Genn Beck wants to abolish public schools? LOL wat?

[Yuri]

(pssst... it's the internet)

 

[No Limit]

I WAS THERE, MAN. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW. I SAW SHIT THAT I'LL NEVER FORGET.

Seriously, guys. Can you try to have a meaningful discussion for once instead of trading loaded questions?

You didn't need to be there, all you need to do is pick up a history book. Unions were created as a direct response to how workers were treated back then. And as a result our country progressed greatly. Now people act as if unions serve no purpose.

And to have a meaningful discussion people need to stop making shit up.

 

[Ridge]

Unions serve little of their original purposes nowadays. Everything they fought for then has been codified into law.

 

[No Limit]

Unions serve little of their original purposes nowadays. Everything they fought for then has been codified into law.

First off you didn't correct any of the things you said, so it was all bullshit as we all suspected? Why do you make stuff up or if you didn't make it up what put those ideas in your head? Rush Limbaugh?

Yes, a lot of things have been put in place legally since unions were made. There are still loop holes to get around many of those laws. But lets be honest here Ridge, you don't think most of those laws should exist. Do you support the minimum wage? No? How about the 40 hour work week?

 

[Ridge]

First off you didn't correct any of the things you said, so it was all bullshit as we all suspected? Why do you make stuff up or if you didn't make it up what put those ideas in your head? Rush Limbaugh?

**** Rush Limbaugh and **** Glenn Beck. I can think for myself, don't need them to do it for me. I don't listen to either. If I wanted to listen to a grown man cry for an hour, there are many other programs available, instead of Beck. Limbaugh is full of himself, and, as far as I'm concerned, is a terrible representation of conservatives.

Yes, a lot of things have been put in place legally since unions were made. There are still loop holes to get around many of those laws. But lets be honest here Ridge, you don't think most of those laws should exist. Do you support the minimum wage? No? How about the 40 hour work week?

Where the **** do you get YOUR talking points. I think many of the laws that exist should be so, but there are some that shouldn't be. I DO support the minimum wage, having worked at it's rate for more than 4 years. I think 40 hour work weeks are fine. If you can get the work done in less, then work less. If you need more time to complete the work, then work more.

What about you?

 

[No Limit]

**** Rush Limbaugh and **** Glenn Beck. I can think for myself, don't need them to do it for me. I don't listen to either. If I wanted to listen to a grown man cry for an hour, there are many other programs available, instead of Beck. Limbaugh is full of himself, and, as far as I'm concerned, is a terrible representation of conservatives.

So the question remains, where did you get the information that teachers made $100,000 a year and that workes in mexico were making $27/hr. Did you just make it up?

Where the **** do you get YOUR talking points. I think many of the laws that exist should be so, but there are some that shouldn't be. I DO support the minimum wage, having worked at it's rate for more than 4 years. I think 40 hour work weeks are fine. If you can get the work done in less, then work less. If you need more time to complete the work, then work more.

What about you?

I don't think those were talking points. I was simply asking you some questions because no offense but you seem like a typical right winger to me. But I guess I was wrong on that, glad you support the minimum wage.

What about me? I say if workers want to unionize let them. If they don't then don't force them (as in the case of Toyota). What is wrong with that?

Also, love the new avatar.

 

[Ridge]

So the question remains, where did you get the information that teachers made $100,000 a year and that workes in mexico were making $27/hr. Did you just make it up?



I don't think those were talking points. I was simply asking you some questions because no offense but you seem like a typical right winger to me. But I guess I was wrong on that, glad you support the minimum wage.

What about me? I say if workers want to unionize let them. If they don't then don't force them (as in the case of Toyota). What is wrong with that?

Also, love the new avatar.

And what is a typical right-winger? You sound like a typical liberal to me...

 

[No Limit]

A typical right winger is someone that spews right wing talking points which are totally made up.

Not sure if you can call me a typical liberal, I support guns and certain other conservative issues. Then again thinking for yourself might be common in a typical liberal .

 

[Ridge]

A typical right winger is someone that spews right wing talking points which are totally made up.

Not sure if you can call me a typical liberal, I support guns and certain other conservative issues. Then again thinking for yourself might be common in a typical liberal .

