The Future of NYC Publik Skools
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in "Law" of the Land, Idiotarians2:46 am
As one might have predicted if it hadn’t been so bloody obvious that it would have been like predicting the rise of the sun in the East tomorrow, the left are busy rallying around Judge Taylor and her questionable ethics regarding conflict of interest. One rather amusingly asinine defense is posted by a “future New York City English teacher”, the daftness of which His Majesty will now mercilessly mock (no, not really. We’ll be going easy on her. We’ve never been called a “right-wing hyena” before, and innovation always leads to extra credits in the Empire):
I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar,
No, you’re not, and neither are we. But we do have at least a basic grasp of common sense and logic as well as the English language, something that you obviously don’t have, as we shall soon see.
but this seems like more than a bit of a stretch to me — although that isn’t stopping the right-wing hyenas from jumping all over it.
First point: Judicial Watch is a conservative organization, as they clearly state on their own website (see About Us). Obviously, that does not necessarily mean they are inaccurate or unfair in their conclusions about conflicts of interest, but it does mean what they say should not be accepted at face value.
Alrighty then.
If what you’re trying to say, dear future schoolmarm, is that one should always be critical of one’s sources, then you’ll get no disagreement from us. However, that point would have gotten across much better by you choosing the right words and stringing them together in a fashion that would leave a reasonably intelligent person with the impression that it was, in fact, what you were trying to say, something you woefully fail to do.
You see, one hugely important part of source critiquing is to separate opinion from fact. Unless, of course, you’re trying to say that if JW were to state that the sun would set in the west, then it couldn’t be taken at face value. But nobody, not even a future NYC English teacher, could possibly be that dumbfoundingly dense.
So let’s look at what the JW is actually saying, shall we?
Judge Taylor found in favor of the plaintiff — FACT.
The plaintiff in this case was, among others, the ACLU of Michigan — FACT.
Judge Taylor serves as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and said organization donated, from 2003 to 2004, $45,000 to the ACLU of Michigan — FACT.
What of the above “cannot be taken at face value”, o enlightened one?
If your answer is “none of it”, then we have at least a modicum of hope for your future students and we’ll not have to lose too much sleep worrying about the fate of The Children™.
Of course, it also means that your first point — isn’t one.
True, you may not think that the above constitutes “conflict of interest”, but that’s your opinion which, given your political leanings and natural bias, can’t be taken at face value. Just as His Imperial Majesty’s opinion that it does constitute conflict of interest can’t be taken at face value, given our political leanings.
But that hardly matters here, does it? The facts are what they are, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Watch’s political leanings. Unless you’re suggesting that they’ve made them all up, in which case it would then be incumbent upon you to provide evidence of such.
Wonderful. You’ve just utterly wasted an entire paragraph saying absolutely nothing of value and calling it a “point.”
As a result, we rule that you lose the down and get a 10 yard penalty, with the added warning that you’ll be operating the Gatorade cooler for the rest of the game unless you do better.
Second, and more to the point,
We’ll settle for you getting within the same area code of the actual point this time, and call it an improvement of galactic proportions if you do.
is the precise nature of the conflict of interest JW is claiming exists in Judge Taylor’s case:
[Quote of JW citing the immutable facts of the case snipped for brevity — Emp.M.]
If being the secretary and trustee of a local community organization that gave money to the ACLU constitutes a conflict of interest for ruling on the NSA warrantless surveillance program, then how would one characterize Justice Antonin Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from hearing the case in which the White House was refusing to turn over documents that related to Dick Cheney’s conduct as head of the Energy Task Force in 2001, despite the fact that Scalia and Cheney had hunted and dined together just weeks earlier?
Ferchrissakes, you daft bint, what in the name of Be’elzebub’s left testicle does that have to do with anything? Are we talking about Judge Taylor’s behavior and whether her actions constitute a conflict of interest here or not, or have we already regressed to the point where you stomp your feet, bang your sippy cup against the table of your high chair and cry “they did it too, WAAAAAAAH!”
Must you Lefty Frequent Fliers on the Short Bus of Life™ constantly refuse to address the issue by pointing to a different one, trying to justify one alleged wrong by mentioning another, or is it possible to just once get you to stick to the subject for more than five minutes?
