Monroe wrote:
Teachers are fired 'all the time' with tenure? I'll let you produce a link to support your claim. I'm not bothering to look it up, but I recall something like less than 10 teachers per year losing tenure-and that was usually due to a criminal issue, not from being a horrible teacher. But I'd love to see you support your statement.

As far as the election, Christie could have appointed a replacement for the rest of Lautenberg's term, but he chose not to do so. In the sense of bi-partisanship, he moved to let the people decide as fast as possible. Imagine the bleating if he'd put a Republican in till the next scheduled election!

And progress? Bi-partisan reforms in pension, tenure, healthcare-when did a NJ Governor accomplish anything remotely like this?

In any case, today Democrats will join with Republicans to re-elect a Red Governor in an overwhelmingly Blue state. Which will make the looney left type Dems feeling mighty blue indeed!

nyrgravey9 wrote:
+1000. Unfortunately NYC is about to get a rude awakening. While they're all upset over the extremely inconsequential soda band, they're about to revert back 30 years to Dinkins era NYC.

NJ has indeed progressed under Christie, and despite a huge backwards step in Booker, will thankfully continue forward.

The entire concept of teacher tenure is MADNESS. Anyway we can do away with this?

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
"Tired of you people"
Would this suggest Christie is tired of all educators ? Maybe the root problem to our education system and standards IS Christie !

No he's tired of people being unaccountable for their job performance, unlike in the private sector. While his tenure reforms were a huge step forward (given that it would have been unthinkable under a Democrat) he did have to compromise (something also unthinkable to a Democrat) to get that accomplished in a bi-partisan manner.

Which is why he scares the liberal loonies so much-his reforms make bi-partisan sense.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
If you ignore the fact that the public schools have to deal with poverty, single parents with multiple kids, parents that don?t care, and on and on?

borisp wrote:

Of course I do. Do you know why? Because we are talking FUNDING.

And the "facts" that you mentioned I ignore, - can not be fixed by funding. Unless you propose we BUY them better parents, - an attempt to bring those "facts" in the dialogue is a misdirection on your part.
Quote:

Well, yeah, money sort of can buy new parents. You setup post-school activities to keep the students active. One kid plays football, another soccer, another draws, another writes, another plays tennis? options. Money allows for options. If you limit the funds, you don?t have the money necessary to spend on a program that may only draw about 3 students.

[quote]
Pebble wrote:
How are you talking about salaries? Not a single argument for more spending is based on giving the same people more money. That?s about as absurd a strawman argument as I?ve seen.

borisp wrote:

Really?

Well then it makes it much easier.

All you need to teach is a building, a blackboard and a piece of chalk. Worked fine for me.

You can't tell me that a dry-erase board or any other thing you mentioned is a necessity. It is not. It is a luxury. In other words, it is something that you buy when you have an excess of money that you know not how else to waste. Not something you buy in the time of deficit.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Kids who come to school hungry cannot learn. Connect the dots.

Why do I need to connect the dots if I went to school myself? In my school in the USSR they did offer us breakfast, but it was so bad that we rarely ate it. You certainly wouldn't have. Didn't stop me from being educated.

Second, schools, kids and breakfasts were not invented yesterday. How come we are still trying to solve this puzzle? I am pretty sure that by now we have tried everything and if there were any educational benefits to be found in the school cafeterias they were found years ago.

Stop hoping that you can find some magical solution in providing better nutrition, or in switching to dry erase from chalk, or in smaller class sizes and all that.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

VoteForExcellence wrote:
First of all, please vote on November 5th!

....

Ms. Lester spearheaded WIFI access for every school,
.......

Am I reading the budget right, that school wifi costs $1.6m/year? Could we not negotiate a better deal - like something closer to FREE?

http://www.boarddocs.com/nj/jcps/Board.nsf/Public ref: Minutes - Public Hearing on the Budget - March 26, 2012.pdf

dtjcview wrote:
To paraphrase Pebble - "Schools need more money". Bankrupt idea in more ways than one. Why aren't we talking Kindles instead of books, webcams and wifi instead of seats, teamspaces instead of dry erase boards...?

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

nemobeatz wrote:
I guess they're more of an outdoor antique market? I know for a fact that they have outside vendors there though. There's contact info on pacificflea.com if you're interested.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
So is this a flea market where people go and sell what they have or is this an antique shop?