I apologize, then. I guess you are a less typical left winger...

 

[CptStern]

The GM plants in Mexico are the ones with people making $27/hr. And they're in Mexico because it's cheaper. I wonder what the union members in Detroit or Ohio make...

LOL. this says you're mistaken by a hell of a lot:

GM, Ford Ramp Up Production At Mexico Plants Where Workers Earn $26 Per Day

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/gm-ford-ramp-up-productio_n_606544.html

this is what I mean when I said you pull facts out of the air

Here's an idea, Stern. Instead of making so the only options are Unions and Governments, how about we let the market decide who works there? UAW has been trying for more than 20 years to unionize Toyota. Thus far, they have failed. Turns out the people working for Toyota think things are just fine without a massive bureaucracy involved in their every day lives...

....and? what is it that you're advocating here? that unions be abolished? and who should do the abolishing and subsequent regulating of an entire workforce and industry related workforce? the government that's who I mean who else would ensure the worker isnt exploited. no one else has the resources, the know how or the fundign to make that happen. that means they're going to have to hire a heck of a lot of people to make sure laws and regulations are enforced. all those extra bureaucrats paying lipservice to the fatcats in washington! that's sounds like big government to me!! that sounds like COMMIE TALK TO ME!!!

 

[Ridge]

LOL. this says you're mistaken by a hell of a lot:

GM, Ford Ramp Up Production At Mexico Plants Where Workers Earn $26 Per Day


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/gm-ford-ramp-up-productio_n_606544.html

this is what I mean when I said you pull facts out of the air

Yes, I recently found that article myself, and realized I was wrong.

....and? what is it that you're advocating here? that unions be abolished? and who should do the abolishing and subsequent regulating of an entire workforce and industry related workforce? the government that's who I mean who else would ensure the worker isnt exploited. no one else has the resources, the know how or the fundign to make that happen. that means they're going to have to hire a heck of a lot of people to make sure laws and regulations are enforced. all those extra bureaucrats paying lipservice to the fatcats in washington! that's sounds like big government to me!! that sounds like COMMIE TALK TO ME!!!

I'm not advocating the abolishment of unions. I'm saying that membership should be optional. Right to work states like Michigan are failing, because everything is becoming unionized, driving up costs of production.

And who says that the workforce HAS to be federally regulated? Unlike liberals, I do not find myself begging the government to control and protect every aspect of my life. I'd prefer they leave individuals alone. Their only purpose should be to foster interstate commerce and maintain a military to protect the states.

 

[unozero]

I think it should be easier to fire Teachers especially if they have an open Political bias.

 

[Ridge]

I think it should be easier to fire Teachers especially if they have an open Political bias.

Absolutely.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, I recently found that article myself, and realized I was wrong.

..ya you werent even close

I'm not advocating the abolishment of unions. I'm saying that membership should be optional. Right to work states like Michigan are failing, because everything is becoming unionized, driving up costs of production.

And who says that the workforce HAS to be federally regulated? Unlike liberals, I do not find myself begging the government to control and protect every aspect of my life. I'd prefer they leave individuals alone. Their only purpose should be to foster interstate commerce and maintain a military to protect the states.

so it's back to child labour, hazardous working conditions and 100 hour workweeks. hey isnt that the norm in 3rd world countries where they have NO UNIONS

 

[No Limit]

The funny thing is he was just advocating regulation above, such as the minimum wage and 40 hour work weeks.

I'm not advocating the abolishment of unions. I'm saying that membership should be optional. Right to work states like Michigan are failing, because everything is becoming unionized, driving up costs of production.

Wow, I didn't know there was some potential law out there that would require everyone to unionize. Good thing you are fighting the good fight against laws nobody is proposing.

If you are talking about letting people vote on wether they want to get unionized or not then that's an entirely different position.

 

[Ridge]

so it's back to child labour, hazardous working conditions and 100 hour workweeks. hey isnt that the norm in 3rd world countries where they have NO UNIONS

Like I said earlier. It is against the law to do that now. So EVEN IF all the unions magically dissapeared tomorrow, you wouldnt see kids working in coal mines for a nickel a day on monday...

 

[Ridge]

The funny thing is he was just advocating regulation above, such as the minimum wage and 40 hour work weeks.


