I have a long list of problems with the Republican Party, too. But they tend to be on more peripheral issues for me.

You said it, Rich. When it comes down to hypersensitivity versus war crimes, give me war crimes any day.

I have a credential and a Master's in Ed, and used to teach at a public high school and in a GED completion program...

robin, my sense was this was your background. Do you happen to know anything about how one gets certified in teaching English as a Second Language, and whether that kind of program is beneficial to its students?

Do you happen to know anything about how one gets certified in teaching English as a Second Language, and whether that kind of program is beneficial to its students?

More than anyone wants to hear. I am in ESL and Teacher Training professionally now, among other things. If you are just curious, we can talk about it a bit here--might be better to email me though, if you have a few questions/opinions or want to know for a specific reason.

"You said it, Rich. When it comes down to hypersensitivity versus war crimes, give me war crimes any day."

ARKI, it has been 10 years since the Kosovo Air War. I'm surprised you are still upset with the allegations of war crimes our bombing of Serbia brought about.

Thanks, robin. I'll do a little more research and drop you an email.

Look, we're not to ask any difficult or uncomfortable questions about this man, hear any of his off the cuff statements that are intended for closed audiences, or analyze his character, background, experience, or qualifications, got it??

Stay classy, Joey.

What'll be interesting is how gingerly the media will be in treating McCain once the general starts proper. There's a lot of talk about how an Obama-McCain general would be issue-oriented, but I don't see it. We already know McCain's going to use the POW status as a bulletproof shield — I mean, how can you ask a man who was once a resident of the Hanoi Hilton how he could so gutlessly surrender his stances on torture, tax cuts, immigration, and public finance? Certainly the GOP will work overtime to make sure Joey's mocking words become the working policy of the McCain election strategy.

I'm certain, though, that when someone actually dares broach those questions, Joey and his ilk will be crying foul about the liberal media.

Softball, in all seriousness, what did McCain actually do, that merits "war hero" status, in the sense that it fits him to be a good commander-in-chief?

The idea behind this program is so immigrant kids don't integrate into mainstream society and so they don't disassociate from the culture of their parents.

The first portion of this statement is completely false; the latter portion is irrelevant to the purpose of bilingual education (in other words, the point is to teach kids English; whether in so doing the kids "disassociate from the culture of their parents" is not any of the school's concern, and has nothing to do with the raison d'etre of bilingual ed).

Reasonable minds can differ as to whether immersion is a more effective tool for teaching English to non-English speakers than bilingual ed (I'm open to persuasion), but the statement that the policy aim of bilingual ed is to "make sure immigrant kids don't integrate into the mainstream" is absurd; it is the exact opposite.

What is this bizarre cult of Obama that thinks it unfair to ask him questions?

Boy, those strawmen are scary, aren't they?

Rich, sorry if you misunderstood my last post. I did think you were a Republican but I've never associated you with the wingnut faction.

And I don't have any real argument with what you're saying about language immersion, bilingual education, and assimilation in general. IMO if the Latino community addressed these points, and stressed this in public at every opportunity, it'd go a long way towards easing some of the nasty rhetoric from those who aren't really nativists at heart, but who often find themselves in agreement with the nativists over this issue. For many people, it's a lot tougher to rant against those who by their eagerness to learn English demonstrate that they want to become part of American culture, than it is to lash out at people who at times seem to resist assimilation.

The Ayers question was a perfect example of that. President Clinton's former press secretary is not a stupid or uninformed man. He knows exactly what the implication of the question he directed at Obama was: that somehow Obama was being "influenced" by an unrepentent Weatherman madman.

Jesus H. Christ, Andy, do you do this to everybody? There wasn't even the hint of a suggestion of a shadow of an implication of any such thing.

Whether the question was an insipid waste of time or a pointless gotcha or a brilliant attempt to "afflict the comfortable," that "implication" simply is a complete and utter figment of your imagination. The complaint, with Ayers as well as Wright, is that it's inherently bad to associate with bad people -- and perhaps that it reveals something about your own views -- not that it's bad to associate with bad people because they "influence" you.

You might want to check out what Obama and Clinton actually said about Affirmative Action last night.

Both mouthed platitudes and talked about "disadvantaged backgrounds." Hillary quickly changed the subjects to evil predatory loans and eviler No Child Left Behind. Neither one is going to do the slightest thing about changing affirmative action. (I wonder if either will even comment on the various civil rights initiatives on the ballot in 4 or 5 states this election year.)

Incidentally, on the original Obama "bitter" comment, several people here explained that Obama was talking about how people voted, not how they thought generally. And SugarbearBlanks basically said that everyone who wasn't an idiot knows that Obama's just stating basic sociological research. Well, Larry Bartels had an Op/Ed in the Times today pointing out that Obama's completely wrong. Small-town working class people are more likely to trust government than most, and less likely to vote based on "cultural" issues.

"the statement that the policy aim of bilingual ed is to "make sure immigrant kids don't integrate into the mainstream" is absurd; it is the exact opposite."

This sounds like the bias of the teachers' union talking*. I don't know your background, retro, so if I am wrong, my apologies. But I have no doubt that I am right about this. The groups that fought hardest in California to keep bilingual (which was thankfully revoked by a referendum about 10 years ago) said as much. They want Mexican kids to keep their Mexicanness. If they go through immersion, these groups fear they won't speak good Spanish, that they will lose their culture. It is for those latter reasons that (in California at least) so much of the bilingual program was always about culture, about inculcating Mexican kids in Mexicanness. It was NEVER about teaching them English. Tests were done on students who came to California as 5 or 6 year olds and could not speak adequate English by the time they were 18 years old.

All of this has changed since Prop 227 passed. The results have been amazing. English acquisition by immigrant kids in immersion programs has improved dramatically, compared with the days when the bilingual programs dominated. What is more, in a few recalcitrant districts -- that is, districts where the Mexican-monoculturalists dominate -- they still have bilingual education programs. And in those districts, there has been no improvement in English language acquisition since 1998.

* Teachers unions in California fought tooth and nail to retain these higher-paid bilingual teachers' jobs. Almost every school district board, including my own, fought against 227. Yet outside of the few diehards still teaching bilingual, almost everyone has come around (based on the testing results) to realize that they were wrong the whole time.

