Haim posted Sep 9, 2012 7:02 AM: > > Kirby Urner Posted: Sep 8, 2012 4:50 PM > > >We agree the NEA exists. I had offices in the same > >building once, in DC (I've just returned from said > city, > >though I didn't get in to downtown, saw the > "Exorcist > >steps" in Georgetown at least -- near where my > friend > >EJA used to live). I confirm it exists. > > > >But does it follow that the rest of your analysis is > > >precise? > We always knew the 'NEA' (National Education Association) existed. That has never been denied. What's in doubt is that the NEA is isomorphic to Haim's malign 'Education Mafia'. Ahhh...THAT'S what Haim proposes to prove next... > > One step at a time, Kirby. Some people in this forum > m doubt the existence of the Education Mafia, or so > they say. So let us first establish existence. > Existence of NEA granted. Now comes the proof that the NEA is the 'Education Mafia' (or a major part of it)? > > Now, if the NEA were the only active ingredient in > American public education, I would not call them the > Education Mafia, I would call them the NEA. There are > a few other organizations, whose existence is just as > easily proved, who together constitute the Education > Mafia. But, the NEA is a good place to start. > > OK. I give you that. Anywhere is a good place to start. I had given various suggestions: President Barack Obama; First Lady Michelle Obama; their charming daughters; Haim; Wayne Bishop;....; Paul A. Tanner III; GSC; .... etc, etc, etc. OK, we've fixed on the NEA to start with... > > > Is the Education Mafia necessarily "leftist" and > what > >does that mean? > > Of course leftism does not necessarily follow from > existence. Existence is one issue, leftism another. > RIGHT! GOT THAT! > > >Then lets take Big Publishing. You talk out both > sides > >of your mouth saying leftists are stupid to think in > > >terms of Wall Street or Big Oil, but then invoke > >precisely these entities to bolster your Education > >Mafia idea. > > I said no such thing. I did not say leftists are > e stupid because they think in terms of Wall Street > or Big Oil. I always call leftists stupid. > RIGHT! GOT THAT! > >Even > stupid leftists will eat their vegetables and brush > their teeth before going to bed, so stupid people can > do right things, sometimes. > RIGHT! GOT THAT TOO! > >In this case, they > correctly recognize that whole industries, which are > otherwise comprised of competing entities, can have > certain, industry-wide, common interests. > RIGHT! AND THAT TOO! > > In this recognition, the leftists like to use > use pejorative terms to describe the industry > players. > And Haim, and 'Haimists' do not? I don't quite get that. . >Vaguely threatening terms like "Big Oil" > and "Big Pharma"---evocative of George Orwell's "Big > Brother". When I call the education industry "the > Education Mafia", I am just returning the favor. > OH? Okay. > > It seems that some of our leftist friends do not > not like the taste of their own medicine. \sarcasm > on Imagine my chagrin \sarcasm off. > OK. (Alternative form of "Okay"). > > >I used to work in Rockefeller Center in downtown > >Manhattan for McGraw-Hill. Isn't that kind of close > >to Wall Street, even financially? > > Not by NYC standards, > http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/72-the-world-as-seen- > from-new-yorks-9th-avenue > OK, I leave such geographical issues to you. > > In the NYC cosmology, Rockefeller Center is in > midtown, which is a world apart from downtown > (downtown is congruent to "Wall Street"). > > >Isn't public education a big business? Isn't the > private > >sector hugely invested in the future of public > >education? Look at Texas Instruments. > > Geez guy! That's what I have been trying to tell > ell you for 10 yrs! As I have stated many times, I > tend to focus on the ideologues (ed school > professoriate) and the unions, but there are many, > many other fingers in the education pie. > E.g., dat ol' evil 'UNICORN'! (a.k.a. de 'Education Mafia'). > >There are a > whole lot of people out there with vested interests > in public education as it currently exists. They > make a lot of money off it, and they like things just > the way they are, and they are going to resist > change, if only through sheer inertia, of which there > is an enormous amount. > > Haim > Shovel ready? What shovel ready? > QED? And the above is what is supposed to constitute a "proof", by Haim?
Well, let that put that to M/s Socrates; Pythagoras; Euclid; Poincare; (and others qualified to judge esoterica such as "a proof, by Haim").