10/17/2006

Min. Wage Jobs Outlook- Improving











Apply at: Jobs@ontheborderline.nut.
Please include resume' and 15 examples of errors you've discovered.
Errors marked with #2 Red Sharpee only.
Compensation commensurate with lack of civility.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

It looks like Butch made one more mistake. Shouldn't his Political Action Committee be named "Friends of Hudson Public EDUCATORS" instead?

funny stuff said...

Hey that is funny stuff anonymous. Ridicule a pillar of the community for wanting to be involved in local school matters and not hide behind an anonymous blog name.

You sir anonymous are out of your league

by the way, nice pink headband and short shorts. Your neighbors cringe whenever you run past.

Funny Guy said...

anonymous,

You should start a new group of critics. The Enemies of Hudson Public Education. E.O.H.P.E (pronounced OhPEE )
BTW, don't confuse me with funny stuff
I'm funny guy.
Anon, you can't be funny you're just sad.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Funny Guy said...

You're hilarious anon, should we post your name here or will you whine an threaten to sue you hypocrite.

legal advisor said...

You better check your facts anon.
Since these people are not members of the NEA you might want to reconsider posting fallicious comments about them.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I never said that! Somebody changed my post!

Funny Guy said...

Let's add liar to your resume!

Mama Jones said...

It's nice to see that there are two weights on the balance scale:
1. The Anti-Teachers Union Thugs
2. The Teachers Union Thugs

or
1. The Duct Tape Wearing Thugs
2. The Non-duct tape wearing thugs

Playboy Roy said...

Looks like anon's a bit touchy even though nobody's named him here don't you think?

Cato said...

Please everyone. We all know I disagree with most of what is said here by OPs, but there is no need to be rude, precipitating in comment deletion and moderation. There shouldn't be a need for such action. I know the internet is serious buisness (explination here: http://tinyurl.com/9d6en ). The internets allows for some good discussion but easily escalates because of this ease. You don't have to see the other person you are demeaning. Don't act like a 12 year old. I know, I know, it's hard for you. But try.

http://tinyurl.com/f6y7p

12YO - guilty as charged said...

"You don't have to see the other person you are demeaning."

Cato - I know it's easy to demean people on the internet because you can't see them - but is it OK to do so if I already know what the prick looks like?

Cato said...

Then bring it up with him in person if you care that much. Monkies and politicans throw shit at each other, humans don't.

12yo said...

Cato:

Give me your name and address and I'll be right over.

Cato said...

You don't know what I look like nor do you have any idea who I am. I don't know why you are directing these things at me.

12yo said...

Ah, the quintessential anonymous blogger Cato advises us to meet face-to-face to discuss our differences.

Therein lies the irony, think you not?

Cato said...

No, if you knew the person I said to. If not, remain civil. That is all.

ragincrazin said...

Cato is correct but very short sighted when craving civil debate in Hudson. It is what all reasonable community members want, but the actions of a few have ruined it and caused some similar behavior by some on the other side of the issue. It manifested itself first in a hatred for our school district, administration and more recently our police officers and at St. Pat's. Those throwing the most mud became irate when questioned and have shown no control in how far they will go to smear those that speak for issues that they are against. It should be noted that some in our community were involved in all the recent lightning rod issues in Hudson. The St. Pat's school principal fiasco, the Father Ryan scandal, the school board meeting outbursts, and the police handling of that incident. Look no further than to who was involved with all those issues. Shameful. We have two people in Hudson that actually called the employers of people who have disagreed with them in an attempt to get them fired. Gutless.
Cato should not be called names by those that also accuse others as being namecallers. Cato should be heard, but if his words make no sense, and he keeps repeating them, we have the option of being critical of his words in a civil manner, not calling his employer and trying to get him fired.
Please comment if you think that I am off base here.

12yo said...

Humbug, dear Cato, humbug I say.

You say remain civil. So I become a simple civilian? Not a sinister villain? I ask you: Can I be rude or demean you? Can I ruefully circumvene you? Can I moodily despleen you?

No no no, you cry! Stay back - evil cur, oh my!

You say your dark face and masked name will stay a blur to me! You're soul remains sinister to me!

But alas, my 12-year-old mind, longs to bully your kind.

So your advice I will surely not mind.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Looks like you're the only adult to set an example here.

12yo said...

Cato?!? An adult example!?!

I'll lay you even money he's bawlin' like a newborn babe right now!

Too bad. So sad.

norseman said...