A rhetorical question, we know, but still…
Listen, future English teacher, if you wish to debate the propriety of Antonin Scalia not recusing himself from a 2004 case in which he’d dined with the defendant, then by all means. Find somebody who’s willing to dive into ancient history and go over that one with you again, just don’t bother us with it. Because it has absolutely nothing, zilch, zip and nada to do with the present case.
Stick to the point, if you can. Does or doesn’t Judge Taylor’s largesse toward a plaintiff in a case that she presided over constitute conflict of interest? It really is that simple. It’s not like we’re asking you to walk and chew gum at the same time. After all, let’s not be unreasonable in our demands here.
Edward Lazarus wrote an article at Findlaw — a highly respected legal research site — at the time of the Scalia-Cheney recusal controversy about why Scalia should have recused himself and was wrong not to. Scalia actually boasted about how proud he was that he had not recused himself: […blah, blah, blippety-blah and she never once returns to the present — Emp.M.]
*Sigh*
Very well then. Off to your room. You’re in time out and don’t even think about bothering the grownups again until you’ve figured out how to put together an actual argument.
Poor kids. Poor, innocent kids of NYC.
One word: Homeschool.
Entries (RSS)
Well, I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar -
but I guess this alleged future NY English teacher is using ‘Lefty Jurisprudence’ to judge this case, which is very simple really:
Good for America = Unconstitutional / illegal
Bad for America (especially if borrowed from Euro-socialists) = constitutional / legal imperative.
This way we get a ‘living document’ that means absolutely nothing. When the law means nothing and everything can be fudged, every case is a test case and those righteous crusaders (or is it Jihadists?) for justice get to charge by the hour. Roll up and try your luck on the ‘litigation lottery’: where the judges’ rulings land, no-one knows…
What a great way for lawyers to generate business: soon they will account for the entirety of the US GDP.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 amWell those folks who let on publically that they are clueless and apparently proud of it are doing the rest of us a favor…
One other obvious thing struck me about this teacher, its obvious New York city has some very low standards when it comes to hiring teachers…
When it comes to Kathy Kattenburg she’s lucky that there was a teacher’s position open… Otherwise she’d be wearing a paper hat and asking someone, “Would you like fries with that meal sir?“
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 amRemind me, please, to be more careful about checking the links. That picture of this woman could be used by BC in place of some of his horrid photo’s.
*shudder*
I WAS thinking about getting some breakfast…
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 amIt’s easy to pin her down with the Scalia example. Scalia is one of 9 justices who ruled on the case, and there was a clear majority ruling without Scalia’s involvement (although he concurred with part of the ruling, and dissented with part). Ms. Taylor (not worthy of the title Judge) was a singular jurist ruling on the case.
She also fails to mention this story that appeared in the NY Slimes on August 19th. In the article, some legal experts questioned her reasoning in the ruling she issued. Of course, no one would ever accuse a liberal judge of concocting new standards of proof, or finding previously-hidden fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:30 am“…then we have at least a modicum of hope for your future students and we’ll not have to lose too much sleep worrying about the fate of The Children™.”
Emperor, those kids are hosed already. A lass I once was involved with recently became a NYC public school system English teacher, after spending roughly ten years bouncing around in the City University of NY, from which the bulk of the K-12 teaching staff is drawn.
Every single “A” she earned the five concurrent years we were together was courtesy of me editing the living shit out of her papers before they were handed in.
If my little bimbo–a stone idiot who couldn’t even grasp the simple concepts presented in Strunk & White’s “Elements of Style”–could clear the certification process and land a gig teaching freshman year high school English, and this biddy is still working on it, well, like I said, the kids who end up sitting in her classroom are hosed; utterly fucking doomed, brother.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 amDitto LC Will…We don’t put our picture on our website because somewhere someone is either just waking up or just going to sleep. And _we_ actually love our fellow man.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 amSuch a bizzzarre relationship with reality, and she’s shaping young minds.. tsk.
Anyhoo, ‘Don’t need to be a lawyer to see how the appeals process for The Case shouldn’t be very tedious with all the judge’s money-support-connections paper trail to the aclu.
