This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Talking About Water How About What Is Added to It?
I know this is a state mandate but it is one that that needs to be reversed.
42 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't drink tap water any more. You cant trust the pipes anywhere. It is ok for washing and cooking. But not for drinking straight from the tap. In fact, I use bottled water to make coffee in the morning also. I suppose I could purchase a filter system - but I'm ok with buying bottled water for now.
You know Lois I guess it is your choice what you want to believe and that is what makes this country great. The CDC and ADA both claim fluoride in water is a great advancement in modern medicine. Those organizations are run by doctors. Or you can listen to the lawyer in this video. When it comes to my health and my kids health and my grandkids health I'll stick with the doctors. The lawyers are the ones who have ruined health care.
This is another case where our legislators know nothing about what they are approving. It happened with Ancel Keys and the food pyramid when he persuaded the medical community that all fat was bad for us. Instead we should eat artificial food like margarine instead of butter. At least with food products we can pick and choose what we want to eat.
Fluoride is being taken out of more and more cities water supply. There are web sites you can find that will verify this. If parents want to have fluoride they can buy it in capsules or they can have in applied to the teeth of the children by a dentist.. They are finding out it does nothing to prevent cavities. On a side note my father passed away at close to 90 years of age and had 2 fillings in his teeth and since he as born in 1908, you must know he did not have floride in his water growing up.
As proof that the U.S. Congress knows nothing about food safety, they recently approved the law that approves the meat sold in grocery stores no longer has to have country of origin labels on it. And I will add since fluoride is approved state by state, state legislators do not know any more. Same story.In some states individual cities can choose not to have it in their water and I don't know about Illinois.
When it comes to nutrition and food and water additives they know little and depend upon those who have something to gain when Congress approves another new law relating to food or fluoride.
There hasn't been anything on the blog besides the comments on the local Newspaper articles. We get no insider information and very little City of Peru information. Where has all the whispers gone? Lets reach out to another city, maybe Earlville. They have a city alderman facebooking all the city confidential information.
unfortunately, the purpose of local government(especially in Peru) has shifted from providing community services to redistribution of people's money. If they happen to get some sort of service accomplished, it is considered a bonus. But, primarily, government is simply a method of taking money from the people and giving it to connected friends.
11:08 AM, Cities do not have "confidential" information. If they do they are violating the law. All information of city business is publicly owned information. Cities with leaders who ignore their oaths of office like those in Peru keep information of public business from public view form political reasons. Could be the Earlville alderman is standing up for open and honest government in his city. He will probably be run out of office like Rodney Perez was for standing up for what is right and just. Peru no longer has an elected official with courage and conviction. However, if Harl and some of the phony aldermen continue to ramp up the level of arrogance and disregard for honest government they may end up with a different kind of conviction. Now that will be sweet when it happens.
Elected and appointed officials need a certain degree of privacy in order to do the things that are necessary. Operating in secrecy allows them to get things done without having to stop and explain their motivations. People should stay out of the way and just let them take care of business. People should just mind their own business.
You must have a different definition of courage. Anytime there was something important to vote on Rodney abstained. And his conviction was a long time ago you should let it go.
1:57 PM, I enjoy good sarcasm when I see it. Sadly, your comment is accurate as it pertains to the mindset of Peru's elected officials. They do think exactly as you describe. Their arrogance and disregard for the people they are supposed to serve is evident in their secretive actions.
I agree. Right or wrong, government officials are always right. If they where wrong, they would not be in the government. After all, the Government makes the rules and the citizens follow them. So you think it is wrong, then maybe your should go someplace else - because the government is in charge no matter what.
Boss Harl did not have a very good fall for fund raising. He received no additional contributions. However, he still has $43,382.88 even after giving Skoogy Do a $1,000 political seed plant.
For the person that gets really irritated when I say "Do" instead of "Doo" - I love irritating people, so "Do" it is. Also, whenever a bill comes to a vote in Springfield, we need to ask ourselves "What Did Skoogy Do" and wonder who told him to "Do" it. I can see that evil little leprechaun whispering in his ear... "now Skooky, you must "do" as you are told..."