This looks really cool, and I'm looking forward to checking it out - thanks for the post!

BTW - any suggestions on the best way to get there from the Heights via mass-transit? Google maps suggests HBLR to LSP. Oh, and I mentioned this to a friend who lives in Manhattan who cautioned about bed-bugs. He is probably fishing for any excuse not to leave the island, but is there anything to that?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
That isn?t ?all you need to know.? If you ignore the fact that Hudson doesn?t actually have a special needs program?

It?s like comparing apples to andirons.

a
Special needs is not that significant percentage of the overall spending. Unless, of course, you use "special needs" as a place where the school would push off all the students who lag behind.

borisp wrote:

How is this an argument?

First, I was talking about the salaries, not the contents of the programs and testing methodology. And my statement stands, - if they tell us that they need more money to hire more expensive people, - that may be fine. If they tell us that if we give more money to the same people they will deliver, - it is not fine at all. It means those people knowingly and intentionally do not do their jobs properly.

Second, on the subject of should we tell them what to do, - sorry, you are wrong too. Plumber or teacher, - it matters not. They sell a service. We buy that service. If they do not want to sell the service that we, consumers, require, - they should pursue other opportunities.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

One can reasonably argue that there is waste in the school system and that it should not require $20,000+ per student to get the education we get. (Although most critics, when pushed for specifics, can tell interesting anecdotes but point to very little in specific line items that could be eliminated from the budget without affecting education).

Sorry, but don't care. If you buy cucumbers, you do not need to tell the farmer how to budget the process. All you need to know that if one farmer offers good cucumbers for 14, and another offers bad ones for 20, you should not be buying from the second one.

Hudson school's tuition is about 14K a year, so this is all you need to know.

borisp wrote:Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

Nevertheless, the requirement that the state put additional moneys into urban schools to a) guarantee an adequate education and b) ensure that urban municipalities are not crushed by unsustainable property tax burdens, is a sound one. For all the hating on the system, people seem to forget the truly desperate state of the schools before Abbot v. Burke.

There is nothing sound about it.

This would have been sound if they said something like, - "give us more funds and we will fire everyone, and hire some other, better people who are more expensive".

This is not what they are saying.

Imagine you hire a plumber and you are not happy with his work. There are leaks, faucets are dented, paint on the chromed details... So, you tell him that you are not happy, and he responds that if only you pay him more, everything would be better.

What would your reaction be?

Yep, you are going to figure out that this is an extortion.

terrencemcd wrote:
Jersey City due in court to argue for marrying gay couples starting Monday

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City is set to appear in Hudson County Superior Court this afternoon in hopes of receiving permission to begin marrying gay couples on Monday.

Mayor Steve Fulop is an advocate for same-sex marriage, and already has two couples lined up to perform marriages for on Monday.

READ MORE

dtjcview wrote:
The JJ map of homicides in JC is worth linking:

JC 2013 Homicide map

Yvonne wrote:
Sadly, you do not understand Roman Numbers, 11 stands for 2 not eleven, our country uses Roman Numbers when referring to the different wars. If you don't understand Roman numbers, I doubt if you understand the complex issue of freedom of speech which gives citizens the right to practice their religion without government interference. Of course you are bigoted against Catholics, it is obvious anyone who goes to you is a lapse, or former Catholic. You are attacking a basic sacrament, there are seven sacraments, one being marriage which according to my religion is between a man and woman. Let me education you, here is another example of World War 11, not eleven. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/648813/World-War-II

Yvonne wrote:
We live in a mult-cultural and religious society. There are different norms for religion. Even during World Wars 1 and 11, our government made allowances for religion and did not draft men base on religious objections. We know what happened in Ocean Grove, NJ, a Methodist Church was sued, lost their tax exemption, on their pavilion because they would not allow a same sex union. Why should I be forced to believe something I don't? Basically, people are being punished for following their faith, isn't that why the Pilgrims came here, to follow their faith. Pebble, I notice how you use the word 'bigotry' because I don't think the way you think. I could also say you are a bigot because you think I should not adhere to my Catholic faith. Canon law 1050 in the Catholic Church defines marriage between one man and one woman. The bigotry you have against my faith unfortunately leads to consequences. Catholic Institutions have been target and one church was threaten with fire for following their beliefs. There should be exemptions to any new law based on religion, if not then hatred especially against the Catholic Church will follow, probably to your delight.
http://massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/

I am amazed by the number of people that have the opinion that Judge Jacobson was legislating from the bench. She was clearly acting well within her authority to declare New Jersey's current marriage law unconstitutional. She did not write a new law. She merely ruled that the old law violate provisions of federal law and was unenforceable.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way endorsing Lonegan. Only a mentally deficient invalid would run on a pro life platform in NJ.