Reasonable minds can differ as to whether immersion is a more effective tool for teaching English to non-English speakers than bilingual ed (I'm open to persuasion), but the statement that the policy aim of bilingual ed is to "make sure immigrant kids don't integrate into the mainstream" is absurd; it is the exact opposite.

Well, as any public choice theorist can tell you, the policy aim of bilingual ed is to provide jobs to bilingual ed employees.

I'm not a Republican for my love of all Republicans. As I've said, I am not conservative on many issues*. I am a Republican in large part because of what the Democratic party is all about: blood-sucking public employee unions; trade protectionism; race-based quotas; phony cries of racism; excessive governmental interference in the economy; teachers unions which don't know or don't care how to improve education; bilingual education**; trial lawyers (a la John Edwards) making millions on bogus lawsuits; etc. I have a long list of problems with the Republican Party, too. But they tend to be on more peripheral issues for me.

Well said, Rich, insofar as you're diagnosing the ills of the Democrats. I would also add that on the areas Democrats are "supposed" to be much better than Republicans, such as civil liberties, they do very little. Yes, you're much less likely to find people bashing the ACLU at a Democratic gathering than a Republican one, but when it comes right down to it, you're not much more likely to find the Democrats doing anything positive in that regard.

One more thing on bilingual and cultural immersion: Consider if you moved as a child to another country where you needed to learn the language. Say you moved to Poland. Would you be more apt to learn Polish if you were put in a classroom exclusively with other Americans and primarily spoke English? Also, in your so-called bilingual classroom, you would not be taught Polish history or learn about the Polish culture, but instead would focus on American music, movies, people, heroes, etc. You think under those circumstances you would be integrated into Polish society as well as you would be if you were immersed in Polish and then put into a classroom with Polish kids?

Also, if you had such an American-focused classroom, would it not be reasonable to think that the idea of this program was for you to keep your American heritage at the expensive of becoming Polish? I would think so. Hence my conclusions about what bilingual education became in California.

This is a biased report from a pro 227 group, published in 2000. But it is based on facts and those facts have held true for a decade:

From 1998 to 2000, California English learners in the elementary grades most affected by the changed curriculum (2 through 6) raised their mean percentile scores by 35% in reading, 43% in mathematics, 32% in language, and 44% in spelling, with an average increase of 39% across all subjects.

Oceanside Unified, which had most strictly followed the Prop. 227 requirements, showed perhaps the greatest immigrant student gains of any district, with reading scores rising 93% and math scores 100%. At neighboring Vista Unified, a pro-bilingual district of similar size and demography long cited by bilingual supporters as a model, scores actually fell in most subjects from 1999 to 2000, and are now far below those of Oceanside or the rest of the state. The scores of San Jose Unified, which was the sole school district in California legally exempt from the provisions of Prop. 227, also sharply lagged those of Oceanside and the rest of the state.

I really don't buy that "Reasonable minds can differ as to whether immersion is a more effective tool for teaching English to non-English speakers than bilingual ed." I think this case is closed.

The Ayers question was a perfect example of that. President Clinton's former press secretary is not a stupid or uninformed man. He knows exactly what the implication of the question he directed at Obama was: that somehow Obama was being "influenced" by an unrepentent Weatherman madman.

Jesus H. Christ, Andy, do you do this to everybody? There wasn't even the hint of a suggestion of a shadow of an implication of any such thing.

The complaint, with Ayers as well as Wright, is that it's inherently bad to associate with bad people -- and perhaps that it reveals something about your own views --

Yeah, I get it, David: No "influence," just "revelations." Night and day difference.

But screw all this. If f*ck*ng Bill Ayers helps decide a Presidential election, we're all doomed anyway, so what the hell.

Can't resist my favorite Bernadine Dohrn (AKA Mrs. Bill Ayers) moment, though. When I was working for Izzy Stone in the Summer of 1968, he had me go over to Georgetown University to cover a speech she was making to one group or another, can't remember which one. But the atmosphere was much more like a frat house than an SDS meeting.

Anyway, when she was in her mid-20's, Miss Dohrn was a fox. Crazy as a loon, but the coolest drink of water you ever laid your eyes on---and she knew it.

So she bounces out on stage in a mini-skirt about one inch below the dew line, with cleavage worthy of a Costanzian peek, and naturally the (all-male) student body goes absolutely nuts. Wolf whistles, Italian gestures, sucking sounds, etc.

And here's Bernadine Dohrn---dressed up like a Vegas streetwalker, and she starts lecturing the crowd about "objectifying women" and "treating them as sex objects." She was seriously plssed, but without the slightest clue about the absurdity of the moment. It was definitely one of the comic highlights of my journalistic career.

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if I learned that Bill Ayers later feigned empathy to her plight, and parlayed it into the proverbial trip downtown. Nobody's ever said that she was exactly a carpet muncher.

I am certain that only language immersion will allow these kids to become productive Americans with a good chance at a good life.

Then clearly you have never been to the most productive business neighborhood in Chicago. (Yes, even beyond the magnificent mile.)

Robin, here's a contemporary very local problem I have with the teachers' association in my town that typifies why I don't like them: the state of California is in a budget crisis, due to the popping of the real estate bubble. That means large budget cuts for local schools (which here get almost all of their money from the state). Our school district needs to make $4 million in cuts. We could do that by cutting a few positions and otherwise reducing the salaries of all of the remaining personnel (teachers, administrators, staff, etc) by about 5-8%. Doing that would not increase class sizes and would allow all of the special programs (sports, music, drama, reading support, GATE*, technology, shop, etc.) to continue as they are. Or we could lay off roughly 30 teachers** and eviscerate a number of our special programs. Doing that would allow all of the remaining teachers and administrators to keep all of their current salaries and benefits and would permit them a to keep a scheduled pay raise. Guess which idea the union favors?

Or the you could blame those in control of educational policy who are not at all interested in the needs of the children.

It is hard to convince thousands of people who work in some pretty demeaning conditions that they should scrap 5-8% of their salary that has been contracted to them because the system that has been doing nothing to help them protect and educate kids now wants them to sacrifice because it's best for the kids.

To give an example, we had multiple kids and one teacher killed last year. The district bigwigs came out to use the press opportunity to talk about how much they were going to do to make our kids safe. They made a city wide commercial about how they would make our school and other South Side schools safe again. They said they would support us through the crisis.