Private sessions, Closed meetings and Meetings as a Whole in no way bother me. Truthfully they are the common method of conducting business for both private and public representation. Take for example when the city had the Mirror Building for sale if it was determined that the city would accept $500,000 do you believe they would be offered $425,000 or the $650,000 they received. The same goes when the city was in negotiations for a fire truck. As a example if the city offered to pay $800,000 for a fire truck do you think that they would have got all they did for a little over $500,000 or would they have paid over $800,000? Sincerely make a phone call to your representation and nicely ask why this or that is being done or why they have conducted business in a closed, private manner and you will be informed,if not at the present time I am sure your representation will contact you as soon as he/she has information for open discussion. My experience is that they have always utilized these steps as a follow up to me. At times you must show faith and remember a city representative has been elected or appointed to do the job as he/she has determined is best for all of the population. I for one have highly disliked the method of our national governments telling not only the U.S. citizenship but also whom we are at war with how it is going to be fought in stages, numbers etc. and how the U.S. will withdraw military personnel, equipment etc. by scheduled dates. Although disliking our national policies of conducting war in this manner I hold each of our military men in the highest regard and thank everyone of them for their service.
Keep your eyes on this folks. We may be headed toward a National ban on Forced Unionization. California public school teachers have been forced to pay fees to a teachers union even though they don’t support the union’s political agenda and don’t want it to speak on their behalf. Starting Jan. 11, lawyers for the plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing its employees to pay union fees.
The current Supreme Court is Liberal, and not Liberal in the ways that the "Progressives" like. They just might toss out all laws requiring forced unionization.. in effect crating National Right To Work. We are close! I hope the court brings this home.
Possibly before any teacher decides they do not want to accept the union to speak on their behalf they should question the older teachers and retired teachers of their profession why they became unionized. Teachers were not unionized not many years ago and gave up their status as professionals to be unionized. Those that do not want to pay fees, wish to support the union's political agenda and don't want it to speak on their behalf always have the alternative of teaching at a private institution rather than a public school. As long as there are alternatives I do not believe a person is subject to being forced.
by "liberal" I'm assuming you mean that they support Liberty. Something that the modern "Liberals" or "Progressives" have tossed aside a long time ago. And you are right. The court has been backfiring on the "Progressives" for a few years now. Actually ruling in support of freedom instead of the oppression that the Progressives typically try to force upon us.
Anyway - there is a good chance that this will start the ultimate demise of Forced Unionization in the Public Sector.
that is a very obtuse statement 12:04. Nobody should be forced to pay a third party as a condition of employment. And that is exactly what the modern public sector unions have bribed our elected officials into legislating. It is blatantly unconstitutional.
The ideologies expressed of forced unionization vs. non forced unionization have reached the point of confusion. Possibly someone can label some occupations in which one has no opportunity to occupy without strictly belonging to a union or to participate in as a non union member. Also wages and conditions of one has to favor one over the other. Which of the two non union or union are better? Does a union member have more control of his working hours than a non union member? These two questions answer which thought rules in the support of employees freedom. Truthfully has there been any occupation upon which we have not always had the right to work in and never had to wait for 2016? Fortunately we live in the U.S. a nation which allows it citizens freedom not in a country in which the government makes all of its occupants decisions, or in a caste system.
I don't think unions do anything to support individual workers any more. All they care about is getting money from the workers to support the inflated salaries of the union leadership and make political contributions.
11:25. You are missing the point. The LAW states that if you are a teacher in a public school district you are required to give money to the union - full member or not.
2:48 that is an absolute lie. The law says no such thing. There are public schools districts with no unions and there are others with some in unions and some not and others that are all in, commonly referred to as "fair share". Many are "fair share" but saying it is a law that all teachers have to belong to a union is either a blatant lie or you are completely ignorant of the truth. You will find NO references in the law that "all public school teachers have to belong to a union."
4:44, what you said is not true. If a union is in place in a school district - ALL TEACHERS MUST PAY the equivalent of union dues. If they refuse to join the union, they still pay - they call it "fair share". Then the other teacher bully them into submission. I know many teachers who are actually afraid to say anything and just turn over their money to avoid the bullying. But the law is specific. If there is a union - all employees that are eligible to join the union must give money to the union or be fired.
At 2:48 you said "The LAW states that if you are a teacher in a public school district you are required to give money to the union - full member or not."
This is a LIE.
