take from his speaking. I do not mean to say anyone should be Machiavellian, but instead take from his works and learn and grow and pick out the parts that pertain to certain instances, rather than the whole thing. You have to pick apart paragraphs and decide what you want to believe in, and how to apply it to our government in today's time. My eyes are open, I know what the hell Im talking about I do this indepth study every single day, its what I do, I dont work, I study...

Glad you could see what I was doing TOM. I just wanted to show the real definitions, not my take on it.

As for you Miss Jodie, if you were in my classroom this is the point where I would pat you on the back, smile, and walk away...

No use fighting a teenager, they know it all.

I dont know everything, if I did I wouldnt be in college.......Im not trying to say I know everything, I just know what I am talking about when discussing certain great thinkers because I go to that class and/or study it all the time because it is my passion and I dont know everything about it, thats why Im still in the class and taking more. I just wanted to prove that even negativity can be turned around and shown in a different light, and used for good.

I'll tell you the really sad part is that in great state of Texas, as big and wonderful as it is, that they are the best candidates for Governor that we can muster. I don't like any of them. All the good potential candidates for Governor are too smart to run and stay in the private sector.

I dont know everything, if I did I wouldnt be in college.......Im not trying to say I know everything, I just know what I am talking about when discussing certain great thinkers because I go to that class and/or study it all the time because it is my passion and I dont know everything about it, thats why Im still in the class and taking more. I just wanted to prove that even negativity can be turned around and shown in a different light, and used for good.

There have been many great thinkers in this world. One transformed a country that had lost all hope and turned it into a great power although he himself was small in stature. By the will of his imagination and his insight into the depths of the hearts and minds of man, he turned a society into his image of greatness. Luckily the USA had the industrial might to put an end to his dreams before they became a never ending nightmare for the world.

You have to take parts and use the symbollism in his words and the wisdom that he shares since he is a philosopher, and therefore is higher ranked than any one other than other philosophers, therefore you must respect his thought since he can put it all together in a reasonable manner, and therefore he must have some good thoughts which one can take from his speaking. I do not mean to say anyone should be Machiavellian, but instead take from his works and learn and grow and pick out the parts that pertain to certain instances, rather than the whole thing. You have to pick apart paragraphs and decide what you want to believe in, and how to apply it to our government in today's time. My eyes are open, I know what the hell Im talking about I do this indepth study every single day, its what I do, I dont work, I study...

I study too and my class is studying Machiavelli at the moment. We do the section on "The Morals of the Prince." There are two assumptions in that section: 1) the prince wants to stay in power 2) people are generally bad. I find that students who agree with the latter, tend to believe Machiavelli is right while those who disagree, don't think Machiavelli is right. So it comes down to the assumptions which you should know about if you study a lot. We should always look for the basic assumptions in any writing because if the assumptions are wrong, the whole argument is wrong. My students this semester tended to think that people are generally good though in past semesters the vote has been about 50/50. However, Machiavelli clearly promotes political expediency over morality. If one accepts both assumptions that Machiavelli makes, then he's right. If one doesn't accept both assumptions, then he's wrong at least with regard to one or more assumptions. As an English professor, I try to teach my students to always figure out what the assumptions are in an argument, and then decide if they agree with the assumptions or not. Unwitting agreement or disagreement shows poor critical thinking. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but I think you should consider these assumptions which Machiavellil makes perfectly clear in the "Morals of the Prince" section and then see if you agree with him. If you do, I assume you think that people are generally bad and that can certainly color your interpretation of Machiavelli. I tend to think people are generally good so I'm critical of him, but if people really are generally bad, then his ideas are perfectly good.

In addition, I teach my students to look for fallacies. Fallacies are basically illogical conclusions which we tend to jump to for lack of thought. Frankly, I haven't found many fallacies in Machiavelli's "Morals of the Prince," which indicates that his thought is logical. That is why we must look for the assumptions that underlie his thought.

I skipped school today so you got my lecture instead of my students. Poor you.

I forgot to add this idea. Aristotle is positively nasty about women. He considers women pretty much not human. Socrates though is good. He's smart and deserves to rank right up there with Christ. Unfortunately, we only get his thought through Plato who took notes in class. Still, I like Plato too. If you really look into philosophy, there are all sorts of nuts and all sorts of wise people. Don't you just love philsophy? I do.

An argument can be logically true and factually true.

An argument can be logically true and factually false.

An argument can be logically false and factually true.

An argument can be logically false and factually false.

Many might say that I should have stated the above in a different manner such as:

An argument can be logically valid and factually true.

An argument can be logically valid and factually false.