Wow, I didn't know there was some potential law out there that would require everyone to unionize. Good thing you are fighting the good fight against laws nobody is proposing.

If you are talking about letting people vote on wether they want to get unionized or not then that's an entirely different position.

I never said there was a law coming to do that. Right to Work states already foster union growth.

Why do you think unions want card check at voting stations? So they know who to strong arm to get the pro-union vote.

 

[Kinslayer]

so it's back to child labour, hazardous working conditions and 100 hour workweeks. hey isnt that the norm in 3rd world countries where they have NO UNIONS

Newsflash: There are more differences between "3rd world countries" and the United States than the absence/presence of labor unions!

 

[Krynn72]

I was, and continue to be at times, and will teach at, you guessed it: public schools. You're an idiot.

Are you talking to me?


Also, for the record, I wasn't saying all unions are stupid and none of them do any good. I think they're a necessary component in keeping good relations and healthy environments between employers and employees.

Teacher's unions in American though have a notorious reputation for being complete cockheads. There are only a few criteria that a teacher must meet in order to be fired. Being a shitty teacher isn't one of them. There are several things they do that flat-out stop many attempts at fixing the public school system, and every time a district tries to revamp their system they meet resistance from Unions over the most trivial causes. Its in the news all the time around here.

Teachers unions don't need to be to be abolish, nobody is saying that. At least, I'm not. But they are so poorly run now that they represent a huge roadblock in any plan to better our public education system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hveAl1M3RIM

 

[No Limit]

Newsflash: There are more differences between "3rd world countries" and the United States than the absence/presence of labor unions!

If you remove all labor regulations in this country within a couple decades we will look no different than those 3rd world countries.

Teacher's unions in American though have a notorious reputation for being complete cockheads. There are only a few criteria that a teacher must meet in order to be fired. Being a shitty teacher isn't one of them. There are several things they do that flat-out stop many attempts at fixing the public school system, and every time a district tries to revamp their system they meet resistance from Unions over the most trivial causes. Its in the news all the time around here.

Teachers unions don't be to be abolish, nobody is saying that. At least, I'm not. But they are so poorly run now that they represent a huge roadblock in any plan to better our public education system.

There are some absoluely absurd stories out there where bad teachers should have been fired but weren't. But I'm not sure I would automatically point my finger at unions. A lot of this has to do with horrible administration too.

In most states teachers are on a probation period for 2 to 5 years. If the teachers are truly bad they could be fired then for any reason at all during that period. A lot of teachers also get blamed for poor performance when that performace is due to shitty administrators.

There are also poor school districts in this country that good teachers don't want to go to, so those districts kind of have to accept shitty teachers or be left with none. This is the problem with funding schools based on property taxes in the area, rich kids get the best teachers, poor kids get the worst.

 

[Ridge]

If you remove all labor regulations in this country within a couple decades we will look no different than those 3rd world countries.

Nobody said remove the regulation.

There are some absoluely absurd stories out there where bad teachers should have been fired but weren't. But I'm not sure I would automatically point my finger at unions. A lot of this has to do with horrible administration too.

Most of the stories I've read had the school firing the teacher, then the union stepping in and fighting to get them re-instated. In fact, the only times I dont hear about the unions objecting are to teachers who have sex with their students.

There are also poor school districts in this country that good teachers don't want to go to, so those districts kind of have to accept shitty teachers or be left with none. This is the problem with funding schools based on property taxes in the area, rich kids get the best teachers, poor kids get the worst.

And it is districts like those that attempt to restructure, and are stonewalled by unions because entire staffs would be changed out, teachers included.

But I do agree that schools are over-staffed in the administrative department. You always hear about pay cuts coming for teachers, while the district supervisor still holds on to their 3 secretaries and armies of duplicate support staffs.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The best thing about Glenn Beck is that he has - and will never have - any real political power whatsoever.

Wishful thinking, I fear.

One of the big stories since Obama’s election a year ago has been the growing power and influence of conservative commentators in shaping the right-wing reaction to the Obama administration. This has been a theme of the American political discourse ever since Rahm Emanuel declared on Face the Nation that Rush Limbaugh was “the voice, the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party” and that “whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him”.