Not surprisingly, with people hearing our school name associated with death all Spring, a large chunk of our incoming students decided to attend elsewhere. I talked to many of our kids who said they had to fight their parents all summer because they loved the school and wanted to come back.

About a quarter into the new year, the board cut twelve teaching positions with no notice. They said that we were overstaffed. Nevermind that we had an average class size of 29. Many of our kids had to be completely rescheduled.

Our principal was removed a few months later, there was mass restructuring, and then more rescheduling.

One of my kids came in 90th percentile plus in math despite going to a low performing grade school. But she's had four math teachers this year. She spent her Spring Break rebuilding houses in New Orleans.

I'll put it bluntly. A lot of my kids are better than you. They are better than your kids. They are beautiful human beings, and very few people care if they live or die. Not only do the promises of "Supporting us through the crisis" not get fulfilled, but the crisis never ends and in fact it gets perpetuated through further bad policy.

I work at least 70-80 hours every week for very little pay. If one of the board higher-up drove up in their vehicle representing their ill-gotten gains and told me to "take an 8% pay cut for the kids", I'd ask them "WTF are you sacrificing?"

Their newest strategy is to close under funded, deteriorating schools, fire the entire staff, restore the building and turn it into a charter. The kids have to cross gang lines and go to another school to make room for the new "good kids" who take over the building. The racial dynamic is not absolute, but I bet you could guess what it is.

But hey, their lives are unstable, at least they have some consistency in the constant loss, death, and disrespect.

Thanks for that.

How about instead of blaming the teachers, we take a look at a system where the teachers are working in ridiculous situations, and kids are dying every week, and instead of turning it over to the same business leaders who are gleefully burying our kids, we might turn the systemic control over to the parents, educators, and most importantly, the kids?

Aside from the Weatherman stuff, why is it wrong to vet candidates? I don't quite understand why it's bad for the public to know as much as they can about people they know little about. You don't think Dems are going to be happy when debate time comes, knowing that McCain's an "old man moment" away from blowing the election, or an angry McCain moment away? And I don't think those things are irrelevant. They don't count for everything, sure, but as someone said above, we know their positions.

Actually, I'm less interested in an intellectualist approach to this than I am the personal one. I don't really care how many degrees our President has, or how smart he is. I want to know if he's a stable personality, agrees with me on positions I value, reflects certain characteristics I care about, and so on.

JC, there's nothing wrong with vetting, and character questions are clearly important.

But "the devil is in the details" applies to journalists as well as to politicians. And when you spend nearly 40% of the time belaboring the same questions that have already been beaten to death for the past week / month, to the exclusion of everything else, it's no excuse to use "vetting" as a catchall explanation for quasi-prurient obsession.

I suppose that as an Obama supporter I should probably be grateful for all this, since the sort of people who take this BS seriously would almost certainly find some other excuse to vote Republican anyway, and the backlash against the media might (who knows) energize the Obama base to some extent. The main damage being done is to Hillary's negative numbers, not Obama's, and McCain will eventually get his share of the same trivial "gotchas" as Obama and Hillary. In the long run it'll likely be a wash as to how it affects votes.

But it's still a pretty dumbassed way to choose a candidate. And I won't be any happier when it gets turned against McCain than I am now. It's just an embarrassment to the whole process, and it begins with morons like Steffi and Gibson.

How about instead of blaming the teachers,

Ah, the standard trick. Whenever anybody criticizes teacher unions, call that an attack on teachers.

we take a look at a system where the teachers are working in ridiculous situations, and kids are dying every week, and instead of turning it over to the same business leaders who are gleefully burying our kids, we might turn the systemic control over to the parents, educators, and most importantly, the kids?

We've tried that, but teacher unions fight more fanatically against vouchers than Al Qaeda fights against the U.S.

"It is hard to convince thousands of people who work in some pretty demeaning conditions that they should scrap 5-8% of their salary that has been contracted to them because the system that has been doing nothing to help them protect and educate kids now wants them to sacrifice because it's best for the kids."

This is completely beside the point in the district I am referencing: There are no "demeaning conditions" here. This is a university community which regularly votes for additional taxes to pay for extra public school benefits and programs.

The working conditions for teachers will be worse next year, because of their own avarice. If they would have agreed to a temporary reduction in salaries until the state's fiscal house in in order, their working conditions would have remained the same. But because of their decision, all classrooms will be much more crowded and presumably student performance will suffer.

"To give an example, we had multiple kids and one teacher killed last year."

We had a student suspended for offending his teacher at a rally.

"A lot of my kids are better than you. They are better than your kids."

Are we talking X-box or Wii?

"The racial dynamic is not absolute, but I bet you could guess what it is."

Jews vs. Japanese?

"How about instead of blaming the teachers, we take a look at a system where the teachers are working in ridiculous situations, and kids are dying every week, and instead of turning it over to the same business leaders who are gleefully burying our kids, we might turn the systemic control over to the parents, educators, and most importantly, the kids?"

You would prefer less glee from your business leaders who are burying kids?

But it's still a pretty dumbassed way to choose a candidate. And I won't be any happier when it gets turned against McCain than I am now. It's just an embarrassment to the whole process, and it begins with morons like Steffi and Gibson.

In all seriousness I ask what would be a better way? People like opportunities to see their candidates live and spontaneous. How do you achieve that without debates such as these?

Andy: Check this out, it's your man in his element: Dusting HRC out of his life

We've tried that, but teacher unions fight more fanatically against vouchers than Al Qaeda fights against the U.S.

When the first teacher straps on some dynamite and blows up a coffee shop because they didn't get a raise, then you get to make that joke. Until then, have the decency not to compare teachers to terrorists.

Standard trick indeed.

People like opportunities to see their candidates live and spontaneous. How do you achieve that without debates such as these?

There's nothing wrong with debates; people just don't want one like last night's. There's a line between reporting a "gotcha" moment and trying to create one, and good journalists know where that line is.

The idea behind this program is so immigrant kids don't integrate into mainstream society and so they don't disassociate from the culture of their parents.

The first portion of this statement is completely false;

Untrue, the true aim of the supporters of "bilingual" education has ALWAYS been on keeping their children integrated in "their" culture. All things being equal they'd like their kids to learn English, but not at the expense of losing contact with their culture.