Then at 6:11 you changed it to "If a union is in place in a school district - ALL TEACHERS MUST PAY the equivalent of union dues."
Here you backtracked and said "IF".
But you are still lying. Again not ALL school districts even have unions (certainly most do) but NOT ALL are fair share! Some are and some are not. If I am wrong, please cite the specific law that says teachers have to join unions if they are not fair share.
This is a fact. It's not even debatable. And just to prove how asinine your argument is, you say it is the LAW, but then turn right around and say other teachers "bully" people to join!
The argument is over. I am not a union person and we probably agree on that, but I hate lies and misinformation about things like this.
9:06, ok, I assumed that we where talking about a unionized school district. I am ever so sorry. But, the law is clear. Non members are required to give money to the union. It is also blatantly clear from my personal contacts that anyone that is not a full card carrying member of the union is bullied by union members in several local school districts. So - if a teacher takes the attitude that they will only pay the "fair share" payment, other teachers use typical union terror tactics and try to get them to join up for full membership.
I'm willing to bet that when the court rules on this case, making any payment by the teachers to the union optional - everyone that is not a member will stop paying. Shortly after that, even the member will stop paying and resign their membership.
We are at the brink for a new dawn in America - the government can no longer mandate that we give money to any organization. We will no longer be bullied by Union Terrorists.
The real problem with our education system in this country is the teachers’ unions. They do everything possible to prevent schools not only from firing lousy teachers, but also from rewarding talented teachers. Merit pay? The unions hate it. Private schools? Even though everyone knows they deliver a better education than our public schools, unions fight to keep as many kids as possible locked in failing public schools. We've had whole schools shutting down so that lazy teachers can waste their time protesting on the taxpayers’ dime. Want to improve education in this country? Then you've got to take on the teachers’ unions. Government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Period. Why? Because we elect representatives to look out for our interests. It's obviously in the taxpayer's interest to pay as little as possible to government workers, to keep their benefits as low as possible, and to hire as few of them as possible to do the job. However, because the unions are in bed with the politicians, this entire process has been turned on its ear. Instead of looking out for the taxpayer’s interests, politicians try to hire as many government workers as possible, pay them as much as possible, and give them benefits that are as generous as possible, all so that union workers will do more to get them re-elected. In other words, the Democratic Party and the unions are engaged in an open conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer. There's no way that the American people should allow that to continue. How in the world did we get to the point where people can be forced to join a union just to get a job at certain places? Then, after they're dragooned into the union, they have no choice other than to pay dues that are used for political activities which the unwilling dues-paying member may oppose. Add to that the fact that the government unions collaborate to subvert democracy at the expense of the taxpayer and it's not a pretty picture. Worse yet, unions have gotten so voracious that they even want to do away with the secret ballot, via card check, so they can openly bully people into joining unions. The way unions behave in this country is undemocratic, un-American, and it should trouble anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights.
Typical union tactic, nit pick, declare the argument over and call the opposition a liar. It is pretty much agreed upon by the majority of the working population that unions are a drain on society and have outlived their usefulness. Today, one person with an Internet connection can get more accomplished for workplace safety that hundreds of union parasites. One educated professional can determine what the market will support regarding wages and benefits and negotiate as an individual more effectively than any union parasite.
One person that is willing to work harder than his neighbor should be encouraged to do so - not prevented from doing so by union bullies.
"Typical union tactic, nit pick, declare the argument over and call the opposition a liar."
Hey 9:21 and 8:44 (very likely the same person, if not 9:06 as well) I'm not in a union, never have been, never will be. And making sure people have accurate information is not "nit picking". It's called telling the truth.
I like debating on merits of facts, not talking points and bullshit. Even if those facts are not in my favor, I would rather speak the truth in support of my argument. That's all.
Unions have a fraction of the influence they once did which I don't see as a bad thing but at the same time I believe having and joining a union is an absolute constitutional right. I do NOT think they should be forced to join but we already know teachers do not. ONLY if they have a union AND it is a fair share district. If your friend cannot stand up to a "bully" at work then tough. I have a lot of teacher friends, some are in unions and some are not.
Again, you say the same things over and over. We get it. Right to work. You hate unions. Unions are parasites.
