Obama Picks Arne Duncan for Education Post

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...an-for-education-post/
He has seven years? experience as chief executive of the Chicago Public Schools, the nation?s third-largest school district, where he has earned a solid reputation for confronting pressing issues in public education, like how to raise teacher quality, how to transform weak schools and when to shutter those that are irredeemably failing.

This is the district that tried to pay people to get Cs, and which has been referred to as the worst in the nation.

Yeah, about that...
http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti...tter-than-arne-duncan/

He was head of the Chicago Public Schools when Brian Jacob and I were investigating how teachers and administrators were doctoring standardized test sheets.

With seemingly nothing to gain and much to lose, Arne embraced our results, even allowing us to do audit testing to confirm our hypotheses. Eventually, a handful of teachers were fired.

What a prick this guy must be! Winnar is always good for a laugh.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
if Chicago schools were so amazing under Duncan that he's the guy to lead the education department... why didn't the Obamas send their kids to them?

Doh!!! Damn you and your logic.

That you fail to identify this as faulty logic says a whole lot about why you post the way you do. If Duncan reduced the murder rate in a school by 50%, and raised statewide literacy exam results by 20%, yet still the school was way below average nationally, people should want to send their kids to that school? Implementing vast improvements is the hallmark of a good administrator, not overseeing the worst become the absolute best.

 

[Lemon law]

Let us face one fact, Arne Duncan is definitely well qualified for the education position. Not only in the area of education, but in 15 years in the trenches of education policy. The fact that Duncan and Duncan were in Chicago allowed them to mutually discuss and debate educational policy, evidently those discussions impressed Obama, and as a result, Duncan is going to be Obama's choice for the education post.

Now some comment to Duncan critics.

1. Regardless if you voted for Obama or not, Obama will be our next President, and as such, is the sole arbiter of whom his cabinet picks will be. Subject to the advice and approval of the Senate, unless rejected by the Senate, those Obama picks are in.

2. In all well and fine to be unhappy, but a waste of thread space to bitch about a given Obama appointee, unless you can give a single GOOD reason why a democratic or republican senator should reject a given Obama appointee.

3. And pardon me Winnar111, if I point out, in nearly three thread pages, that you have failed to give A SINGLE GOOD REASON for any senator to reject Duncan, other than the fact you are unhappy with the pick. The world does not revolve around you or your unhappiness, but we can see you have gathered a circle of similar bitching GOP soreheads, proving misery loves company, so go forth and be unhappy together.

But please do not bother the rest of us without a good reason Winnar111. Your reasoning is pathetic in MHO.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if Chicago schools were so amazing under Duncan that he's the guy to lead the education department... why didn't the Obamas send their kids to them?

Because thats not how the world works and you know it Public schools are for teaching people how to follow those who are taught at private schools. If you have a problem with that then you are un-american. Public school kids have a whole set of challenges above and beyond private school kids. Lifes unfair. i delt with a poor hand and came out ahead. They can too. It's a choice.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us face one fact, Arne Duncan is definitely well qualified for the education position. Not only in the area of education, but in 15 years in the trenches of education policy. The fact that Duncan and Duncan were in Chicago allowed them to mutually discuss and debate educational policy, evidently those discussions impressed Obama, and as a result, Duncan is going to be Obama's choice for the education post.

Now some comment to Duncan critics.

1. Regardless if you voted for Obama or not, Obama will be our next President, and as such, is the sole arbiter of whom his cabinet picks will be. Subject to the advice and approval of the Senate, unless rejected by the Senate, those Obama picks are in.

2. In all well and fine to be unhappy, but a waste of thread space to bitch about a given Obama appointee, unless you can give a single GOOD reason why a democratic or republican senator should reject a given Obama appointee.

3. And pardon me Winnar111, if I point out, in nearly three thread pages, that you have failed to give A SINGLE GOOD REASON for any senator to reject Duncan, other than the fact you are unhappy with the pick. The world does not revolve around you or your unhappiness, but we can see you have gathered a circle of similar bitching GOP soreheads, proving misery loves company, so go forth and be unhappy together.

But please do not bother the rest of us without a good reason Winnar111. Your reasoning is pathetic in MHO.

That's rich dude.

After listening to you guys bitch whine and cry about everything Bush has done for the last 8 years all of a sudden it becomes 'he is President and can do whatever he wants' ??? The irony.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us face one fact, Arne Duncan is definitely well qualified for the education position. Not only in the area of education, but in 15 years in the trenches of education policy. The fact that Duncan and Duncan were in Chicago allowed them to mutually discuss and debate educational policy, evidently those discussions impressed Obama, and as a result, Duncan is going to be Obama's choice for the education post.

Now some comment to Duncan critics.

1. Regardless if you voted for Obama or not, Obama will be our next President, and as such, is the sole arbiter of whom his cabinet picks will be. Subject to the advice and approval of the Senate, unless rejected by the Senate, those Obama picks are in.