SA 4-3 over PHO
DAL over NO
LA over DEN
UT over HOU

SA over LA for conference

No one's showing any love for Utah for the WCF? They're a great home team; they should beat Houston, and if they can steal a roadie in the next two rounds, the Jazz could very easily be in the NBA Finals. I don't think that'll happen, but it's certainly very possible.

When the first teacher straps on some dynamite and blows up a coffee shop because they didn't get a raise, then you get to make that joke. Until then, have the decency not to compare teachers to terrorists.

Can I call your teachers incompetent, for not teaching dumbasses that an analogy compares the relationship between two things rather than the things themselves?

A:B :: C:D does not "compare" A to C.

There's nothing wrong with debates; people just don't want one like last night's. There's a line between reporting a "gotcha" moment and trying to create one, and good journalists know where that line is.

I don't doubt that some people dislike those debates; heck, I dislike them. OTOH, I assume some people do like them, given how often we see them. I'd much rather see them discuss issues I'm interested in: have they read Gilead? What do they think of Donnie Walsh's chances in NY? Why did so many people think slavery was acceptable? Should I remodel or move? But I can't assume b/c I don't like them, others don't. And I dispute the notion there's nothing to learn from these debates.

Their newest strategy is to close under funded, deteriorating schools, fire the entire staff, restore the building and turn it into a charter. The kids have to cross gang lines and go to another school to make room for the new "good kids" who take over the building. The racial dynamic is not absolute, but I bet you could guess what it is.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with bilingual education.

JC,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is "wrong to vet candidates." As Andy once said about reporters chasing steroids users, "Let them snoop and publish." The points, in this case, are:

1. Obama has talked about Wright--a lot. If people want to dig into it more, a la Ray DiPerna, by all means, do so. But what was Obama supposed to say about it last night?
2. He has explained the bitter comment several times, and said he screwed up--several times. Given the context and time frame it was a reasonable thing to discuss.
3. Andy's point about balance on the Weathermen deal,as stated.

I think your "personal" approach is reasonable, in the sense that we will never agree with ALL of anyone's positions and you want "a good boss." But getting "to know" the candidates is very hard in this context, so I think there is merit in the proverbial sticking to the issues dictum.

David,

Sure, a lot of it was platitudinous--they are pols on TV--but there was a little more there. Not enough to interest you, but you are not the target audience.

E-X,

Not much to say; keep doing it as long as you can.

Rich,

If you get the kids early, immersion is preferable for L2 acquisition due to the way the brain works, which is why EFL programs abroad are starting earlier than ever. So no real argument on a certain level.

Can I call your teachers incompetent, for not teaching dumbasses that an analogy compares the relationship between two things rather than the things themselves?

This has nothing to do with a direct A:B comparison. You could have picked a million things that "fight fanatically", but you chose terrorists because you thought it would be so clever and funny to put "teachers' unions" and "Al Qaeda" in the same column. You understand the implication your choice of words makes. You're a jackass for making it.

Can I call your teachers incompetent, for not teaching dumbasses that an analogy compares the relationship between two things rather than the things themselves?
A:B :: C:D does not "compare" A to C.

Let's see:

We've tried that, but teacher unions fight more fanatically against vouchers than Al Qaeda fights against the U.S.

hmmmmmm
so you are saying that you comment merely asserts that Teachers Unions are to School Vouchers (Which I support BTW) what Al Qaeda is to the US???

No, perhaps you should work on phrasing your analogies better- you said that Teacher's Unions fight something more fanatically than Al Qaeda does- so you were comparing Teacher's Unions to Al Qaeda, and therefore Softball was right, and your response to him was...

right out of Kevin's debate playbook... I think you've been arguing with Kevin a bit too much his style may be rubbing off on you.

1. Obama has talked about Wright--a lot. If people want to dig into it more, a la Ray DiPerna, by all means, do so. But what was Obama supposed to say about it last night?

Well, he wasn't asked a general question about his association with Wright; he was asked a specific question: how can you claim that you didn't know he said these sorts of controversial things when you had previously kept him behind the scenes precisely because he had said controversial things? (Obama's answer was pretty lame: he didn't realize Wright had said that specific controversial thing, as if that were the point.)

Still, I understand your point here, and as I mentioned on the previous page, Obama needs to learn the political trick of changing the subject and answering the question you want to be asked rather than the one you are asked.

Sure, a lot of it was platitudinous--they are pols on TV--but there was a little more there. Not enough to interest you, but you are not the target audience.

Well, it was enough to help cement my conviction that I would never vote for either of them, unless they were running against Tim McCarver or something. Does that count?

Serious question, David: Why do you watch and/or read/talk about Obama and Clinton?

You could have picked a million things that "fight fanatically", but you chose terrorists because you thought it would be so clever and funny to put "teachers' unions" and "Al Qaeda" in the same column.

It wasn't a column; it was a BTF post. And I originally considered "Hamas" and "Israel," but I decided the analogy wasn't apt because Hamas is far too conciliatory towards Israel, relatively speaking.

so you are saying that you comment merely asserts that Teachers Unions are to School Vouchers (Which I support BTW) what Al Qaeda is to the US???

Yes. I am saying that because that is what my comment asserts. If I wanted to call teachers terrorists (a la Rod Paige) I'd have done so straight out; it's not as if I'm shy about expressing my opinions.

Still, I understand your point here, and as I mentioned on the previous page, Obama needs to learn the political trick of changing the subject and answering the question you want to be asked rather than the one you are asked.

At which point you would jump up and down and post excitedly about how he didn't answer the question, he's hiding the truth, he's just another pol, etc., etc.

Well, it was enough to help cement my conviction that I would never vote for either of them, unless they were running against Tim McCarver or something.

As if the likelihood of that ever happening used to be way up there.

Yes. I am saying that because that is what my comment asserts. If I wanted to call teachers terrorists (a la Rod Paige) I'd have done so straight out; it's not as if I'm shy about expressing my opinions.

Paige apologized for his comment. I'll assume we can expect no such thing from you. Let's be real, you wanted to call teachers' unions terrorists, you just wanted to be cute about it.

Rich,

Accusing teachers of "avarice" is, IMO, a good example of why there is so much polarization. No one goes into it for the money and if one is really busting ass, it is a 60-70 hour a week proposition.

I got out when I was E-X's age--but that kind of attitude/comment is, frankly, exactly why teachers say "#### you" to right-wing reformers, and part of the reason I bailed.