We're absolutely f*cked either way.

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
not the biggest booker fan but to vote for a homophobic bigot...booker has to REALLY MESS UP

neverleft wrote:
I am a Lonegan supporter so take my review with a grain of salt.

Lonegan really schooled Booker. Booker?s answers sounded way too scripted like the ones he uses on the campaign stump. He also kept saying ?tea party? and extreme? over and over. Lonegan came across more natural in answering the questions. Very honest he didn?t sound scripted.

Watch for yourselves on Sunday morning 11:00am channel 7.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
It's too bad the voters of NJ don't care about substance, neverleft.

I'm hoping against hope, but this state has no hope.

dtjcview wrote:
Pebble

What's the problem, time? Cost? Mileage? Numbers on google maps not work for you? Traffic goes slower on local streets west of 78, but obeys google's numbers east of 78?

And why isn't a new on-ramp, at say Columbus, a better option? You'd prefer to dodge the line at the Holland by cutting through local streets instead of using 78? You'd rather lobby for the right to drive thru downtown, than lobby for better 78 access and solutions to tailbacks at the tunnel?

Speed cameras, yes. Stop sign cameras, yes. More enforcement, yes. Proposed traffic calming, yes. Pedestrian plazas on residential streets such as Erie and Manila, yes.

Less speeders and traffic volume, yes please.

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
How about this?

1. The city puts speed humps (not bumps) along local streets that are frequently used as a cut through. It works in Hoboken on Clinton street to slow people down. Trust me, if you hit those at 25 mph once you'll never do it again.

2. Police step up enforcement of existing laws re: yielding to pedestrians in cross walks. I remember there was a ticket blitz some months ago with undercover cops posing as pedestrians; then ticketing drivers down the block who didn't yield. Increase fines and points as well. Extra money for the city to fund more enforcement.

3. Speed cameras on Grand and Columbus. The speed cameras on Queens Blvd have helped to slow down the traffic a lot. Plus the speed cameras can generate money to fund the speed humps and more red light/ speed cameras in other areas.

4. Random speed traps set up on secondary streets where people are known to speed. If you publicize this is going on I'm sure it will help to slow some people down. Again more money generated for the city.



One thing I think we all need to realize is the volume of people driving through the DTJC is only going only going to get worse, especially with all the new high rise, high density condos being built. What we need to focus on is how can we slow people down to make it a safe environment for everyone. Pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

dtjcview wrote:
Get it right Pebble.

Speeding commuters kill people. Not cars = death.

Speeding commuters should not be on residential streets. Not cars banished

And compare the routes you mentioned using mapquest or google maps. 1-5 mins extra time at worst going through 78 junction 14B instead of downtown, not 15 mins. And a new on-ramp at LSC or Columbus would make the commute faster.

dtjcview wrote:

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
....
I never argued in favor of speeding. You have my quote in your post, please, point out exactly where I argue that paying taxes allows people to speed.

Route 78 isn?t always the best route. Columbus might be solid. I know that Montgomery and Grand is often used, based on proximity. I?ve not tried to drive in that direction of the extended spur of the Turnpike, but is that portion a toll road?

In short, I?m just trying to grasp where you think cars should just be banished from the roads entirely. There has to be a middle ground where drivers can still get to where they are going, without taking a half an hour to get out of the city, and commuters can be safe reaching the train in a timely manner.

....and I never argued that cars should be banished entirely. However, we've seen the consequences of commuters using local streets as a cut through: speeding and pedestrian deaths. Local commuter access to streets should never take priority over neighborhood safety, and if drivers are inconvenienced by being forced to slow or change route, tough.

The "middle" ground for your specific example was to improve connections to 78E, and make it the best route to the Holland Tunnel for traffic coming from the south. It would be much better to have on ramps to 78E at LSC and/or Columbus, than the existing plan to build a bridge between Philip St and Jersey Ave, and feed LSP/commuter traffic through downtown.

