FU Bloomberg!!!

eggcream wrote: I'll give him education any day over Unions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Though I am a union supporter I think there is a problem with getting rid of "dead wood"

eggcream wrote: Charter schools are successful for a reason, if not they close em down.

Charter schools, with some exceptions, have not proven themselves any more successful, with any statistical significance, than other schools. and yes, there are exceptions such as the Harlem Children’s Zone as reported by David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html but look what they are doing to get those results, long days in a class room, and the amount of funding they are getting, I think close to $37 million. And charter schools have the luxury of getting rid of under performing students, something public schools can't do

eggcream wrote: Look how much each school kid in NYC gets and they still can't get more than a 57% HS graduation rate ( for 2007). Money is not the answer.

I don't think anyone said money was the answer. In fact try having a look at Norton Grubb's book "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes and Equity"

eggcream wrote: I hate Bloomberg but would much rather have mayoral control of the school system.

I am not opposed to mayoral control I do think the current system, to quote Tom Hanks character in the film You've got Mail, "needs some tweaking"

eggcream wrote: I'll give him education any day over Unions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Though I am a union supporter I think there is a problem with getting rid of "dead wood"

I mean control of Education should stay with the Mayor.

eggcream wrote: Charter schools are successful for a reason, if not they close em down.

Charter schools, with some exceptions, have not proven themselves any more successful, with any statistical significance, than other schools. and yes, there are exceptions such as the Harlem Children’s Zone as reported by David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html but look what they are doing to get those results, long days in a class room, and the amount of funding they are getting, I think close to $37 million. And charter schools have the luxury of getting rid of under performing students, something public schools can't do

Not true. " The city's charter schools are outperforming their peers in traditional city public schools by a wide margin on reading tests, officials announced yesterday.

Third- through eighth-grade charter students bested their public-school peers by 8.6 percentage points.

And the charters have matched the 77.4 percent proficiency rate of students statewide, despite serving a more challenging population of kids.

"This year, our charter schools have matched -- literally to the decimal point -- the state of New York, and that is an enormous accomplishment," said Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Klein credited the feat to high-quality teachers, extended instructional days, and a rigorous focus on data -- "all the kinds of things that we're doing in the public schools system, and that's why I think you're seeing this rising tide in New York City."

Although traditional public schools outpaced the reading gains of charter schools since last year -- an 11.2 percent versus 10.3 percent jump -- Klein said a three-year snapshot showed charter school growth ahead by 3.7 percentage points. "

Underperforming students? How about underperforming teachers, especially those with tenure. They just sit in a rubber room with full pay since they can't be fired.

eggcream wrote: Look how much each school kid in NYC gets and they still can't get more than a 57% HS graduation rate ( for 2007). Money is not the answer.

I don't think anyone said money was the answer. In fact try having a look at Norton Grubb's book "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes and Equity"

Tell that to the Unions. New York spends the most per pupil in America, 63% above the National Avg...20.7 billion in 2009. The Unions are always asking Albany for more money.

Sure, the reporter is playing "Gotcha" a bit, but mayor-for-life looks like a real tool here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_mayor_bloomberg_calls_reporter_a_disgrace_for_questioning_rationale_for_third_te.html

Guy needs to go, and fast.

Cry baby... yes, but it's really because he's a capitalist.

He figures he already bought the mayoralty (mayorship?), so now he owns it, and no one else should ever be allowed to take it away from him!

Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

Carnivore wrote: Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

this.

sheesh, if he'd gotten them to get rid of term limits entirely, there would have been a chance i'd have voted for him. at this rate, the democrats would have to run rush limbaugh for me to even think about it.

True that, Giuliani really showed his ass at the Republican Convention

booklaw wrote: Carni, what's your issue with term limits? I think they're a terrific idea... should reduce the financial incentive to hold office, and the resulting corruption throughout city government.

I think the vast majority of professional politicians inevitably succumb to hack-ness; I like the idea of "ordinary" citizens (i.e. non-professional politicians) entering government for limited periods of time, and then being forced to leave before they become entrenched in corruption. I like it even if it limits governance to super-wealthy types like Bloomberg (who have no need to use their positions to feather their nests).

One of the problems I see is that just as someone is getting good at the job, they get term limited out.

I think part of the corruption issues are from campaign contributions, change the way campaigns are funded and you get rid of some of hack-ness.

I am OK with term limits in the executive branch but I am not for them in the legislative branch

But I could be convinced otherwise.

Why not select council members the way we do jurors?

term limits frustrate the will of the electorate. yes, there are other things that do that, too, but term limits don't help.

i'm fine with them for president, since i'm not sure the same guy should be in charge of the army forever.

also, the money issue -- extra incentive for rich candidates only -- does matter to me, a great deal.

for the election, it doesnt matter what you think of bloomberg, just how you value democracy. term limits are a fundamental tenet of any legit democracy. please dont vote for him.

Carnivore wrote: Term limits are actually anti-democratic.

Oh brother. Have you actually thought about this? Can you tell us about somewhere that doesn’t have term limits for the chief executive that functions better? Chavez has gotten rid of them, Putin gotten around them – do you think the Venezuelan and Russian people have actually been able to express informed choices?

Are you oblivious to the enormous electoral power of incumbency and how this can discourage potential challengers from ever seeking to participate in elections? Unfortunately, leaders are not just a representation of public opinion, but have great power to influence and form it, and that is one reason why enforced change of power is good.

Carnivore wrote: So you think the people can't be trusted to make the right choice on their own... Very democratic.

I take it you haven't thought about this. You are missing the point. It is not about trusting people to make the right choice, it is about structuring a system which actually presents people with choices.

Are you suggesting that the reason this is a feature of most democracies is because the framers actually wanted to constrain the will of the people??

putz wrote: [quote=Carnivore]So you think the people can't be trusted to make the right choice on their own... Very democratic.

I take it you haven't thought about this. You are missing the point. It is not about trusting people to make the right choice, it is about structuring a system which actually presents people with choices.

Are you suggesting that the reason this is a feature of most democracies is because the framers actually wanted to constrain the will of the people??
It was not a feature of our democracy as designed by our framers. We were able to change mayors quite successfully before term limits. I'm not missing the point; the point is fallacious.

booklaw wrote: Our framers were not omniscient... look at the electoral college.

The framers could not possibly have imagined the size of our population, the power of our media, and the ability of political organizations to deliver votes to incompetent and/or dishonest candidates.

Term limits are a good thing (although admittedly not a cure-all unto themselves).

Term limits are not unequivocally a good thing. They are a bad solution for a problem that is primarily rooted in campaign finance, and they reduce the choices of the people. If someone is doing a good job after two terms and the people would like to see him or her continue in office, it is not a good thing to prevent the people from making that choice.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=booklaw]Our framers were not omniscient... look at the electoral college.

The framers could not possibly have imagined the size of our population, the power of our media, and the ability of political organizations to deliver votes to incompetent and/or dishonest candidates.

Term limits are a good thing (although admittedly not a cure-all unto themselves).

Term limits are not unequivocally a good thing. They are a bad solution for a problem that is primarily rooted in campaign finance, and they reduce the choices of the people. If someone is doing a good job after two terms and the people would like to see him or her continue in office, it is not a good thing to prevent the people from making that choice.

I would agree with this in general. My problem is the term limits were made law by popular vote but rescinded by political vote.