My question is if you have such strong opinions, why are you on here as an anonymous person talking to people who don't care? Why don't you do something to make a difference. Whatever you do, just stick with facts. Your long-winded opinions are just noisy but in any type of intellectual debate you will lose every time when you don't stick with the truth.
I don't know what 1:11 thinks but I would agree that people who are out there "doing something" are not anonymous bloggers. That includes me as I sit here and respond to you. Hahahaaa!
Actually, I don't like unions either. Rich union members are one percenters holding back us normal working folks. I think they need to tax anyone making a "union wage" an extra 10 percent and distribute that to people working the normal jobs in Peru... you know, bar tending, cash register at box stores, stocking shelves at wally mart. You know, all the new good jobs being created.
I can't stand it when I drive by Peru's new school and see all those luxury SUV's parked in the parking lot. That is a bunch of money just sitting there that needs to be given to the people that need it. After they pay for this school, I'm going to ask that the school sales tax continue and they just distribute the money back to the normal workers in Peru - the ones that don't get all those golden union paychecks.
Some of our founding fathers believed in anonymous writing. In fact, the United States Constitution would not have been ratified without the help of some anonymous writers that published a series of articles called The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers). These "Anonymous Bloggers" where later revealed to be Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
Back to water. The radio man was on this morning talking about how the city of Flint Michigan outsourced its water to Detroit to cut costs. The entire city of 100,000 people now has to deal with lead contamination from old pipes. They may never be able to drink their water again without massive investment. Problem is, Flint is almost broke due to the massive outflow of auto sector jobs over the last 30 years. Flint is a city with a real water problem. Peru is city with a fantasy water problem.
You are comparing "anonymous bloggers" to our founding fathers? Now THAT is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. I am very aware of the Federalist Papers, as well as Ben Franklins's Silence Dogood.
I have some news for you. Comparing the crap on here with that type of purposeful discourse is like calling a mud puddle the Pacific Ocean. Other than the fact that they both contain water, there is nothing else to compare.
6:30, absolutely. The writings in the Federalist Papers was just as controversial. Anonymous news print was the blog of the day. That being said, the modern "Progressives" would like to ban Anonymous free speed. Even President Barack Obama has said "Political speech that isn't reported to the federal government is a “threat to our democracy." Those where is exact words and that view is supported by the leading members of his political party.
6:32 large cities back then had 20,000 people and not that many were literate. Today we have millions of people blogging and facebooking and tweeting about everything from the Kardashians to Monday Night Football to all levels of politics and NO ONE cares. You think anything on a blog like this is controversial or revolutionary? The blog is much more akin to the fence post where neighbors would gossip. There is no "revolution" here.
Listen, I support the right to free speech, particularly political speech. That hasn't changed. But a blog like this does not get anything done, and I would argue that it works counter to the very goals some may have. Instead of being taken seriously as active citizens, the comments are dismissed as crazy. Many are. Some are not. But what could happen with that type of thing in the 1700s is quite different today. It's just noise.
Get active. Get involved. Just like our founding fathers. They only manipulated with anonymous writings a tiny fraction of the time they spent out front and leading.
1:16, you are wrong. When you filter the writings in this blog, you will see what the people really think. Granted, you need to apply a filter and temper it, but herein lies the truth of what people really think.
7:23 yes, a tiny handful of people but what is on here is not what "the people" think. If that were the case, the elections in recent years would have turned out very differently.
There was an article in one of the Chicago papers about the interim Chicago Police Superintendent wanting to have a law passed shut down social networking Internet Sights in Chicago because they often paint a bad picture of local police and government. He says Facebook is dangerous to public safety. I'm not making this up, it is true. The Chicago PD wants to ban public discussion because it is dangerous.
I agree 11:25. Allowing the public to freely speak on matters that involve government is dangerous and needs to be squashed. It was a mistake getting rid of King George. We should reunify with the House of Windsor!
Just kidding... the Chicago Democrats would rather see Queen Hillary, the Iron Maiden, rule our land with a heavy fist. That is what we will get if they are successful. All Hail Hillary. Ziege Hillary! Repeal the Bill of Rights!
42 comments:
I don't drink tap water any more. You cant trust the pipes anywhere. It is ok for washing and cooking. But not for drinking straight from the tap. In fact, I use bottled water to make coffee in the morning also. I suppose I could purchase a filter system - but I'm ok with buying bottled water for now.
