Haha I saw that part last night on NBC. I believe his response was "I don't need a license to work in plumbing?"

well I think he actually did need a plumbing license of some sort (apprentice?) to do the work he was doing, whereas you do not need a teaching license to do the work you are doing. but yes, the lack of a license should not be the main focus; much more interesting is the fact that he doesn't even fall into the tax bracket that he's so concerned about.

This is my point -- *why should he need a license*? Because the state says so -- but why does the state say so? Because a powerful interest group wants it to.

Sure, I don't need a license to do what I'm doing, but I would need one to teach in a public school. I've written 5 math texts, and have a lot of teaching experince. Does it seem right that I also need to take 3 years of education classes and take some tests and do some professional development on top of that? Is someone who has done those things really more qualified than I am to teach? Would you as a parent prefer that or prefer me teaching your kids? In other words, what is the point/value of the licensing process? Is it to increase the quality of teachers, or is it to protect the interests of existing teachers? These are not trivial questions.

As for his not being in the tax bracket he cares about -- by that same logic, you should berate Obama for caring about the tax burden of people below 250K. He'll never be anywhere near that for the rest of his life. (Of course, I think it's silly to berate him for that -- and silly to berate Joe for caring about the taxes of rich people. Joe certainly has reason to do so, particularly if those rich people are his employer or customer, both of whom, if there are much higher taxes, may not be able to afford him. So, I think Joe has a *very* vested interest in the tax burdens of wealthy people.)

I'm a licensed teacher. However, as I have worked primarily in private schools, a lot of my co-teachers were not licensed. I really saw very little difference in quality between those who were licensed and those who weren't.

when people say "joe the plumber does not have a license", they most likely aren't making some grand point about the state being controlled by powerful political lobbying groups and so forth. they're making the point that he's breaking the law by practicing without a license in a situation that requires a license. just because you don't agree with a law rarely grants you the authority to break it.

Sure, but that's not the point I'm making when I say it, and then point out that I am not a licensed teacher.

What I'm trying to say is, this is a stupid law.

(I must say, the left-wing response to Joe the Plumber looks a lot like the Bushies using character assassination as an argument. It was ugly when Bush did it, and it's ugly when DailyKos does it. Besides, who really cares if he's unclogged a pipe illegally?)

ah

the exclamation points threw me off (they usually denote mocking of the people who make the comments in question and the points they're trying to make)

my bad

I meant to be mocking all the people getting upset (or, faux-upset) at Joe not being licensed. Man, I just can't do sarcasm online.