Anyone who is interested in the broader focus of the NEA can visit their website and see for themselves. Anybody who's interested in making fun of the NEA without knowing what it actually does can continue to read about it from the "Captain".

The concentration on retirement, health care benefits, political action, and co-operation with other labor organizations (which is what the Gallo Wines thing is all about) is perfectly acceptable for the branch of an organization that deals with the contractual aspects of their membership's employment.

The NEA combines the functions of a professional organization with those of a labor union. A profession that doesn't take care of the people in the profession will soon face a profession with nobody entering it. So the business meeting addresses those concerns. Their professional development and academic support activities don't have to wait for resolutions to be active; they are at work all the time. All you have to do is look to see that. But the "Captain" chooses to ridicule the work of an entire organization based on the agenda of one assembly whose focus isn't professional mission, but employment issues. Aren't teachers allowed to talk about their employment issues with each other at their convention?

Does the NEA take positions that I don't agree with? Sometimes. What a surprise! They are a national organization. The breadth of their membership alone would dictate that they would do some things that displeased non-teachers sometimes. But the crime they commit in the eyes of the conservatives who attack them has very little to do with this. First, teachers refuse to be told by politicians that they don't know their own jobs and how to do them. Second, teachers insist on being paid an appropriate wage with appropriate benefits, unlike the lady teachers of yesteryear, who were only supporting their cats and lived at home with Mother. (No wonder education used to be so inexpensive!)

Also, it's very convenient for national politicians to be able to attack a teachers' organization. National politicians can say whatever they want about education and not be held accountable, because education in the US is firmly in the hands of local and state governments. National politicians have an emotionally volatile target -- "what about the children?" -- yet they have no mechanism or responsibility to enforce or fund the changes they demand. Who wonders why the NEA is ticked off by this? Show of hands, please.

When the AMA organizes politically to oppose malpractice suits, I don't see anyone linking to their website to point out that their political agenda lacks resolutions about malpractice policing of doctors by doctors, professional development to head off outdated practices, or patient care initiatives. Why not?