You know Lois I guess it is your choice what you want to believe and that is what makes this country great. The CDC and ADA both claim fluoride in water is a great advancement in modern medicine. Those organizations are run by doctors. Or you can listen to the lawyer in this video. When it comes to my health and my kids health and my grandkids health I'll stick with the doctors. The lawyers are the ones who have ruined health care.
4:57 P.M.
This is another case where our legislators know nothing about what they are approving. It happened with Ancel Keys and the food pyramid when he persuaded the medical community that all fat was bad for us. Instead we should eat artificial food like margarine instead of butter. At least with food products we can pick and choose what we want to eat.
Fluoride is being taken out of more and more cities water supply. There are web sites you can find that will verify this. If parents want to have fluoride they can buy it in capsules or they can have in applied to the teeth of the children by a dentist.. They are finding out it does nothing to prevent cavities. On a side note my father passed away at close to 90 years of age and had 2 fillings in his teeth and since he as born in 1908, you must know he did not have floride in his water growing up.
As proof that the U.S. Congress knows nothing about food safety, they recently approved the law that approves the meat sold in grocery stores no longer has to have country of origin labels on it. And I will add since fluoride is approved state by state, state legislators do not know any more. Same story.In some states individual cities can choose not to have it in their water and I don't know about Illinois.
When it comes to nutrition and food and water additives they know little and depend upon those who have something to gain when Congress approves another new law relating to food or fluoride.
I like butter.
There hasn't been anything on the blog besides the comments on the local Newspaper articles. We get no insider information and very little City of Peru information. Where has all the whispers gone? Lets reach out to another city, maybe Earlville. They have a city alderman facebooking all the city confidential information.
unfortunately, the purpose of local government(especially in Peru) has shifted from providing community services to redistribution of people's money. If they happen to get some sort of service accomplished, it is considered a bonus. But, primarily, government is simply a method of taking money from the people and giving it to connected friends.
11:08 AM, Cities do not have "confidential" information. If they do they are violating the law. All information of city business is publicly owned information. Cities with leaders who ignore their oaths of office like those in Peru keep information of public business from public view form political reasons. Could be the Earlville alderman is standing up for open and honest government in his city. He will probably be run out of office like Rodney Perez was for standing up for what is right and just. Peru no longer has an elected official with courage and conviction. However, if Harl and some of the phony aldermen continue to ramp up the level of arrogance and disregard for honest government they may end up with a different kind of conviction. Now that will be sweet when it happens.
Elected and appointed officials need a certain degree of privacy in order to do the things that are necessary. Operating in secrecy allows them to get things done without having to stop and explain their motivations. People should stay out of the way and just let them take care of business. People should just mind their own business.
You must have a different definition of courage. Anytime there was something important to vote on Rodney abstained. And his conviction was a long time ago you should let it go.
1:57 PM, I enjoy good sarcasm when I see it. Sadly, your comment is accurate as it pertains to the mindset of Peru's elected officials. They do think exactly as you describe. Their arrogance and disregard for the people they are supposed to serve is evident in their secretive actions.
I agree. Right or wrong, government officials are always right. If they where wrong, they would not be in the government. After all, the Government makes the rules and the citizens follow them. So you think it is wrong, then maybe your should go someplace else - because the government is in charge no matter what.
Boss Harl did not have a very good fall for fund raising. He received no additional contributions. However, he still has $43,382.88 even after giving Skoogy Do a $1,000 political seed plant.
For the person that gets really irritated when I say "Do" instead of "Doo" - I love irritating people, so "Do" it is. Also, whenever a bill comes to a vote in Springfield, we need to ask ourselves "What Did Skoogy Do" and wonder who told him to "Do" it. I can see that evil little leprechaun whispering in his ear... "now Skooky, you must "do" as you are told..."
has the person that is living in Pulaski Park overcome his differences with the rules at PADS?
Private sessions, Closed meetings and Meetings as a Whole in no way bother me. Truthfully they are the common method of conducting business for both private and public representation. Take for example when the city had the Mirror Building for sale if it was determined that the city would accept $500,000 do you believe they would be offered $425,000 or the $650,000 they received. The same goes when the city was in negotiations for a fire truck. As a example if the city offered to pay $800,000 for a fire truck do you think that they would have got all they did for a little over $500,000 or would they have paid over $800,000?