There is an on-ramp to 78E near Bayview Ave, which is probably a faster option from Bergen-Lafayette to the tunnel most of the time, and the toll is likely cents.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I?ll preface this by saying that I don?t live Downtown and I do use the PATH to commute. I know people in my area that drive into The City to go to work and, having been in the car with them, I know how they drive.

A lot of people have this misconception that those who drive are doing so out of ?laziness? or some other reason. Personally, I like taking the train. I like reading my book. I also like walking a little bit to and from the station as a small means of exercise.

Others, however, are not fans. I have a friend that doesn?t ride the train because she has unpleasant experiences. Either from gropers in a packed car and you can?t find where those hands are coming from to just not enjoying the feeling of being packed in like sardines. There is also the aspect of being able to run errands while on the way home, if you are in a car. My friend lives close and she drives through Downtown to get to the Holland because driving south west in order to go east is not efficient.

Everybody is a little different in their preferred method of commuting. The streets and sidewalks are all paid for by the tax dollars of those that live around here. Adjusting the roads in such a way that people can?t drive on them is social engineering. I don?t oppose making it safer, but making it impossible to drive through downtown under a nebulous idea of preventing out-of-towners seems wrong. I don?t believe those cutting through Downtown are out-of-towners. I think a lot of them are Bergen-Lafayette residents that see a very direct route. (Remember, there isn?t great mass transit options. The light rail, round trip plus PATH round trip, isn?t that much different in cost than the Holland Tunnel.)

I definitely think a middle ground can be met. I don?t have the answer myself, but I know it isn?t in the one-sided ideas proposed here.

dtjcview wrote:
On-ramps to 78E at LSC and/or Columbus might be a better answer for Bergen-Lafayette residents wanting to get to the Holland tunnel? Plus perhaps solving congestion at the tunnel, instead of pushing traffic on to local streets?

Also, paying local taxes doesn't give anyone the right to speed through local neighborhood streets and kill people. So I'm not sure I see your point.

neverleft wrote:
From nj.com comments ..

Quote:

Palin said during Booker's tenure in Newark, "unemployment nearly doubled, taxes skyrocketed, and violent crime increased."

"But in fairness, Newark Mayor Cory Booker may not have noticed these facts between his constant tweeting and trips to Hollywood," she quipped.

** **
Two shot and killed in separate Newark shootings overnight

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/201 ... ernight.html#incart_river

borisp wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
(we have a few Booker threads so here is an interesting one on Lonegan)

Lonegan opens up about his blindness

By Salvador Rizzo/The Star-Ledger
on September 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM,
updated September 25, 2013 at 4:52 PM

LAWRENCE ? Going blind after college, Steve Lonegan couldn?t land a job.

He collected disability checks from Social Security, which he now wants to cut, and was told to seek food stamps, rent vouchers and vocational training.

?Vocational training back in 1980 meant putting together toasters or making potholders and things like that,? Lonegan told a crowd of students and fans last night at Rider University. ?I chose not to pursue that course.?

full nj.com piece...


http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... dness.html#incart_m-rpt-1

You seem to quote the article quite selectively. Your narrative: Lonegan benefited from social security and now wants to cut it, - what an ass!

While actually the story that the article tells is: Lonegan decided not to go down the use-social-security-goodies road, and made his own way, despite the disability.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

You seem to quote the article quite selectively. Your narrative: Lonegan benefited from social security and now wants to cut it, - what an ass!

Your directing that to reporter Salvador Rizzo from The Star-Ledger right? If you are a Lonegan supporter I hope you are joining the battles over on http://www.nj.com/politics/ . The SL does this all of the time any decent article about Lonegan is filled with little digs from the left leaning SL reporters.

JC_Livin wrote:
I just noticed you said you found the cat a home. In that case, you won't want to use the spay neutering initiative because they will "tip" the ear (cut a little piece off so that trap/neuter/return folks know that cat has been neutered). But the feral cat initiative people can point you in the right direction.

If you have your own transportation, you can get it done here for about $90
http://www.pfaonline.org/spay-neuter/services-fees/
If you don't have transportation, someone at the feral cat initiative can probably help arrange it for you.