I disagree with Cato philosophically on varying issues, and agree with him/her (?) on some, but I do give Cato credit for debating topics.
As a person I'm not sure who Cato is, as have many of us, Cato has opted to maintain anonymity. That does generate some open (perhaps at times politically incorrect)debate, and some buffoonery; but by-golly I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok.
Now as for Luke; Luke is not ok!

Zigmund said...

Luke is DEFINITELY NOT OK!

Cato said...

Online debtate tends to draw people to extremes. It's why I enjoy it, as I am an extreme person. Well, I aim for extremes anyway, even if pragmatic concerns do cross my mind on the way there. But I never argue for comprimise I argue my side, regardless of whether or not I would accept a compromise.

However, while it is fine to say things in jest one should not let things get too out of hand. It is merely an online debate between people that usually don't know who the handle is. Now I forget what I read here before the comments were deleted but I assume (I hope correctly) that they were out of line. It is fine to have comment moderation as it is unfourtently sometimes necessary, but lets all work toward a point where it isn't. Not too hard.

You guys really don't like Luke do you?

/laugh

AndyRand said...

CATO:
So why do you argue the extremes?
Is it to stimulate discussion on the opposite side. Is it for the thrill of victory? Just curious?
I will say that dispite the fact that I find some of the views you have expressed ridiculous (from my perspective and sometimes a pragmatic one)you have for the most part expressed them without becoming vitriolic. I will commend you for that.

Cato said...

I can argue for a more pragmatic vision but it is not one I ultimately want.

The problem with arguing this, however, is that it moves the conversation. If one side gives in too much the conversation moves and the center is now more towards the side that has not given in. On a national scale this is evident; no one really argues my position anymore (although they most certianly have done so in the past) as it is generally accepted that the progressives have won out the day and big government is here to stay. The "Rupublicard" graphic someone posted here (I've seen it before) is testament to that. I honestly find it extremely odd that liberals are not going around in a constant state of orgasm over the Bush administration. Aside from Iraq, Bush has done everything they want. Now, this will all come to a head years from now when we're twice the annual GDP in debt (we're already once) but hey! Who cares, right? On a more local scale, the conversation is not about spending close to nothing to improvements to schools its either alot or more than alot. "Alot" will win out the day, but even if you view that as a defeat you should see that as a victory. You moved the center. Now the center position is somewhere between "alot" and "more than alot".

I want the conversation to move the other way, I want the center to return to what it was. The Republicans and Democrats are virtually indistinguishable. They both use scare tactics to rile up their respective bases on social issues like gay marriage but nothing about spending money. They do the same thing there. Sure there may be a bit of fighting but really, the center is so far left it is - to a person like me (and everyone else if they knew what was good for them!)- frieghtening.

On a plus side, it's more fun to argue that way AND people like 666 can't chime in about how I am being a hypocrite if I agree to something that he thinks I ought not to.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
I have to say it's hard for me to wrap my mind around your position. Sure spending has gone up, but where has it gone? To huge corporate interests, not infrastructure or social programs to help the poor. The Fake based initiative was exactly that, a huge mokery of those who supported it for the political gain of the current regime.
Frankly, I've never heard anyone argue from your position in the past. To me it's new phenomenon. It was unthinkable even a couple years ago that anyone would seriously consider "privitizing" education. I think for the vast majority it still is.
When you think about the current "borrow and spend" regime that harkens back to the Reagan model, who really owns that debt. It's not all the Chinese. It's wealthy investors in goverment securities, the same people who have been given historic tax breaks. They win at both ends, and the working middle class see it's benefits cut, it's wages cut it's standard of living cut, and their jobs cut. I found it difficult to understand a few years ago why companies were so reluctant to raise prices. Today, it's no problem and it's at a time when consumer's ability to pay is decreasing.
I also would never have heard FDR demonized even 5 years ago. Now it's the new national sport. Take him off the nickle and put the amiable dunce on instead?
I just can't see how you can possibly argue that the country is to the left (yet, hopefully that will change soon with the upcoming backlash against the Republicans)

AndyRand said...

Correction,
I meant take FDR of the Dime.

Cato said...

Prescription pills, federal dollars to education, vast amounts spent on transporation, pork-barrel projects across the nation, welfare spending up and up... what are you talking about?

FDR has long been deamonized by many, it isn't a new phenomenom. Perhaps you were not listening before. Perhaps it is also the advent of the internet and the ability for people to converse in this way that allows for you to see these things. The media never deamonized him that's for sure. Before the internet, aside from your personal freinds and the news media, where would you talk politics? The internet is wonderful in this regard.