But it's still a pretty dumbassed way to choose a candidate. And I won't be any happier when it gets turned against McCain than I am now. It's just an embarrassment to the whole process, and it begins with morons like Steffi and Gibson.

In all seriousness I ask what would be a better way? People like opportunities to see their candidates live and spontaneous. How do you achieve that without debates such as these?

Well, a "better way" might have begun by defenestrating Mssrs. Steffi and Gibson, and replacing them with Jim Lehrer, who's respected by both sides and wouldn't refrain from asking the questions you seem to want, but who (in Groucho's apocryphal words) might like to take that cigar out of his mouth once in a while. You can learn more by watching the News Hour for 15 minutes than you could learn from that entire sorry excercise in scandal chasing last night.

Andy: Check this out, it's your man in his element: Dusting HRC Out Of His Life

Thanks for the link, JC. It's good to know that at least one Democratic candidate is keeping his sanity and sense of perspective.

He is good, Andy, no question about it.

Serious question, David: Why do you watch and/or read/talk about Obama and Clinton?

Well, I didn't watch them (and generally don't -- or any other candidates); in this case, I read the transcript afterwards. As for reading about them, it's because one of them may well be the next president -- despite some polls, I am rather pessimistic about November (*) -- and I think it important to know as much as possible.


(*) Very pessimistic. It's not as if there are any good choices, unless Bob Barr is a lot more popular than I think.

Let's be real, you wanted to call teachers' unions terrorists, you just wanted to be cute about it.

If I want to call teachers' unions terrorists, I will. The only thing you got right was that you can expect no apology from me for my statement. I don't think they're terrorists. Extortionists, maybe, but not terrorists.

Softball,

Utah has a very good chance. Really, I would not be surprised if any Western teams other than Denver and Houston were in the Finals. If Houston had Yao, they'd have a really good shot as well.

I see LA taking Utah because of the Kobe factor--I think he will make the difference at the end in that series.

If I want to call teachers' unions terrorists, I will. The only thing you got right was that you can expect no apology from me for my statement.

You're a real profile in courage. Tell me again how my teachers were incompetent, why don't you.

Terrorists are typically hard-working, disciplined, anti-bureaucratic, and favour promotion on merit.

Polar opposites.

You're a real profile in courage. Tell me again how my teachers were incompetent, why don't you.

I will apologize to them; that was perhaps an unfair conclusion to jump to. It's not their fault you're a dumbass.

I will apologize to them; that was perhaps an unfair conclusion to jump to. It's not their fault you're a dumbass.

You're just upset because I didn't applaud your clever wordplay.

1147 kind of proves my point, as well. The general meta-message of right-wing education critics is that, basically, teachers are losers. And it seldom, in any forum, takes long to get there.

Terrorists are typically hard-working, disciplined, anti-bureaucratic, and favour promotion on merit.

Polar opposites.

You went where some of us feared to tread.

1147 kind of proves my point, as well. The general meta-message of right-wing education critics is that, basically, teachers are losers. And it seldom, in any forum, takes long to get there.

Ever have work done on your car that gets more and more expensive, with the mechanic finding new things that went wrong that demand more and more money without the original problem actually seeming to be resolved? How did you feel?

Now, make that mechanic be able to extract those sums of money at gunpoint and you with no legal recourse for any kind of accountability on the part of the mechanic.

Fair enough, Dan. I hope I will be smart enough to stay out of the next thread where this comes up. Since I was educated in public schools, I probably won't.

I was educated in public schools too, but I don't see why that means I should pledge allegiance to the system. I had an approximately equal mix of good and bad teachers, but as with most unions, theirs exists to protect the bad ones.

WXRL,

If you are fundamentally anti-union, well, OK. And no one said you had to "pledge allegiance to the system."

Fair enough, Dan. I hope I will be smart enough to stay out of the next thread where this comes up. Since I was educated in public schools, I probably won't.

I didn't mean to be curt, but a lot of the complaints about the teacher's unions and such would probably mostly fade away if the average taxpayer felt there was some kind of accountability in the education system. No Child Left Behind is a complete mess, but the law stems from the frustration many people feel that the education system is simply a black hole. Just because the vast majority of citizens support the funding of a public education system doesn't mean that those people want to be funding a massive and unaccountable Leviathan, with an appetite for dollars that knows no bounds.

Going back to an earlier discussion, I don't see anything wrong with the questions asked Obama. If the moderators want to ask McCain why he's a crazy old man and if he's incontinent, that's fine with me - how can a president handle an actual real crisis if he can't defuse a simple question from a reporter, even an insulting one? This was like the billionth debate - does the billionth debate between Obama and Clinton as to whose Santa Claus Funded Magical Health Plan Is Better really add any new information?

Hell, I say go even more wayward, both in the upcoming primaries and the general election. The farther afield a question is, the less a chance that the answer will be some pre-prepared statement put together by a team.

If you are fundamentally anti-union, well, OK. And no one said you had to "pledge allegiance to the system."

I think he misunderstood the tongue-in-cheek last line as you defending public schools because you went to public school rather than a self-deprecating joke.

I get it now. Public school strikes again.

Dan, I don't think that's fair. We could say the same--I think many standout teachers either flee to easier teaching environments where they can receive personal glory, or throw up their hands in disgust at thoughtful, intelligent people like you and their takes on education. This is because there's pretty much zero empathy coming in the opposite direction. You think you are disgusted by the protection of hateful, lazy teachers who constantly complain about the students? You have to think about such teachers once a month, I have to deal with the havoc they wreak on my students every single day.

But when you vilify teachers, you don't really leave us with any options. Around hour 80, I put addition time each week working to reform the union. Last meeting we had, we talked extensively about the need for accountability.

However, when you choose to attack the union itself--not reform it, and you choose to let the administrators and boards that seek to push regressive education, you tie our hands.

I cannot do what I do if I have to relocate and learn new kids every couple years. I cannot do this if I have to worry that I'm going to lose my job every time we get a new administrator.

So I completely agree with you that more accountability is needed. If you and the rest of society could work to make sure we are consulted in someway as to the best way to implement that accountability, so that you don't foolishly implement some measure that say, doesn't completely #### up what we are trying to do, that would be awesome. Please please, lend us a hand on this one.

We've tried that, but teacher unions fight more fanatically against vouchers than Al Qaeda fights against the U.S.