Emanuel’s point was proven the same day when RNC chairman Michael Steele denied that Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican party and derided Limbaugh’s style as “inflammatory” and “ugly”. Rush promptly questioned Steele’s ability to lead the party and extracted an apology from one of the highest ranking Republican officials in the land: “Rush is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize.”

One video clip from a health care protest in late August shows a man brandishing a copy of what he calls the “U.S.S. Constitution” whilst he condemns ‘Obamacare’ as “radical communism and socialism” and states that “someone ought to investigate that, like Glenn Beck has been doing”. Beck’s show has become an open forum for Tea Party protesters to air their complaints and concerns in a welcoming environment. Indeed, Beck is on the frontline of the Tea Party and is often the keynote speaker at protests. He launched the ‘9/12 Project’ in March this year with the aim of capturing “what it felt like” the day after 9/11. The Project quickly morphed into a vehicle for expressing popular conservative resentment of Obama’s bailouts, tax plans and proposed health care reforms and was instrumental in organizing and promoting the Taxpayer March on Washington which took place last September 12th.

All this is a potential public relations disaster for the Republican party who have watched as a significant portion of their political base have either switched their political allegiances or adopted fringe political positions that are repellent to most in the centre. The party is faced with the choice of either following the Tea Party movement into the political wilderness or losing a vital source of activism.

Increasingly their hand is being forced by right-wing commentators who are not demonstrating the same loyalty that they did in the Bush years. Whereas men like Hannity could once be relied upon to toe the party line, with the implosion of the Republican party, they have discovered even greater prominence as de facto leaders of the unofficial opposition to the President and his program.

Anyway, I think private school should be abolished.

 

[Ridge]

Why should private school be abolished? If the parents can afford to send their kids to a better staffed, better funded school, then why shouldn't they?

I am opposed to vouchers, though.

 

[No Limit]

Nobody said remove the regulation.

No, nobody said that. Except for a guy named ridge a few posts up:

And who says that the workforce HAS to be federally regulated? Unlike liberals, I do not find myself begging the government to control and protect every aspect of my life. I'd prefer they leave individuals alone. Their only purpose should be to foster interstate commerce and maintain a military to protect the states.

Most of the stories I've read had the school firing the teacher, then the union stepping in and fighting to get them re-instated. In fact, the only times I dont hear about the unions objecting are to teachers who have sex with their students.

Can you please do everyone a big favor and post sources with your claims from now on. You make shit up time after time after time after time. Looking back I can't think of a single post you made that didn't pull facts out of your ass, including this one.

And it is districts like those that attempt to restructure, and are stonewalled by unions because entire staffs would be changed out, teachers included.

But I do agree that schools are over-staffed in the administrative department. You always hear about pay cuts coming for teachers, while the district supervisor still holds on to their 3 secretaries and armies of duplicate support staffs.

Restructure how? By forcing the teachers to take more of a workload and a bigger pay cut? How come restructuring never involves giving the district more money?

 

[Ridge]

Restructure how? By forcing the teachers to take more of a workload and a bigger pay cut? How come restructuring never involves giving the district more money?

Thats a good question. Perhaps the feds should kill off the war on drugs and a few unnecessary agencies and put that money towards to the Dept. of Education.

Usually the restructure involves adjusting school districts to better fit needs and demands of society.

 

[Krynn72]

There are some absoluely absurd stories out there where bad teachers should have been fired but weren't. But I'm not sure I would automatically point my finger at unions. A lot of this has to do with horrible administration too.

In most states teachers are on a probation period for 2 to 5 years. If the teachers are truly bad they could be fired then for any reason at all during that period. A lot of teachers also get blamed for poor performance when that performace is due to shitty administrators.

Those are good points. There is certainly a lot of blame to be put on administrators as well, and Unions are not the sole problem with poor performance of public schools. But there have been numerous cases that I have read about in just the New England area where it is a clear cut case of a union protecting poor teachers. Tenure is one of these major problems. Like you said, there is a probationary period for teachers, and thats good. But once teacher achieve tenure, they can practically do whatever they want and not get fired for it.