Sincerely make a phone call to your representation and nicely ask why this or that is being done or why they have conducted business in a closed, private manner and you will be informed,if not at the present time I am sure your representation will contact you as soon as he/she has information for open discussion. My experience is that they have always utilized these steps as a follow up to me.
At times you must show faith and remember a city representative has been elected or appointed to do the job as he/she has determined is best for all of the population. I for one have highly disliked the method of our national governments telling not only the U.S. citizenship but also whom we are at war with how it is going to be fought in stages, numbers etc. and how the U.S. will withdraw military personnel, equipment etc. by scheduled dates.
Although disliking our national policies of conducting war in this manner I hold each of our military men in the highest regard and thank everyone of them for their service.
Keep your eyes on this folks. We may be headed toward a National ban on Forced Unionization. California public school teachers have been forced to pay fees to a teachers union even though they don’t support the union’s political agenda and don’t want it to speak on their behalf. Starting Jan. 11, lawyers for the plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing its employees to pay union fees.
The current Supreme Court is Liberal, and not Liberal in the ways that the "Progressives" like. They just might toss out all laws requiring forced unionization.. in effect crating National Right To Work. We are close! I hope the court brings this home.
Possibly before any teacher decides they do not want to accept the union to speak on their behalf they should question the older teachers and retired teachers of their profession why they became unionized. Teachers were not unionized not many years ago and gave up their status as professionals to be unionized.
Those that do not want to pay fees, wish to support the union's political agenda and don't want it to speak on their behalf always have the alternative of teaching at a private institution rather than a public school. As long as there are alternatives I do not believe a person is subject to being forced.
by "liberal" I'm assuming you mean that they support Liberty. Something that the modern "Liberals" or "Progressives" have tossed aside a long time ago. And you are right. The court has been backfiring on the "Progressives" for a few years now. Actually ruling in support of freedom instead of the oppression that the Progressives typically try to force upon us.
Anyway - there is a good chance that this will start the ultimate demise of Forced Unionization in the Public Sector.
Right to Work in 2016!!
that is a very obtuse statement 12:04. Nobody should be forced to pay a third party as a condition of employment. And that is exactly what the modern public sector unions have bribed our elected officials into legislating. It is blatantly unconstitutional.
The ideologies expressed of forced unionization vs. non forced unionization have reached the point of confusion. Possibly someone can label some occupations in which one has no opportunity to occupy without strictly belonging to a union or to participate in as a non union member.
Also wages and conditions of one has to favor one over the other. Which of the two non union or union are better? Does a union member have more control of his working hours than a non union member? These two questions answer which thought rules in the support of employees freedom.
Truthfully has there been any occupation upon which we have not always had the right to work in and never had to wait for 2016?
Fortunately we live in the U.S. a nation which allows it citizens freedom not in a country in which the government makes all of its occupants decisions, or in a caste system.
I don't think unions do anything to support individual workers any more. All they care about is getting money from the workers to support the inflated salaries of the union leadership and make political contributions.
11:25. You are missing the point. The LAW states that if you are a teacher in a public school district you are required to give money to the union - full member or not.
2:48 that is an absolute lie. The law says no such thing. There are public schools districts with no unions and there are others with some in unions and some not and others that are all in, commonly referred to as "fair share". Many are "fair share" but saying it is a law that all teachers have to belong to a union is either a blatant lie or you are completely ignorant of the truth. You will find NO references in the law that "all public school teachers have to belong to a union."
Stop lying. Thank you.
4:44, what you said is not true. If a union is in place in a school district - ALL TEACHERS MUST PAY the equivalent of union dues. If they refuse to join the union, they still pay - they call it "fair share". Then the other teacher bully them into submission. I know many teachers who are actually afraid to say anything and just turn over their money to avoid the bullying. But the law is specific. If there is a union - all employees that are eligible to join the union must give money to the union or be fired.
6:11 first you backtracked, then you lied again.
At 2:48 you said "The LAW states that if you are a teacher in a public school district you are required to give money to the union - full member or not."
This is a LIE.
Then at 6:11 you changed it to "If a union is in place in a school district - ALL TEACHERS MUST PAY the equivalent of union dues."
