The National Education Association and Think Progress have a hard time groking differences:
Last night on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz claimed that teachers unions are "destroying a generation" and are "much more dangerous than al Qaeda." He stated, "Look, Al Qaeda, they could bring in a nuke into this country and kill 100,000 people with a well-placed nuke somewhere. Ok. We would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy, but the teachers unions in this country can destroy a generation." Sean Hannity agreed, noting, "They are ruining our school system." Watch it:
The National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, represents more than 2.7 million of America's teachers and educators. In 2004, then Secretary of Education Rod Paige similarly called the NEA a "terrorist organization." NEA responded to Paige's remarks, saying it is "morally repugnant to equate those who teach America's children with terrorists."
Man, what a listening comprehension problem. The unions are not the same thing as the teachers themselves, who range from abysmally incompetent to extremely gifted instructors (the distinct minority). The stupidity is further compounded by making the accusation that they equated the unions with terrorists, which they did not. This is one of those "you must be this smart to have an opinion" issues. If you cannot see that the comparison was abstract (two ways to damage America) rather than a direct equation, you are clearly too stupid to have an opinion on the matter.
I've said it before and pissed people off for it. The NEA is a worthless institution that parasitically attacks the teaching profession, which is a noble line of work. It has done much to reduce the quality of education by giving unqualified teachers job security that they don't deserve. The results speak for themselves when you talk to the average person whose education is overwhelmingly from the public education system.
I agree that the NEA is not helpful.
However, I think H&C's rhetoric is a bit overheated and breathless, and statements like theirs make it less likely that they'll succeed in getting rid of the NEA...
That is true. I think the terrorism reference may have been a bit gratuitous, but in the abstract their point still stands, even if it does provoke emotional reactions.
The point is on the money. Of course, I feel that way about most Unions. I have little use for them, as they are today.
During the Cold War--& probably today, as well--the NEA consistently took the pro-Communist view. It's far more destructive than most people imagine.