‘Don’t have to be a lawyer or a scoundrel to know that.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:39 amAwww, the big bag judge made you guys weeeeal angwwwy didn’t shee?!
LOL. This is completely meaningless, fools. Go find another non-issue to start frothing at the mouth about…
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:50 amInteresting exposè on your level of intellect, Chilly.
Come back and comment after this is reversed and we’ll give you your lollipop back.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:33 amTakes out Rott-issue ClueBat…
Well, no. I reserve angry for terrorists, traitors and such. People like this judge, the future teacher and now you get derision and scorn. That should be obvious to anyone with a room-temperature or higher IQ (which admittedly leaves you out).
Ah, a skein of truth here, the judge’s ruling is indeed meaningless. The administration will continue as they have been, and her edict will be slapped down as being based on fancy instead of legal precedent.
Frothing at the mouth? In your dreams, jackass, a sneer is all that this deserves. Your screed barely makes it to that category.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:36 amIt’s tempting to mark this schoolmarm imbecility down to Lefty dogma, but in truth pedagogy has always attracted more than its fair share if the terminally confused, the cement-headed righteous, and the militantly mediocre. A dip into H. L. Mencken’s autobiographical and social writings is most instructive in this regard. The old boy was not very happy with the traditional schooling methods of his time (which he referred to as ‘dirt pedagogy’), but being deeply suspicious of uplift he also had little patience with the Progressive efforts toward educational reform.
In other words, yes this is the opinion of a Lefty twit with a head of solid biscuit, but kicking her type out of the public schools will probably only result in their being replaced with their political opposites; Right wing morons. There are some, you know, and given a chance they would screw up society just as badly as the Lefties want to - just in a different direction. The major difference between Right and Left in this regard is that - for the moment - when the Right Wing nits start to yammer we tell them to sit down and shut up until the grownups are done. The Left lionizes THEIR twerps.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:58 amOh thanks alot bud!
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 amI click on the nutjob’s webpage and Christ!
Not only is she in the the river of Da Nile, but she’s got a head like a bastard rat.
What in the hell were her folks thinking?
#3 LC Wil !!!!!
Given you know that this:
would happen anyway. Why mention it, on the off-chance he would miss it?
Hmmmm??? Now we ALL get to see endless variations of HT, Reno and NYC wannabe Skool Teechur “in flagrante delicto“.
Thanks…for nuttin’
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 amSomeone should set her up with Deb Frisch. There is a quote on her site from a Eugene V. Debs. Hmmmmm.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 am[…] And she’s a future English teacher, of course. I would reply to her babble, but why reinvent the wheel? […]
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:10 amWell, after reading the comments, I clicked on the link to see the pic in question, figuring you might have been exaggerating.
How wrong I was…
Another brainless lib making a comparison where virtually none exists. Ho hum.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:13 amWhat is it about Liberalism that not only robs the unfortunate lemmings that get tangled in the web of their abilitity to see reality, but also robs them of their looks? The sourest, ugliest and most miserable people in the world are Moonbats. That fact alone should scare people away in droves.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:40 amChances are that the replacement will be leftish too.
I’ll take my chances, and be much better off.
Do you really think there’s a glut of conservatives in the lounge waiting to replace looney left flameouts?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:41 amMrs. M:
Liberalism was invented to give ugly people a way to get attention…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:44 amYou got the “chicken and the egg” problem here the wrong way around.
They’re attracted to liberalism by youthful ignorance, idealism and good intentions (I know I was) and stuck within its web by incompetence, lack of success in life and/or bad looks. They try to make up for that by forcing everybody else to give them what they could never hope to achieve on their own: wealth redistribution and power in the form of government jobs for which no actual qualifications are required, as well as recognition and respect by having society declare that they are “beautiful, normal and special” rather than earning it by the merits of their behavior.
Thus liberalism is the journey from altruism and generosity (youth) to selfishness and greed (adult Moonbat).
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:49 amThe Moonbat Genesis Chapter 1:
And we wonder why he is the Emperor..he can do it in one sentence.
And a fine, foul foul form his Nastines is in, I might add. You have our attention, please expound.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:02 pmWhen I was in college all the liberals I knew only wanted a piece of my dime bag, a smoke from my pack of Marlboros and access to my refrigerator and couch.