Here you backtracked and said "IF".
But you are still lying. Again not ALL school districts even have unions (certainly most do) but NOT ALL are fair share! Some are and some are not. If I am wrong, please cite the specific law that says teachers have to join unions if they are not fair share.
This is a fact. It's not even debatable. And just to prove how asinine your argument is, you say it is the LAW, but then turn right around and say other teachers "bully" people to join!
The argument is over. I am not a union person and we probably agree on that, but I hate lies and misinformation about things like this.
9:06, ok, I assumed that we where talking about a unionized school district. I am ever so sorry. But, the law is clear. Non members are required to give money to the union. It is also blatantly clear from my personal contacts that anyone that is not a full card carrying member of the union is bullied by union members in several local school districts. So - if a teacher takes the attitude that they will only pay the "fair share" payment, other teachers use typical union terror tactics and try to get them to join up for full membership.
I'm willing to bet that when the court rules on this case, making any payment by the teachers to the union optional - everyone that is not a member will stop paying. Shortly after that, even the member will stop paying and resign their membership.
We are at the brink for a new dawn in America - the government can no longer mandate that we give money to any organization. We will no longer be bullied by Union Terrorists.
Right To Work in 2016!!
The real problem with our education system in this country is the teachers’ unions. They do everything possible to prevent schools not only from firing lousy teachers, but also from rewarding talented teachers. Merit pay? The unions hate it. Private schools? Even though everyone knows they deliver a better education than our public schools, unions fight to keep as many kids as possible locked in failing public schools. We've had whole schools shutting down so that lazy teachers can waste their time protesting on the taxpayers’ dime. Want to improve education in this country? Then you've got to take on the teachers’ unions.
Government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Period. Why? Because we elect representatives to look out for our interests. It's obviously in the taxpayer's interest to pay as little as possible to government workers, to keep their benefits as low as possible, and to hire as few of them as possible to do the job. However, because the unions are in bed with the politicians, this entire process has been turned on its ear. Instead of looking out for the taxpayer’s interests, politicians try to hire as many government workers as possible, pay them as much as possible, and give them benefits that are as generous as possible, all so that union workers will do more to get them re-elected. In other words, the Democratic Party and the unions are engaged in an open conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer. There's no way that the American people should allow that to continue.
How in the world did we get to the point where people can be forced to join a union just to get a job at certain places? Then, after they're dragooned into the union, they have no choice other than to pay dues that are used for political activities which the unwilling dues-paying member may oppose. Add to that the fact that the government unions collaborate to subvert democracy at the expense of the taxpayer and it's not a pretty picture. Worse yet, unions have gotten so voracious that they even want to do away with the secret ballot, via card check, so they can openly bully people into joining unions. The way unions behave in this country is undemocratic, un-American, and it should trouble anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights.
Typical union tactic, nit pick, declare the argument over and call the opposition a liar. It is pretty much agreed upon by the majority of the working population that unions are a drain on society and have outlived their usefulness. Today, one person with an Internet connection can get more accomplished for workplace safety that hundreds of union parasites. One educated professional can determine what the market will support regarding wages and benefits and negotiate as an individual more effectively than any union parasite.
One person that is willing to work harder than his neighbor should be encouraged to do so - not prevented from doing so by union bullies.
"Typical union tactic, nit pick, declare the argument over and call the opposition a liar."
Hey 9:21 and 8:44 (very likely the same person, if not 9:06 as well) I'm not in a union, never have been, never will be. And making sure people have accurate information is not "nit picking". It's called telling the truth.
I like debating on merits of facts, not talking points and bullshit. Even if those facts are not in my favor, I would rather speak the truth in support of my argument. That's all.
Unions have a fraction of the influence they once did which I don't see as a bad thing but at the same time I believe having and joining a union is an absolute constitutional right. I do NOT think they should be forced to join but we already know teachers do not. ONLY if they have a union AND it is a fair share district. If your friend cannot stand up to a "bully" at work then tough. I have a lot of teacher friends, some are in unions and some are not.
Again, you say the same things over and over. We get it. Right to work. You hate unions. Unions are parasites.
My question is if you have such strong opinions, why are you on here as an anonymous person talking to people who don't care? Why don't you do something to make a difference. Whatever you do, just stick with facts. Your long-winded opinions are just noisy but in any type of intellectual debate you will lose every time when you don't stick with the truth.