Personally, I don't care about you comparing us to terrorists, it's just too bad that you don't understand how vouchers would interact with the current problems that plague inner city environments.

Vouchers would lead to further inequity and transiency.

The difference between teachers and reformers is that at least we have some ####### clue what is going on within the schools.

I have no doubt that you could craft a few more NCLB quality reform measures if you were given the power.

"Accusing teachers of "avarice" is, IMO, a good example of why there is so much polarization."
Robin,

My wording implied that is what I meant. But I didn't quite mean that the teachers were greedy. I meant the union was. The union theoretically acts on behalf of the majority of the teachers. In this case, however, I think they were only communicating with the shop stewards among the teachers.... I happened to have interviewed a handful of teachers -- well, 4 of them to be precise -- on this issue. Three of the four told me they would prefer to have the wage roll back -- it would essentially erase the last two years of wage increases -- as long as administrative staff got the same reduction. Only one of those four was pink-slipped. (Per union rules, teachers who would not be brought back next year had to be pink-slipped by March 15. Some or even most of the pink-slipped teachers, though, will be retained.)

Nevertheless, if you imagine that there are four people on an island and there is enough food right now for three of them. If the three senior people got together and decided that they would each get a full share and the fourth person would go without, would you not say those three were being greedy and unfair to the fourth? My recommendation, rejected out of hat by the teachers' association was that each of the four would get a three-fourths share, until better times when everyone would get his due amount.

In terms of the larger question as to whether teachers are fairly compensated, I think it depends. We spend far more per capita (in inflation adjusted dollars) than we've ever spent on K-12 public education. I am not sure any of this increase in spending has paid off. (Maybe some of it has.) What I would like to see is for each class to use some kind of objective criteria -- this class of students knows this going in and that going out -- so that teachers would be paid for performance. Top teachers could then earn much better salaries, and lousier teachers would earn far less. Teachers would also have an incentive to teach students who had more room for growth, as opposed to just cherry-picking the most advanced kids.

I realize that there are problems in assessing some courses -- special ed or art classes, for example -- but those problems could be addressed. For most, a reasonable, objective measure, perhaps designed at the district level and approved by the state dept of education, is doable. Yet, teachers' unions fight incentive pay tooth and nail. In fact, I think opposition to incentive pay for teachers is now a part of the Democratic Party platform. (I could be wrong on that; someone told me that, though.)

I used to be gung-ho on the idea of vouchers and charter schools. I think they could be a small help in some cases. But I think a big problem is they assume most parents are better than they are. My take is, the real problem in education is usually the parents, not the teachers or the schools. You take two college educated parents -- the kind of people I deal with every day -- and their kids will get a decent if not great education, K-12. But those parents have 1.2 kids per couple. The vast majority of American children are born to uneducated boobs who never should have had kids. And they pass on their ignorance to their kids. It's a viscious cycle.

Dan, I don't think that's fair. We could say the same--I think many standout teachers either flee to easier teaching environments where they can receive personal glory, or throw up their hands in disgust at thoughtful, intelligent people like you and their takes on education. This is because there's pretty much zero empathy coming in the opposite direction. You think you are disgusted by the protection of hateful, lazy teachers who constantly complain about the students? You have to think about such teachers once a month, I have to deal with the havoc they wreak on my students every single day.

But when you vilify teachers, you don't really leave us with any options. Around hour 80, I put addition time each week working to reform the union. Last meeting we had, we talked extensively about the need for accountability.

Uh, I only barely mentioned the teacher's union once in a very general sense. Are you sure I'm the one you're trying to respond to? I'm talking about general frustration with the accountability of schools as a whole.

When the first teacher straps on some dynamite and blows up a coffee shop because they didn't get a raise, then you get to make that joke. Until then, have the decency not to compare teachers to terrorists.

You say that now, but this will just make him compare them to Hitler instead. He's got a track record with this kind of thing.

In terms of the larger question as to whether teachers are fairly compensated, I think it depends.

On whether you're actually a teacher?

You say that now, but this will just make him compare them to Hitler instead. He's got a track record with this kind of thing.

Unions are to taxpayers as Hitler was to Poland?

In terms of the larger question as to whether teachers are fairly compensated, I think it depends.

On whether you're actually a teacher?

On whether you think people deserve more and more and more money regardless of how they performthe results they produce.

Nevertheless, if you imagine that there are four people on an island and there is enough food right now for three of them. If the three senior people got together and decided that they would each get a full share and the fourth person would go without, would you not say those three were being greedy and unfair to the fourth? My recommendation, rejected out of hat by the teachers' association was that each of the four would get a three-fourths share, until better times when everyone would get his due amount.

The problem with this analogy is that is not how CBA salary negotiations work. The current salary level becomes the basis for the next round. If you take a "temporary" 10% pay cut, it is never temporary. When times turn good again, and you want your 10% back, plus COLA, all of a sudden, you're a greedy teacher demanding a 25% pay raise*, and you will be villified by the public and the media just to get back to where you were. On the other hand, if you choose option B, layoffs, when times turn good those people are re-hired, at the same total cost to the system as the 25% pay raise would be, and no one utters a peep.



* Say you were earning $50,000 3 years ago and took a 10% cut and a salary freeze. Now you are earning $45,000, and you want to get back your purchasing power. With 3% inflation, you need to be at $56,275. To get there from your current $45,000 requires an $11,275 raise, or 25%.

Aside from the Weatherman stuff, why is it wrong to vet candidates?

It isn't.

That said, it takes no more than a moment of refelection to realize that, in context, "Senator Obama, does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?" is hands down the most inane question in debate history.

We spend far more per capita (in inflation adjusted dollars) than we've ever spent on K-12 public education.

Yes, and we spend much less than most countries on classroom teacher salaries (when adjusting for cost of living). From those two facts, we can see where the problem is--the responsibility for allocating funding is not with the community, teachers or students.

What I would like to see is for each class to use some kind of objective criteria -- this class of students knows this going in and that going out -- so that teachers would be paid for performance.

This ignores the inherent inequities in the system in terms of who controls the power. We aren't talking unions here. Everytime something like this is proposed--see NCLB--it tends to ignore the factors beyond the standardized test data that the kids are bringing to class--no basic study skills, no stable home environment, etc.

The current system, that was strongly opposed by teachers and unions was put in place to ensure that EVERY school would be rated inadequate, starting with the schools dealing with the toughest job.