In the school I went to I had personal experience with teachers who absolutely did not give a ****. Teachers who just gave straight up busy work to us, who rarely lectured, and whenever a question was asked they would tell us to re-read the section in our book. I came to find out after I graduated that a few years before I had their class they were the center of a controversy about how bad they were, and how parents and the school wanted to fire them, but simply weren't allowed. Thankfully there were other, great teachers there who scheduled after hours sessions to help us, and they were very much aware of why we all needed so much extra help.

Perhaps that experience had given me some sort of bias, but I can't help but be disgusted every time I read in our local/regional newspapers that shitty teachers are receiving protection, with children paying the consequences.

There are also poor school districts in this country that good teachers don't want to go to, so those districts kind of have to accept shitty teachers or be left with none. This is the problem with funding schools based on property taxes in the area, rich kids get the best teachers, poor kids get the worst.

Absolutely agreed. There needs to be a way for poorer areas to attract better teachers. The problem with our education system is so convoluted with a myriad of problems like this. Again, its very obvious that Unions are not the sole issue here, far from it in fact. Maybe it really is that bias of mine that really gets me disproportionately upset whenever I hear about unions pulling stupid shit, compared to the numerous other factors.

 

[No Limit]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Tenure does cause problems but at the same time you can't just get rid of it, because what will happen is school districts will routinely fire older experianced teachers and replace them with cheap young teachers just coming out of school. And I'm sure that most if not all tenure laws out there have an exemption for bad teachers. The question I guess is who gets to define what a bad teacher is. Because of that legal question if an administrator fires someone with tenure they know they will be sued to hell by the unions. I think many administrators choose not to deal with it, not because they want to keep the shitty teachers but because they know they can't afford the lawyers.

So that kind of goes back to the unions but I think the bigger issue really is money. The unions just try to protect the interests of their members, with things like tenure, nothing really wrong with that. They are not untouchable, they are just a group of people with a really good legal team. And usually when the teachers are paid good unions are happy. So all you need to do to counter the unions is make the legal fund administrators have access to much much bigger and make sure they make reasonable money (including reasonable cost of living raises as opposed to the wage cuts most states are pushing). This way the good teachers don't get screwed over while the bad ones get thrown out.

I don't get why we are so stingy with our schools. This should be the top of our list. We are not motivating kids in schools, and if they manage to graduate high school less and less of them go on to college. While countries like India are popping out geniuses by the thousands each week that will work for a few bucks an hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

The education spending is around 5% of GDP from what I gather, not sure why it's not on that chart but that's the size of the yellow interest area. It wouldn't hurt getting a few billion extra dollars for each state to fix this horrible educational system. It's a big investment but if we don't make it this next generation is ****ed.

 

[Ridge]

Funny thing. Many of those Indian geniuses are sent to the US for higher education at their government's expense, then return back to their country...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Why should private school be abolished? If the parents can afford to send their kids to a better staffed, better funded school, then why shouldn't they?

Good question. Education is one of the most important things to future success, and especially to whether one is able to participate at the top end of society, politics or business. Private schools are generally better than public schools, partly because they leech all the best teachers and partly because they can afford to insistently mollycoddle every student towards the best possible grades. What they create is a knowledge economy where being rich is yet one more way to exert power. Money means your children will have a much greater opportunity to make more money and exert more power. In the UK, 45% of top civil servants, 53% of top journalists, 32% of MPs, 70% of finance directions and 75% of judges come from the same 7% of the population who went to private schools. Even the myths of capitalism demand a society which is functionally meritocratic and modern third-way-ism pretends it's all for equality of opportunity.

You can claim that getting rid of private schools would be 'punishing the best'. The problems with that are manifold. At Oxford university, of which much of the UK's present cabinet is drawn, there is no institutional bias against public school students, and they're very able to perform. But the problem is that they often don't bother to try. The balance between public and private is very disproportionate - out of sync with the country - and it's because private students are massively encouraged to apply, and given the confidence to think that they can make it (while many state students don't really realise they can). So it's not only about meritocracy but about position. We should also note the importance of contacts and networking to advancement in society, and be wary of how pervasive the possibilites for that are within the private school/Oxbridge axis.