Over and out. Good luck buddy.
1:11, how do you know I am not? Anyway, I will never support a candidate for office that supports any form of public sector unionization.
I don't know what 1:11 thinks but I would agree that people who are out there "doing something" are not anonymous bloggers. That includes me as I sit here and respond to you. Hahahaaa!
Actually, I don't like unions either. Rich union members are one percenters holding back us normal working folks. I think they need to tax anyone making a "union wage" an extra 10 percent and distribute that to people working the normal jobs in Peru... you know, bar tending, cash register at box stores, stocking shelves at wally mart. You know, all the new good jobs being created.
I can't stand it when I drive by Peru's new school and see all those luxury SUV's parked in the parking lot. That is a bunch of money just sitting there that needs to be given to the people that need it. After they pay for this school, I'm going to ask that the school sales tax continue and they just distribute the money back to the normal workers in Peru - the ones that don't get all those golden union paychecks.
6:38, don't know the definition of anonymous do you??
Some of our founding fathers believed in anonymous writing. In fact, the United States Constitution would not have been ratified without the help of some anonymous writers that published a series of articles called The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers). These "Anonymous Bloggers" where later revealed to be Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
Back to water. The radio man was on this morning talking about how the city of Flint Michigan outsourced its water to Detroit to cut costs. The entire city of 100,000 people now has to deal with lead contamination from old pipes. They may never be able to drink their water again without massive investment. Problem is, Flint is almost broke due to the massive outflow of auto sector jobs over the last 30 years. Flint is a city with a real water problem. Peru is city with a fantasy water problem.
You are comparing "anonymous bloggers" to our founding fathers? Now THAT is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. I am very aware of the Federalist Papers, as well as Ben Franklins's Silence Dogood.
I have some news for you. Comparing the crap on here with that type of purposeful discourse is like calling a mud puddle the Pacific Ocean. Other than the fact that they both contain water, there is nothing else to compare.
Hilarious.
6:30, absolutely. The writings in the Federalist Papers was just as controversial. Anonymous news print was the blog of the day. That being said, the modern "Progressives" would like to ban Anonymous free speed. Even President Barack Obama has said "Political speech that isn't reported to the federal government is a “threat to our democracy." Those where is exact words and that view is supported by the leading members of his political party.
6:32 large cities back then had 20,000 people and not that many were literate. Today we have millions of people blogging and facebooking and tweeting about everything from the Kardashians to Monday Night Football to all levels of politics and NO ONE cares. You think anything on a blog like this is controversial or revolutionary? The blog is much more akin to the fence post where neighbors would gossip. There is no "revolution" here.
Listen, I support the right to free speech, particularly political speech. That hasn't changed. But a blog like this does not get anything done, and I would argue that it works counter to the very goals some may have. Instead of being taken seriously as active citizens, the comments are dismissed as crazy. Many are. Some are not. But what could happen with that type of thing in the 1700s is quite different today. It's just noise.
Get active. Get involved. Just like our founding fathers. They only manipulated with anonymous writings a tiny fraction of the time they spent out front and leading.
1:16, you are wrong. When you filter the writings in this blog, you will see what the people really think. Granted, you need to apply a filter and temper it, but herein lies the truth of what people really think.
7:23 yes, a tiny handful of people but what is on here is not what "the people" think. If that were the case, the elections in recent years would have turned out very differently.
7:43 What proof do you have that it's a tiny handful of people?
There was an article in one of the Chicago papers about the interim Chicago Police Superintendent wanting to have a law passed shut down social networking Internet Sights in Chicago because they often paint a bad picture of local police and government. He says Facebook is dangerous to public safety. I'm not making this up, it is true. The Chicago PD wants to ban public discussion because it is dangerous.
I agree 11:25. Allowing the public to freely speak on matters that involve government is dangerous and needs to be squashed. It was a mistake getting rid of King George. We should reunify with the House of Windsor!
Just kidding... the Chicago Democrats would rather see Queen Hillary, the Iron Maiden, rule our land with a heavy fist. That is what we will get if they are successful. All Hail Hillary. Ziege Hillary! Repeal the Bill of Rights!
Post a Comment