If I bring my gang connected, broken familied, 4th grade reading level student up to 9th grade reading level by Junior year, he fails and the school is penalized.

We have proposed better, fair accountability, but it's not just that the union opposes it (many do), it's that such reform doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by those determining educational policy.

I'll put it bluntly. A lot of my kids are better than you.

Yes, they are.

They are better than your kids

They aren't better than mine.

They are beautiful human beings, and very few people care if they live or die.

A national tragedy and disgrace and your voice in their support is eloquent and compelling. Even more reason to make sure we thoroughly vet how often our presidential candidates' lapels are adorned with a tiny flag pin.

I don't quite understand why it's bad for the public to know as much as they can about people they know little about.

Because most of it is mere voyeurism having nothing to do with the job. They aren't running for American Idol.

The premise that people "know little about" the candidates is also either wrong or a terrible indictment of the public in the Information Age.

I went to public school all my life. I believe in public education. But I know as well when unions are shooting themselves in the foot and come across as obstacles to education (and the good of children) and when they don't. You tell me what to make of these:

Linky

From the 2006-2007 NEA Resolutions:

B-75. Home Schooling
The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking and passing of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.
The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.
The Association further believes that local public school systems should have the authority to determine grade placement and/or credits earned toward graduation for students entering or re-entering the public school setting from a home school setting. (1988, 2006)

Yeah, it's hard to have sympathy for the Union.

I didn't mean to be curt, but a lot of the complaints about the teacher's unions and such would probably mostly fade away if the average taxpayer felt there was some kind of accountability in the education system. No Child Left Behind is a complete mess, but the law stems from the frustration many people feel that the education system is simply a black hole. Just because the vast majority of citizens support the funding of a public education system doesn't mean that those people want to be funding a massive and unaccountable Leviathan, with an appetite for dollars that knows no bounds.

There's no real evidence from the facts on the ground that Americans really care about education.(**) They may say they do, and in certain pockets of society, they do, but beyond (1) the threshold matter of ensuring that schools are safe; and (2) doing what's necessary to obtain particular educational credentials, they really don't.

There's a long history of anti-intellectualism in this country that continues unabated to this day and there's no evidence at all that knowledge and intelligence are rewarded in the way our society understands rewards. And it goes without saying that bookishness and study are the object of scorn from all precincts of society, young and old, humble and lofty.

(**) If you want to see something they really do care about, look no further than for-profit sports.

I cannot do this if I have to worry that I'm going to lose my job every time we get a new administrator.

Lines like this are a big part of why people don't take teachers seriously. EVERYBODY should have to worry about their job security, and the fact that so many teachers feel they should be exempt is offputting.

Yes. I am saying that because that is what my comment asserts. If I wanted to call teachers terrorists (a la Rod Paige) I'd have done so straight out; it's not as if I'm shy about expressing my opinions.

No try re-reading your own comment again, you were caught in a mistake and respond by referring to those who caught you as dumbasses, you are turning into Kevin the way communists and fascists curved so far around right and left that they turned into eachother.

JC, I don't get what the issue is with the resolutions. You should be able to home-school a kid (the quackiest of quack ideas), and still be able to use public school facilities and personnel for extra-curriculars?

Should they be able to home school some classes, and public school the others, too?

There's no real evidence from the facts on the ground that Americans really care about education.(**) They may say they do, and in certain pockets of society, they do, but beyond (1) the threshold matter of ensuring that schools are safe; and (2) doing what's necessary to obtain particular educational credentials, they really don't.

There's a long history of anti-intellectualism in this country that continues unabated to this day and there's no evidence at all that knowledge and intelligence are rewarded in the way our society understands rewards. And it goes without saying that bookishness and study are the object of scorn from all precincts of society, young and old, humble and lofty.

(**) If you want to see something they really do care about, look no further than for-profit sports.

Better watch what you're saying, you f*ck*ng elitist.

JC, I don't get what the issue is with the resolutions. You should be able to home-school a kid (the quackiest of quack ideas), and still be able to use public school facilities and personnel for extra-curriculars?


Yes. Home-schooling your kids doesn't get you out of paying your taxes for the schools. It's like saying that if you have a postage meter at home, you're banned from going to the post office for anything.

Should they be able to home school some classes, and public school the others, too?

Absolutely.

JC, I don't get what the issue is with the resolutions. You should be able to home-school a kid (the quackiest of quack ideas), and still be able to use public school facilities and personnel for extra-curriculars?

Should they be able to home school some classes, and public school the others, too?

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

Should they be able to home school some classes, and public school the others, too?

Absolutely, and where I live they can. I know kids who are mostly home schooled, but attend classes like shop and Marine Biology at the public High School.

In addition, I support kids in private schools having access to busses, books, and the like. Not that the school district should set up special routes and stops for the private schools, but when the public school bus route runs right past a private school, it costs nothing to allow the private school kids to ride.

Yes. Home-schooling your kids doesn't get you out of paying your taxes for the schools. It's like saying that if you have a postage meter at home, you're banned from going to the post office for anything.

That's absurd. The kid isn't a student at the school. And if extra-curriculars aren't limited to students, any taxpayer paying for the school has an equal -- indeed, a superior, since the kids aren't paying -- claim to be admitted to the same activities. Somehow, I don't think the chess club or the French club would be quite the same if it were open to the general townfolk.

Absolutely, and where I live they can. I know kids who are mostly home schooled, but attend classes like shop and Marine Biology at the public High School.

Then it's a hopelessly stupid idea in that there's no real student community of shared experiences and shared learning.

That's absurd. The kid isn't a student at the school. And if extra-curriculars aren't limited to students, any taxpayer paying for the school has an equal -- indeed, a superior, since the kids aren't paying -- claim to be admitted to the same activities. Somehow, I don't think the chess club or the French club would be quite the same if it were open to the general townfolk.

Of course, it's nothing like that at all, but thanks for playing the slippery slope game.

Lines like this are a big part of why people don't take teachers seriously. EVERYBODY should have to worry about their job security, and the fact that so many teachers feel they should be exempt is offputting.

You mean, like tenured university professors?

Hate to break it to you, but not every pursuit fits the managerial model of business.