I think the liberals I knew skipped the journey and went straight to the destination.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:04 pmI thank you for the kind words and, should it be needed, I most certainly will.
True. Some are born natural selfish pricks and thus never really go through the phase of genuine “can’t everybody just get along?” youthful idealism, they just use it (as do the mature Moonbats) as a club to whack the dimwitted among their opponents over the head with.
“I just want everybody to have food and a roof over their head, you selfish conservative bastard! (and I want to pay for it with YOUR money, because I don’t have any).”
That sort of thing.
The other point is that you’re referring to college-age Moonbats. By that stage in their development, most Moonbats will have already reached the realization that they’ll never amount to much of anything on their own, which is why most of them will enroll in poli-sci, gender studies and similar programs where no actual skills are required and they hand out degrees for merely attending occasionally.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:50 pmMy point was that there seems to be something about pedagogy that attracts mediocrity, of whatever political stripe, so that if you eliminate the mediocre Left what fills the gap will likely be (or at the very least include) the mediocre right.
I’m not saying that all teachers are stupid. I’ve both had and seen wonderful teachers who lived to instill a permanent love of learning in their students. The problem is that they are always grossly outnumbered by pathetic hacks.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 pmI think there are many Moonbats who are not selfish and greedy. But instead they have been deluded by those who are selfish and greedy. Quite a few of them (I’d bet even this clown) genuinely think that redistribution will overcome poverty and give people hope. The reason they believe this is because selfish, greedy assholes like Klintoon, his “wife,” Mr. Eeeearrgh, and “Father of Many” Rev. Jackson use their naivete to their advantage.
But as you say, most are greedy jerks who use a singular goal (racial, gender, or homosexual equality for the most part) as a reason to vote Dem. But the Dems don’t really care about those goals, they just care about the votes. True Dems simply want more money into their pockets through gov’t corruption, and hopeless entitlement to the system.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:23 pmYou are right Sire, but I should have posted that as a statement and not a question. I think what I was trying to point out (hell I haven’t had enough caffeine yet) is that Liberalism sucks the life out of a person. You can look in their eyes and see that there’s nothing there. Even those that dance around the fringes find themselves growing more and more miserable. Losing any hope and joy for life. Maybe I’m just trying to reconcile in my mind how someone can live with such hate, misery, and loathing, becoming not only uglier physically, but emotionally and mentally, and not blow their freaking brains out after about 6 months of it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 pmOh, and from http://donthiredeb.blogspot.com just to update you folks.
Frisch is at it again concerning legal matters. First, Jeff G files a restraining order in Colorado. In the middle of her breakdown, she decided to go after all those that ‘wronged’, especially her former coworkers in Oregon. Well, she fucked up and got charged with stalking and telephone harassment in Oregon.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:07 pmHeh.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 pmSeems to me that Scalia’s decision to rule on a case in which the defendant, Dick Cheney, was Scalia’s close personal friend, was a far clearer and more direct conflict of interest than is belonging to an organization that gave money to the ACLU while ruling on the legality of a warrantless surveillance program.
Did I miss something here? Was there supposed to be some kind of proof or foundation or justification for the foregoing, before the “seems to me” part? Something besides the quote from law.com?
This isn’t too far off from a question I kept asking myself while reading Judge Diggs Taylor’s decision: Yeah, I understand what your opinion is, but from whence did you get it?
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:38 pmSpankedWilly, I’ll refer you to Comment #18 for your Inaugural ClueClubbing o’ Doom™.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 pmHmmm, I wonder if on can see Kathy Kattenburg in this video: Manic Moonbats on Parade?
August 24th, 2006 at 8:53 amI think this can be distilled a bit further: most are greedy jerks who use emotional manipulation to get the uncritical to vote Dem.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThese same bastards almost destroyed my daughter growing up…..as of late its been my turn. They failed with her, mom and dad showing her a different way. Now, and I perform this act with great joy….I often write for the local paper here. And I roast these fuckers alive, lefty teachers, administrators and counselors.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:18 pmFolks commenting have generally one thing to say…moonbats aside.
“He tells it like it is…..”
Now it’s my turn, assholes…….