An argument can be logically invalid and factually true.

An argument can be logically invalid and factually false.

As a Canadian I feel I should say a few words about our health system. (Mousecrazy, for one, doesn't seem to understand it.) Canada's universal health care system works just fine if you happen to live in or near a heavily populated metropolitan centre. It is those people who live in thinly populated rural areas who are under-served. Medical centres housing expensive high tech machines and specialists are far away from these individuals. This makes sense on a dollar and cents level and your business driven style of medical care would certainly not alter this situation for this is one of demographics.

You may be interested to learn that those countries - all of industrialised Europe and Canada as well as Australia and New Zealand - who practise socialised medicine spend significantly less per capita on health costs that the United States does. Our costs per capita clock in at about $2000 less than yours. This is because we have removed big business from the equation.

Moreover, my brother, who now practises medicine in the States, says that he finds his treatment of his patients constrained by his patients' financial situations. He might not be able to order all the tests and procedures that he would like. This was never a concern when he practised medicine back in Canada.

For those of you who believe that the American way is better, have you never considered that you have been on the receiving end of a lot of spin? You have big business and big business friendly politcians who have an agenda that they wish to push who are feeding this disinformation to you. These are people who have a lot to lose.

I really wish we had Canada's system. You may have to wait for elective surgery, but I just put mother in the nursing home for a short while. The reason it's a short while is that they will take every dime she has for her care. If we don't give up all her money, they'll charge us for her care. The lady told me that it costs me more than a professor at NSU makes per year. It will cost $124 a day for medications alone!! That is $3720 a month which is more than I make. Medicare pays for 20 days in the nursing home for special nursing. That's all Mother is going to get. The doctor said to put her in an assisted living home. She HAS an assisted living home and I'm the assistant. Our medical costs are ridiculous and this is going to be a hot issue as the baby boomers age. We are already aging and getting angry. I read a story today about companies outsourcing heathcare to India. A person has to fly to India for an operation! I went to Mexico for my lapband because it was infinitely cheaper than here in the U.S. I would go there again since the care was better than I can get here and a lot cheaper. I want to move to Canada. Will they take me? I'm an English professor who is getting ready to retire in few years. I hear they won't take retirees. Oh well, I hope to learn Spanish and move to Chile.

Jodie, you have a right to your opinion.

Some politicians require that voters have a lack of compassion for the poor and they circulate Republican lines about how wonderful it is to be poor. One of our vice presidents told us that the homeless like it that way. Many politicians suggest that the poor have it all. Or at least get it all.

Maybe the reason that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are giving all their money away is so that they can qualify for all the goodies that the poor get from the government. :faint:

In case you don't know it, Social Security does more than protect people from being broke when they retire. If a man is killed, his family is entitled to Survivor Benefits until the children are 18.

Anyone who thinks that is not important should try walking in the moccasins of a young window who has to raise three children after her husband ties of a freak accident or a unexpected illness.

My friend with 3 children died at 21 of a heart attack. He didn't have life insurance because, "who needs insurance at 21?"

My father died on the day after I was born in 1945. Social Security was the difference between starving and surviving for my mother and me.

And then there is disability insurance.

Yes, as a savings plan, SS is not the best, but when you add up the Medical plan for the aged (Medicare) and the other benefits I mentioned, it is a bargain.

The only reason that SS is having a problem now is that Ronald Reagan began combining the SS money with the General tax revenue in the early 1980's. Combining might be called stealing if I was less polite. The USA owes Social Security about 2 trillion dollars. Of course the 11 commandment is "Thou Shalt NOT RAISE TAXES", so the Republicans do not want to repay the money and come up with all kinds of schemes spread all kinds of lies to get out of paying back the money they used to lower taxes. Oh, I forgot, they really didn't lower your taxes that much, but Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's taxes were cut by billions during BuSh's 6 years.

And as far as state taxes are concerned. Find a chart that lists the state tax rates. Then find another chart that ranks income per capita. Then find one that ranks educational levels. Then find one that ranks rate of divorce. Then find one that ranks rate of marriage.

You will find that the states with the highest tax rates have the highest marriage rates, the best educated children, the best educated adults, the best medical care, the highest standard of living and the lowest divorce rates.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Lord, I love your thinking. You are 100% right and you have the info to prove it. I really hope the Democrats win in 2006. If nothing else, maybe we won't have so many stupid laws passed. I always think it's a good thing to have Congress be split. I personally think it was stupid to impeach Bill Clinton, even if he was a slimeball. But to not impeach Bush is flatly unamerican. I really wish my fire would go out so I can go to bed.