But I've already indicated the real problem earlier: private schools leech the best teachers and suck in money. Generally in a capitalist economy if you want to ensure the success of a venture you must get rich people to invest in it. But rich people only invest their money and the soft power behind that money in private schools. The people whose children go to poor inner-city schools don't make many donations, or put their economic muscle behind any demand that the school improve, because more often than not they don't have that muscle at all. It's a self-sustaining loop. The rich send all their kids to private schools, so the private schools get all the money. The private schools are better, and help you get higher, so the rich send all their kids to private schools. The best teachers go to private schools, because that's where the money is. The teaching at the private schools is better, so that's where the best teachers go. It's similar to the 'academy' scheme which both old and new governments have championed: schools that are performing well can apply to become 'academies' and receive lots of money...because the schools that are already doing well are the ones that need that money, amirite? The mistake you make is in believing that a short-term extension of liberty for a few people (the right to pay for better education) actually results in greater liberty for all. The opposite is true. Liberties that are in theory extended to all people are in reality given only to the rich, and actively diminish the liberties of the poor. Abolishing private schooling would not instantly fix the system and it would, if not done carefully, still result in de facto school stratification (schools in rich areas versus ones in poor areas) - but as it stands private schools allow a very small section of the population to retain control of this country, and screw up everyone else's education on the side. Down with them.

 

[Ridge]

Another funding problem in the US for schools is the backwards No Child Left Behind program, which takes funding AWAY from schools that test poorly, and give the money to better scoring schools.

How is it no child left behind, if you give up on the kids that need help the most, and give more assistance to kids that are already doing better?

 

[Schall]

It seems like he should be a South Park character.

 

[Ridge]

It seems like he should be a South Park character.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/255334

 

[swan_song1973]

This guy's just a troll. We know it, He knows it, too bad some dumb shits out there don't.

i want to believe this, but i just think he's just dumb as nails.

 

[T-6000]

This reminds me of some news my dad heard a while ago from the school that he works in. The county had considered closing down our local school, as well as several other schools, and pack the students into larger schools. This was to help cut costs, but so far this hasn't been implemented. However, even with cost cutting measures enabled my local school is still in some serious debt, and my dad has speculated that the state may shut it down if it doesn't resolve the seemingly freefall debt.

While I don't think the U.S. will technically "Abolish" public schools (Though with the national debt rising every year, I wouldn't put it past the government to consider this possibility and require parents to educate their children. Of course, this would be too radical for us but like I said I wouldn't rule out the U.S. Government to consider this at least), I think the Government may do what I had mentioned up above. To close down smaller schools and move the kids to larger schools.

 

[Ridge]

Which has only proven in the past to worsen things by creating larger class sizes...

 

[T-6000]

Which has only proven in the past to worsen things by creating larger class sizes...

That's one problem that I saw with this measure, but with the U.S. so deep in debt I think the politicians would "accept" the consequences if it saves money. Oh, and I remember reading a state district (Dumb me forgot to link the article, but as soon as I find it I'll link it here) considering having the schools in session for 4 days a week instead of 5 to save some cash.

 

[Ridge]

Because dumbing down the future to save some scratch now is brilliant!

 

[Sparta]

That's one problem that I saw with this measure, but with the U.S. so deep in debt I think the politicians would "accept" the consequences if it saves money. Oh, and I remember reading a state district (Dumb me forgot to link the article, but as soon as I find it I'll link it here) considering having the schools in session for 4 days a week instead of 5 to save some cash.

Apparently that 4 days a week doohickey is already being done in a few places.

 

[T-6000]

Apparently that 4 days a week doohickey is already being done in a few places.

Oh yeah? Damn, maybe it's only a matter of time before our school's Superintendent considers the 4 day a week schedule. In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't considered this already.

Because dumbing down the future to save some scratch now is brilliant!

It's starting to seem that way. It's a shame to see Education being flushed down the toilet.

 

[Dr.Demento]

Because dumbing down the future to save some scratch now is brilliant!

^You can thank the baby-boomers for ruining our damn country because of their ideas of quick, short-term wealth and self-gain.

They're all a bunch of cock f*** tard ass blowing, boner-biting uncle f***kers who are greedy and had no vision for the future of their grandchildren and because of it, the country's economy, and education system is in the toilet. It's just waiting for someone dumb enough like Glenn Beck to pull the lever.