2. In all well and fine to be unhappy, but a waste of thread space to bitch about a given Obama appointee, unless you can give a single GOOD reason why a democratic or republican senator should reject a given Obama appointee.

3. And pardon me Winnar111, if I point out, in nearly three thread pages, that you have failed to give A SINGLE GOOD REASON for any senator to reject Duncan, other than the fact you are unhappy with the pick. The world does not revolve around you or your unhappiness, but we can see you have gathered a circle of similar bitching GOP soreheads, proving misery loves company, so go forth and be unhappy together.

But please do not bother the rest of us without a good reason Winnar111. Your reasoning is pathetic in MHO.

That's rich dude.

After listening to you guys bitch whine and cry about everything Bush has done for the last 8 years all of a sudden it becomes 'he is President and can do whatever he wants' ??? The irony.

Are you implying someone else should have a say in who Obama nominates? If so, who? The Senate can reject those nominations, but he still gets to make them. (although I can't think of a single good reason for them to reject them so far)

The Congress is long overdue to re-assert itself as a coequal branch, and I hope it does so during the Obama administration. The executive under Bush was completely out of control, and the results were catastrophic.

 

[OrByte]

I can't wait for the ODSer's (winnar, PJ etc) to break out the news that Arne Duncan proposed a Gay High School.

oh wait...did I let the cat out of the bag?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

I guess we should put next year's coach of the Detroit Lions in the hall of fame due to the inevitable 'significant improvement'. :laugh:

When you're at the bottom, you can only go up.

Why would we put him in the hall of fame you moron?

We would be correct in saying he has done a good job as the coach of the Lions if he takes the same group of players and achieves a markedly improved team. Even if next year they are 4-12 or 5-12, if its the same guys being put on the field, he should definitely get some credit.

You know what you're doing with these threads, you just don't care. I think this sort of stupid shit should be bannable, as you contribute absolutely nothing to these boards other than troll threads.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That's rich dude.

After listening to you guys bitch whine and cry about everything Bush has done for the last 8 years all of a sudden it becomes 'he is President and can do whatever he wants' ??? The irony.

Hasn't bush done whatever he wants? You guys are insane. You got your collective asses handed to you last election and alll you do is huddle back down into your am talk radio. You will get pwned again next election cycle too unless you guys wake up.

Is this the future of the republican party? BS talking points that don't mean shit? You guys are gonna end up some weird inbred hp lovecraftian creature if you aren't already.

Do you think somebody in 2002-2003 that was saying hey maybe we shouldn't go to war had a political agenda. They just wanted to spout partisan talking points because they hate republicans? Don't disgrace those who have fallen for this bullshit war and those who stood against it as "crying against bush".

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I can't wait for the ODSer's (winnar, PJ etc) to break out the news that Arne Duncan proposed a Gay High School.

oh wait...did I let the cat out of the bag?

ummm I have no problem with the gay high school idea.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm I have no problem with the gay high school idea.

But you have problems with people bitching and whining about bush and his failed policy? How many people must die before you see a mistake. You fucking hack.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The amount of cronyism Obama is displaying is downright disgusting.

This

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm I have no problem with the gay high school idea.

But you have problems with people bitching and whining about bush and his failed policy? How many people must die before you see a mistake. You fucking hack.

wait, what?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dari
OP, if you hate Obama so much, there's always suicide.

:shocked: :laugh:

Man and I get picked on for asking them if they packed their bags yet.

No, you get picked on for being an ignorant, hypocritical, tin-foil-hat-wearing whack-job.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After listening to you guys bitch whine and cry about everything Bush has done for the last 8 years all of a sudden it becomes 'he is President and can do whatever he wants' ??? The irony.

I was responding to this loki. This guy is a total fucking tool if he thinks he can marginalize people complaining about war. This kind of shit really pisses me off.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
This kind of shit really pisses me off.

Then you can get on a plane and leave.

Oh wait... that's your folks' line. Sorry about that... forgot which side I was arguing for.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: spidey07
The amount of cronyism Obama is displaying is downright disgusting.

This

Picking people you know and trust is fine if they are qualified. In your book if the president personally knows someone who is highly qualified for the job he shouldn't appoint them simply because he knows them? Nice logic.

Harriet Miers was not qualified. Alberto Gonzales was not. That's why those picks are cronyism. Please point out someone Obama appointed that is not qualified. His picks are receiving wide bi-partisan support. Even Cheney thinks Obama picked a good team. If Obama picks someone with no experience for the post, you'll hear plenty about it here.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You got any support for those facts you casually threw out about the Chicago school district and the implied inadequacy of Arne Duncan as a result? Even if Chicago schools look bad now...how much has Duncan improved them? Come on, attack boy, let's at least PRETEND you want to have a reasonable discussion about this.

