nkreed

All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position. Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case. Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.

Like everything there is a balance to this statement. Basing employment solely on how students perform sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't factor in multiple variables. How many students are in the class? What's the average grade across country, the state, the county,the district, the school? How many students are receiving services in the classroom or being pulled from the classroom? These attributes play a key part in how a teacher may "score" from year to year. Case in point is Common Core, where a vast majority of testing scores went down. In this example it's obviously not just the teachers fault. However, imagine a classroom where special needs students doubles in a year. Would this teachers' students not perform as well on tests as a result? How about an administrator who doesn't like a teacher (cause in any place of employment this never happens) purposely puts low performers in that teachers classroom? The proposed formulas don't factor this in at all. Lastly, instead of being ignorant to the stringent rules Unions must adhere to, how about you understand why members pay dues, and what members can do to about the dues that go towards political causes. (IMO, if you don't want to pay the dues in a union, then you shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of membership. That means no representation in grievances, you negotiate your own salary, you are fully on your own. But "Right to Work" states say that you shouldn't be forced to pay dues, but can reap all rewards of the Union, including pay raises and representation in grievances (required federal law). But you chose not contribute to the organization that is protecting your rights as a worker...hmmm sounds like conservatives legislatively bankrupting Unions to me.)

How great on the surface. Lets forget that poor kids will have really not be given the opportunities to get better education, students with disabilities will be left behind and that the public schools will be forced to pay for it anyway. Poor kids will not have the opportunity to move to a different school because outreach of these programs doesn't reach poor communities. Whether it be purposeful deceit (by government) or sheer lack of resources, it will disproportionately affect those from poorer neighborhoods. Students with disabilities will not be required to be taught at different schools (especially if they are private). Either the private school won't have the resources to provide for disabilities or they won't pay for it (it is privatization after all). The bill is still coming from the taxpayers. No matter how we look at it, the taxpayers in the community pay for it. So if most of the students bus to a different district, then you close the schools in the neighborhood, leaving behind no community gathering place. Kids spend more time at school and a substantial amount of time on buses. There is no educational savings as a result and people in a community without a school are just going to get mad they pay taxes for no schools. These are just my initial thoughts, since no plan is without it's downfalls.

They were asked to give their responses. Every single generation thinks it's kids and parents are inferior to themselves.

One last inside for Carpenter? Prob not

What is this?

Screw it. Dynamite the damn team.

100 percent correct

If you rewind to the made Carpenter kick, you can clearly hear the whistle blow to start the 25 second clock. Just before the clock expired...

If you watch the Bills D, actually quite often...

76 yard punt return by Reggie Bush. (Did that fill all of your requests?)

https://youtu.be/98o1bi7MIoQ

Roughing the passer? Where's Hochuli when you need him?

They are really seeing if Gronkowski can run with the ball...

Keep an eye on that storm. A wrong wind gust and it comes to you. Stay safe while partaking in this sh!+ show

I'm pretty sure there were a ton of calls by Ed Hoculi because head of officials Dean Blandino was in attendance. This was said in the Bills broadcast multiple times. That would also explain the 2 roughing the passer penalities on the Bills. (I do agree with the one where the defender landed on the QB's head. I don't agree with the way they enforced that call)

He wanted to make sure the QB was down do he could make the late hit call he made. Otherwise it would have been part of the sacking of the QB

Are all PFs an auto 1st? I don't think they are...

He could have had a 60 yarder there

Thanks for the .gif 26CB! So we are all in agreement that simultaneous catch is out, correct? So this rule is what states if the above play is a catch. Need to pass A, B and C. A- The ball is controlled by the receivers hands. Not once does the ball move from his hands, even during the hand fighting by the DB. (at least from what is seen in the .gif) B- Clearly he has control (from A) and has a 2 steps in bounds. C- The football move aspect. Here is the gray area of the rule, as Bandit cited: A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps The keyword in this rule, to me is the -OR- -Avoiding or warding off impending contact - Fails -Tucking the ball away - Fails -Turning up field - Fails -Taking additional steps - Passes, Little takes 2 mores steps after control is gained. Yes, the ball is contested at this point, but its not a simultaneous catch, he is able to move forward by taking steps and is dragging the defender with him. IMO, the football move (per the NFL's rules) is the taking of additional steps after control and two feet. Again, as has been said way too many times, this rules stinks and is open to a ton of interpretation.

It seems as if your own statement would support it as a catch then. He initially catches the ball without contest, has control and the instant his 2nd foot is down is the time when the DB gets a hand on the ball. This is a catch in any other part of the field, and possibly even down by contact. But in the NFL, this is not a touchdown... This league has some pretty messed up rules.

I'll hazard a guess that the stadium will be New Era Field @ the Ralph"

There is no real connection to that rail line as of now. At least, not within walking distance of downtown.

It's an entirely different kind of job.

Striker....Striker?...Striker!!!