In the past, our elected officals had my position. After FDR, things changed, although I will concede things were going that way before hand (think Wilson). But before this past century, most people viewed the Constitution in a manner I do (aside from the Court) and our elected officials were very careful to justify things within the Constitution. Since I'd say, Ike, no one has even cared to try unless it needs to be argued before the court and then they make some silly justification that usually stands up (although recently such things have been stricken down).

Before the switch by one of the members of the Court, FDR had proposed a court-packing plan which would allow him to appoint another judge for every judge over the age of 75 (if I recall corrrectly). There was a block of five judges wo were ruling his programs unconstitutional. After the switch, the four left who were dissenters were known as the Four Horsemen. I don't agree with everything they said -- for example, the case of Lochner v. New York was wrongly decided because it struck down a state law. This state law mandated minimum wage and maximum hours -- and is wholly constitutional. Unwise, but constitutional since the constitution is mute on whether or not states can do it. However, if it was a federal matter, then we come to an unconstitutional law... but I digress...

The country is so far to the left there is really nothing left to argue about. You are arguing over fascism or socialism. It's basically the same thing: one is corporate intrests doing the bidding of the government (and typically is "nationalist") the other is the government directly doing whatever end is wanted (and typically is "internationalist"). But the government is still in control of things in the background. It's the same damn system at it's root since it is all about control. If you were to juxtapose socialism, fascism and laissez faire capitalism, it would be night and day. Two of the paintings would have Waldo in different spots but its basically the same thing. The other would be nothing like it.

While the Constitution does not mandate a specific economic system, it does mandate a specific governmental system that does not work with anything but a specific economic system at the national level. While each state is free to choose it's own paths (within their respective Constitutions of course) which could be socailist or laissez faire in nature, the federal government is not free to choose. Yet they have done so and the progressives have won. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man.

Anonymous said...

Ridicule, threats, intimidation and coercion- these are the traits of NEA UNION THUGS like Butch Schultz, Bob Muchlinsk and Bob Baumman.

AndyRand said...

Anon,
Thanks for you insightful addition to this discussion.

Cato said...

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Monty Python said...

Ridicule, threats, intimidation, coercion, suprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, a shrubbery, and an albatross!

These are the weapons of the NEA Union Thugs!

Terry Gilliam said...

I say give anonymous the Comfy Chair!

R.A.F.T. relief said...

3 community members who believe in quality public education are called "NEA union thugs" by an anonymous commentor.
Yet Mark Pribonic calls the taxpayers/community members that attend the annual meeting "sheep" and then fails in a school boared election in Hudson. Pribonic then promisses a "new Dawn in education" for the New Richmond schools which is followed by the resignations of all the board member that he supported.
Bill Danielson re-names the city of Hudson as "Nazi Wisconsin" and calls our police officers "intellectual midgets" then moves out of town.
Marion Shaw claims that the county sherrif office had its furniture arranged in a manner to intimidate him when he was trying to get out of a traffic ticket, he then tries to intimidate everyone by shoving a video camera in their faces at any public funtion and accuses everyone but him and his wife as people trying to frame Father Ryan Erickson. Mike Frase allegedly allows good friend Curt Weese to ghost write letters to the editor under his name. There are too many Weese quotes to list here.
lets just say every villiage has one and Curt is ours.

anonymous seems to give these guys a free ride on the bad behavior spectrum.

Cato said...

Glorious socialism combating anonymous bloggers:

http://tinyurl.com/yl57ty

"Bloggers anonymously disseminating untrue information on the Internet brought about a negative influence on society"

Indeed.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Capitalist monopolists buy off Congress to control internet.

http://tinyurl.com/tfmty

So which is worse?

Cato said...

You already pay for internet access.I don't see what you are concerned about here as being so god-awful. You can pay for no service, regular service, or premium service. The invisible hand will keep things where they ought be. You are demanding that your serive provider ought give you the same exact serive as everyone else. Why? This makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want choice in the matter? Perhaps you have no use for high download speeds or perhaps you wouldn't mind sitting and waiting for an extra half second for something to load, saving you money at the time. It's still your choice. The only reason it is anything like a monopoly is the government forced it, although there has been baby steps toward deregualtion so that you can use any provider you want.

What is far more scary is regulation.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Despite your claims to the contrary, you must be a wealthy man.
When the Premium guys start pumping realtime audio and video and you are redirected to the text only browser I'd think you'd sing a different tune.