Personally I think a superintendent of schools in a big city is a good choice for the job of education secretary. If we picked someone from a district with the highest performance, we'd probably end up with the superintendent from a rich suburb who doesn't have to do beans to get good results, since he has more funding and a better situation to begin with. Like it or not, schools across the country have some serious problems...I'd like an education secretary with some experience dealing with those kinds of issues.

http://news.medill.northwester...go/news.aspx?id=107795

Rates have gone up by a tad, but guess what, they still suck compared to the state average. And Chicago is still behind the average city.

Chicago Public Schools has a 55 percent graduation rate. That means, out of all students who start in Chicago schools in 9th grade, roughly half of them will finish within five years.

While this number has increased in recent years -- it was about 47 percent in 2000 -- it is still well below the national average.

During the 2003-2004 school year, the national average was about 70 percent, according to Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The average for urban districts is about 60 percent.

So you're saying that the graduation rates went up slightly under his stewardship, during a period in which the travesty that is NCLB effectively sought to undermine the entire educational system, particularly in dense urban areas? Sounds like he's been fighting the good fight to me.

What was it the democrats have been saying about new leadership at failed companies?

Don't worry - the failed leadership is on its way out; ducking questions and flying shoes in the process. Seeing Duncan's tenure as the real failure in leadership is a leap only the most unrepentant of hacks will make. IOW, sounds about right winnar!

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
This kind of shit really pisses me off.

Then you can get on a plane and leave.

Oh wait... that's your folks' line. Sorry about that... forgot which side I was arguing for.

Have i ever said for anybody to "leave" and since when is squandered lives and treasure a side? I'm not a "folk" either I'm elite.

 

[Xavier434]

It's amazing how so many of you get your panties tied up in a knot over nothing. The rage in this thread by the Obama haters is by far stronger than any single argument presented so far against Duncan. I really don't mind so much that you guys want to express yourselves but can we at least try to hold a meaningful and informative discussion backed up by documented facts to go along with it? So much smoke has been blown in this forum since the election ended. It is way out of hand.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if Chicago schools were so amazing under Duncan that he's the guy to lead the education department... why didn't the Obamas send their kids to them?

If the war is such a good idea and the military so effectively led under President Bush, why don't more republican congressman send their kids off to fight?

The question is different, but each has the same damn answer. You should know this by now.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It's amazing how so many of you get your panties tied up in a knot over nothing. The rage in this thread by the Obama haters is by far stronger than any single argument presented so far against Duncan. I really don't mind so much that you guys want to express yourselves but can we at least try to hold a meaningful and informative discussion backed up by documented facts to go along with it? So much smoke has been blown in this forum since the election ended. It is way out of hand.

And when you really press them they run away. Chicken hawks.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I can't wait for the ODSer's (winnar, PJ etc) to break out the news that Arne Duncan proposed a Gay High School.

oh wait...did I let the cat out of the bag?

ummm I have no problem with the gay high school idea.

Yes, separate but equal often works with people who see the world only in black and white, right and wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: spidey07
The amount of cronyism Obama is displaying is downright disgusting.

This

So maybe you can explain which of Obama's picks are not qualified, as cronyism is defined as being picked by association, regardless of qualifications. Or did Obama just get super lucky and befriend someone who happened to be skilled in each cabinet area? That must be it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After listening to you guys bitch whine and cry about everything Bush has done for the last 8 years all of a sudden it becomes 'he is President and can do whatever he wants' ??? The irony.

I was responding to this loki. This guy is a total fucking tool if he thinks he can marginalize people complaining about war. This kind of shit really pisses me off.

Insert <you can't ever question Obama's policies cause Bush went to war in Iraq logic> here. Nobody mentioned the war till you did.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: spidey07
The amount of cronyism Obama is displaying is downright disgusting.

This

So maybe you can explain which of Obama's picks are not qualified, as cronyism is defined as being picked by association

That's a very difficult question so let's make it as easy as possible to answer. Here's a list of his cabinet and other high level appointments. http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/new_team

Despite the disproportionate number of democrats (shocker, I know) it seems like a strong group of experienced people to me. Please state the names of the people who you feel are not qualified to hold their posts, and maybe if you can, a quick reason why they are unqualified.

Come on JB, you pride yourself on being "unbiased" or "middle-of-the-road" or "independent" or whatever you like to think about yourself. Yet you just blithely agreed with spidey, one of the most psychotic posters on AT. Please, justify your agreement that "the amount of cronyism" being displayed is disgusting. Not just a little, but apparently a lot of cronyism is at work. Let's see it.

******
For the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism
Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.

And if you don't like the liberally biased wiki, how about Conservapedia?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Cronyism
Cronyism is a form of political patronage where close friends (or cronies) of those in power are given favors, appointments or awarded contracts without regard for their qualifications or merit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cronyism
cro·ny·ism (kro'ne-iz'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.

Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cronyism
Partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

Are we clear?