That's absurd. The kid isn't a student at the school. And if extra-curriculars aren't limited to students, any taxpayer paying for the school has an equal -- indeed, a superior, since the kids aren't paying -- claim to be admitted to the same activities. Somehow, I don't think the chess club or the French club would be quite the same if it were open to the general townfolk.

Because they're not kids. Public schools are there for the education of the kids of citizens, so any kid should be able to use the facilities for as little or as much as they need to.

If home-schooled kids can't participate in things their parents pay for, then you've absolutely trashed the argument for public education - you've made it not about educating students for the benefit of society.

Then it's a hopelessly stupid idea in that there's no real student community of shared experiences and shared learning.

Why do you hate children?

Look, we're not to ask any difficult or uncomfortable questions about this man

Joey, you shouldn't be one to talk about not wanting to respond to questions

Not that I care about this particular sub-issue one way or the other, but the counterargument seems to be that these parents can trust public school football coaches, but not public school history teachers. Apparently Satan's reach extends only so far.

I'm sure parents of home-schooled children are more worried about the history teacher indoctrinating their children in values that they do not share than are worried about football coaches indoctrinating students on how to run a screen pass.

Of course, it's nothing like that at all, but thanks for playing the slippery slope game.

No slippery slope at all. Either you're a student at the school, or you aren't. Extracurricular activities are for students. Paying taxes has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure parents of home-schooled children are more worried about the history teacher indoctrinating their children in values that they do not share than are worried about football coaches indoctrinating students on how to run a screen pass.

Football coaches are value-neutral?

Terrorists are typically hard-working, disciplined, anti-bureaucratic, and favour promotion on merit

Don't be so sure about anti-bureaucratic. Here's an excerpt of a memo from recently declassified documents sent from an Al-Qaeda commander to a subordinate

"I was very upset by what you did. I obtained 75,000 rupees for you and your family's trip to Egypt. I learned that you did not submit the voucher to the accountant, and that you made reservations for 40,000 rupees and kept the remainder claiming you have a right to do so. . . . Also with respect to the air-conditioning unit, . . . furniture used by brothers in Al Qaeda is not considered private property. . . . I would like to remind you and myself of the punishment for any violation."

The current system, that was strongly opposed by teachers and unions was put in place to ensure that EVERY school would be rated inadequate, starting with the schools dealing with the toughest job. If I bring my gang-connected, broken-familied, 4th grade reading level student up to 9th grade reading level by Junior year, he fails and the school is penalized.

WELL, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT, AREN'T YOU LISTENING?

Honestly, this is a great point, which therefore I assume is going to be ignored. It does address the humanity and complexity of the "stupid kids = terrible teachers" if A, then B line of reasoning.

I'm actually not against merit pay and tests for teacher adequacy, but I like how no one has mentioned that the benefit is actually to the kids we are trying to teach instead of in opposition to the unions and the greedy-ass teachers who DARE to think they aren't getting paid enough. Despite all the theory and politicizing and union-hatred being espoused, the truth of the matter is that if you make a teacher a respectable well-paid position, and therefore requiring higher standards, schools will get better.

Then again, those executives at Bear Stearns were getting paid great, and look how brilliant they turned out to be.

No slippery slope at all. Either you're a student at the school, or you aren't. Extracurricular activities are for students. Paying taxes has nothing to do with it.

Your argument is simply assertion. Clearly, you care more about making sure students are educated in Officially Run Government Education Camps rather than for the benefit of children in society.

Do you also believe that government subsidized student loans should only be made available to members of the armed forces and people who are employed by the government?

No slippery slope at all. Either you're a student at the school, or you aren't. Extracurricular activities are for students. Paying taxes has nothing to do with it.

The moment the first 35 year old is enrolled in a HS French class, I'll worry about your ridiculous hypothetical. Until then, open the HS facilities to all HS aged children living in the district.

Football coaches are value-neutral?

I know I've seen a lot more instances of people being upset because their child's history teacher is spreading propaganda about their individual political beliefs than the child's football coach doing so.

This ignores the inherent inequities in the system in terms of who controls the power. We aren't talking unions here. Everytime something like this is proposed--see NCLB--it tends to ignore the factors beyond the standardized test data that the kids are bringing to class--no basic study skills, no stable home environment, etc.

The problem with that argument is that it undermines the case for teachers. Perhaps it's just an impossible task to get students with poor study skills to succeed -- but if it's really the case that the teacher can't do anything for them, then we could hire Shea Hillenbrand's lemur to teach the class and get the same results. And the lemur won't ask for a 10% raise every year.

The current system, that was strongly opposed by teachers and unions was put in place to ensure that EVERY school would be rated inadequate, starting with the schools dealing with the toughest job.

If that were really the goal, NCLB wouldn't have allowed each state to define for itself what constituted satisfactory results, allowing them to create a situation where any child who can tie his shoes is deemed adequate.

You mean, like tenured university professors?

Yes, exactly like tenured university professors. 100% job security leads to complacency and stagnation. Perform or be gone.

Hate to break it to you, but not every pursuit fits the managerial model of business.

Well, the current educational model is apparently failing, so perhaps it should. Almost anytime you divorce accountability from an endeavor, you wind up with crap.

Yes, exactly like tenured university professors. 100% job security leads to complacency and stagnation. Perform or be gone.

Well, I guess that would appear true if you don't understand the point of tenure, and forget that universities have a "publish or perish" policy.

I know I've seen a lot more instances of people being upset because their child's history teacher is spreading propaganda about their individual political beliefs than the child's football coach doing so.

No doubt, but that's because a different ox is being gored, not because one is naturally more likely to propagandize.

right out of Kevin's debate playbook... I think you've been arguing with Kevin a bit too much his style may be rubbing off on you.

Losing another one, huh, JPWF13?

If that were really the goal, NCLB wouldn't have allowed each state to define for itself what constituted satisfactory results, allowing them to create a situation where any child who can tie his shoes is deemed adequate.

My second grade son recently took his NCLB test. His class is doing basic algebra, and on the math portion of the test, he was asked questions like "Which of these trees has an odd number of leaves?"

Well, the current educational model is apparently failing, so perhaps it should.

Only if you believe doing so would cure the failure. Since the model doesn't fit, it wouldn't.

No doubt, but that's because a different ox is being gored, not because one is naturally more likely to propagandize.

You don't think a person who studied political history is inherently more likely to try to impart their political beliefs on others than a guy who didn't?