You really are afraid of a level playing field for some reason.
On every issue you always favor the side that will result in the Cadillac goods and sevices for the few, and the Yugo for the rest of us.
Also for an aethiest you certainly have a lot of faith in the hairy invisible 3 fingered claw of the market.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other issue where the NRA and MoveOn.org are on the same side.

http://tinyurl.com/yky2v9

As stated here. AT&T didn't invent the internet anymore than Al Gore.

Cato said...

No, AT&T did not, but AT&T does contribute to running it. Al Gore on the other hand has nothing to do with it's operations.

No, I am not wealthy. I'd be willing to pay over 100 for interent access though per month. No need for cable TV, only the internet. Furthermore all this paranoia is nothing more than just that. I'm not "worried" about a level "playing" field (and alot of the interet is just that -- playing) I'm worried about forcing us all to be equally miserable. You're already at the mercy of these providers at the same amount as if this was "allowed" by the internet overseerers. You seem to think they will only allow a select few to use the internet, destroying their incomes. I know that the same amount of people will use the internet if not more as you can offer a downgraded service to some, a speddier service to others, and the same exact service to everyone else. Who is the looser in this situation? We have more choices.

What is so bad about choice?

AndyRand said...

Who are the loosers?
For one the content providers. Now they don't pay other than to produce and host their content. They will pay to transmit it there is no net neutrality. This issue has created some strang bedfellows. Microsoft and Google against AT&T.

AT&T and many other owners of the backbone made promises to states to
build directly to the home. It has never happened in this country but has in others.

From Bill Moyers "The Internet at Risk"
http://tinyurl.com/y7b7br

RICK KARR: The United States is the birthplace of the Internet and the home of high-tech, but we're no longer tops in the world in high-speed online connections. In fact, the U.S. has dropped below tenth place and compared to some other countries, we're pretty much crawling along the information superhighway.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: America's screwed. I mean we basically are becoming technologically deficient.

RICK KARR: Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick says that the only thing the U.S. is doing quickly is falling behind.

BRUCE KUSHNICK: Right now what we have basically is sort of like, you know, still pictures versus what's really going to happen next which is full motion video everywhere. We're close to the dinosaurs compared to what these other countries are going to be developing in the next couple years.

RICK KARR: Kushnick says that's because telephone companies back in the 1990s promised that they'd hook us up to the information superhighway, but then reneged on that promise.

RICK KARR: The network that they promised to build, what could it do? Give us a sense of had they actually built this network what could we have on our homes today?


-------------------------
"Declan McCullagh of Wired News says the Net goes back as far as 1967 when Al gore was 19 years old. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency started experimenting with ways to allow networked computers to link and communicate. It was called The Internetting project and the ultimate system became known as The Internet."
So the internet began as a government project. The Fat Cats shouldn't be allowed to take over control

Cato said...

Ohhhh Fat Cats on the prowl.

Yes, it was a government project. What of it? Do you mean to suggest that it would have been impossible without it?

You can't possibly believe that. Furthermore is it government or private industry that is fueling the internet today?

Why should google get nothing but profits? Yes they are providing a service, but is it so wrong that the people that provide their service to actual customers get a slice of that pie?

What is wrong with more choice?

Anonymous said...

It is a pathetic statement about one’s life when the guage of their happiness is relative to what other’s have or have not. If the rationale for government is based on cable channel selections, then I can give no better reason for its demise.

Wake up said...

Luke,
You should be the last one in the world to make such a statement with your envy of the "Cadillac Health Care" and "Platinum Retirement Plan". Then you post teacher compensations repeatedly for the last year out of jealousy.
What a HYPOCRITE!!!

P.S. It's gauge not guage you twit!

Anonymous said...

sorry, I thought I had checked my spelling. Your aaumption about being Luke is as wrong about your premise of happiness.

Anonymous said...

At least I earn my happiness. I do not depend on a thievery to acquire it.

Wake up said...

If you're not Luke, then I'm sorry.

As for the other anonymous (if there
are two?)...........

Even though teaching is not my profession, educating children for the future is the farthest thing from thievery, unlike being a profit skimming internet middleman who offers no added value to a customer and has time to waste harassing public servants.
Also, if you've "earned" you happiness you are equally as materialistic as you accuse the poster commenting about the future of the internet.
As you say, happiness isn't dependent on things.

Spelling...

Everyone makes mistakes. But if you're Luke you make mistakes then criticize others for the same but not your own. Look at the OTBL post at the head of thread.