Badmovies.org Forum

I don't usually start these off-topic threads, but since education and teacher's unions are hot-button topics these days, I thought I'd share this.

http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/ncae-looking-out-for-children-members-or-itself/

Lots of important conclusions in there...where's the money going, what 'ideals' does the NEA represent, just who are the top 10 political contributors REALLY (where are the big, evil corporations we always hear so much about on that list?).

Personal commentary:

By the way, I often hear these little PSA ads done by Sherri Strickland (shown as the NCEA President), and as a parent, they are insulting and condescending beyond belief.  Thank-you, Sherri, for assuming I'm too stupid to raise my own children while you pad your pocketbook on the backs of teachers in the trenches TRYING to go a good job.

Not much different from any other big union. The folks at the top are well paid, well known and influential, and the ordinary members are paying the bills. Actually, that's my problem with a lot of big non-profit organizations too. Used to bug me that the head of the food bank in the city where I lived (coincidentally also named Strickland) was making a big salary and advancing his political career with money the donors must have assumed was mostly to be used to buy food. All perfectly above board and normal, but because of the nature of his job and the image he presented, people never really thought much about what he was getting out of it. And he wasn't the only administrative employee pulling down a generous salary. We make kind of a subconscious assumption of altruism where people like that are concerned, even when they're well paid. For me, it doesn't sit right when ordinary people give their time and money in support of an organization, while most of the credit goes to somebody who is doing it for pay, because he happens to be the one in the photo ops, the news stories and all of the publicity materials. High-profile unions (teachers, public employees, etc.) are not much different, in my opinion.

Back to the original post, what really amazes me about that article is how much campaign money is being contributed by Indian casinos. I knew it was a lot, but wow. That's a little frightening.

I know I'm a cynic when it comes to politics, but this doesn't surprise me. 'Tis par for the course when you're talking about a big bureaucracy like that.

As for the Indian casino contributions, that didn't surprise me either. A coworker of mine is Hopi/Navajo and very active in his reservation politics, and he has been commenting how much native American leadership has changed, how much more political, and how much they just don't give a crap about the traditions anymore. Accompanying this shift is a very sad dwindling of the ability to self-sustain.