Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[Jim Cowan]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I saw it show up. Is it a doc or show?  Based on your Rec I will watch it 

I think there are 3 seasons with 5 or 6 episodes each.

 

[Jim Cowan]

1 minute ago, Jim Cowan said:

I think there are 3 seasons with 5 or 6 episodes each.

 

It's NSFW.

[mtutiger]

 

[Tigeraholic1]

My kids go to private Lutheran schools. My son is still in k-8 (7th grade). We pay $4k per year for him, very reasonable for us. My daughter is a senior at a Lutheran HS, tuition is 12K per year NOT reasonable. We make too much to qualify for vouchers. She really wanted to got there and earned an academic scholarship for all 4 years bringing our bill down to about 8k. We started a College Choice 529 education savings plan for college when she was born. Indiana changed the law about 5 years ago so that you can use those dollars for K-12 private schools. That allowed us to manage sending her there. She is third in her class. The two kids ahead of her are going to MIT and West Point (her HS has an outstanding JROTC program). She earned a full ride to Concordia Chicago to be a Lutheran Teacher. The two aformentioned students are both voucher students who would have never gotten into this HS without them.

Is the voucher/529 plans perfect? No, but it opens door for those who might not be able to otherwise. Indiana moved last year to increase income voucher eligibilty from $72K (Family of 4) to $140K starting next year, this voucher will cover up $7K per student. 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

 

1) ron johnson doesnt speak for the pro life movement.

2) what he said doesnt mean he doesnt care about children once their born.

but its ron johnson and he's kinda dumb so maybe youre right.  lol.

[mtutiger]

12 minutes ago, buddha said:

1) ron johnson doesnt speak for the pro life movement.

2) what he said doesnt mean he doesnt care about children once their born.

but its ron johnson and he's kinda dumb so maybe youre right.  lol.

1) I get it, not every pro-lifer is Ron Johnson. But I'm guessing he's not the only one who harbors those sorts of views about helping others once they do have a child.

2) He doesn't explicitly say that he doesn't care about children once they are born, correct. But taken to it's logical end, what he said is still pretty callous anyway.

Edited January 26, 2022 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, buddha said:

why is that important in a voucher debate?  vouchers help kids get into better schools and furthers their "religion, morality, and knowledge".

The idea of public education supported by the founders was in part to create a common bond of experience and understanding in a nation that it was already clear was going to be one largely formed of emigres from somewhere else, and in part to make sure education was actually distributed through the populace democratically so as to produce a population capable of self government in every corner. Every kind of diversion that removes resources from the public schools or reduces the pressure they should be under to perform detracts from those ends. I don't think it's necessary that there is only one way to do *public* education, but I do think it is necessary for government not to support any kind of education that is not completely public. For instance there are charter concepts I don't have a problem with, but in general the advocates of vouchers want them for religious based schools, that goes beyond where I want the gov to go- TA's report notwithstanding.

Edited January 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The idea of public education supported by the founders was in part to create a common bond of experience and understanding in a nation that it was already clear was going to be one largely formed of emigres from somewhere else, and in part to make sure education was actually distributed through the populace democratically so as to produce a population capable of self government in every corner. Every kind of diversion that removes resources from the public schools or reduces the pressure they should be under to perform detracts from those ends. I don't think it's necessary that there is only one way to do *public* education, but I do think it is necessary for government not to support any kind of education that is not completely public. For instance there are charter concepts I don't have a problem with, but in general the advocates of vouchers want them for religious based schools, that goes beyond where I want the gov to go.

well...your quote does speak of furthering religion...

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, buddha said:

well...your quote does speak of furthering religion...

LOL - I though about taking the quote from a word or two later but that would hardly have been honest. But I don't think religion is specifically key to the civic purpose embodied in the NW ordinance - though I won't ague many of those at the time probably did. It's more the importance that the commitment to education as a public/civic endeavor has for both the educators and the educated.

Edited January 26, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

Religion doesn't really factor in for me. At the end of the day, vouchers don't really cure whatever regressive tendencies that exist in public schools, they just create new forms of regression.

It works out for some families, I get it. Particularly in urban/suburban areas or areas with a lot of charter school options. But there are people who end up behind as well... 

[pfife]

I noticed the right is banning books again and also the right isn't calling it cancel culture.   Have you local cancel culture haters shown up to decry it yet?  Lol 

[buddha]

41 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - I though about taking the quote from a word or two later but that would hardly have been honest. But I don't think religion is specifically key to the civic purpose embodied in the NW ordinance - though I won't ague many of those at the time probably did. It's more the importance that the commitment to education as a public/civic endeavor has for both the educators and the educated.

as an aside, i think the founders' idea and the colonialist's ideas on schools would have assumed they would teach christianity, it was just how they thought back then.  if not "christianity" then at least the bible and the idea of god in the universe.

which is kind of why i think the modern liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state is incorrect....(he said, opening up that can of worms).

[chasfh]

6 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Hey you fans of The Crown, have you seen The Windsors?  It's awesome.

I did, right after watching maybe Season 3 of The Crown. Excellent.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

56 minutes ago, buddha said:

as an aside, i think the founders' idea and the colonialist's ideas on schools would have assumed they would teach christianity, it was just how they thought back then.  if not "christianity" then at least the bible and the idea of god in the universe.

which is kind of why i think the modern liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state is incorrect....(he said, opening up that can of worms).

I have to disagree with you there. The Brit expats had come out of centuries of inter sectarian Christian warfare back home. They wanted nothing to do with giving anyone the opportunity to establish a religious orthodoxy as part of public education. I think the situation as recently as the 60's was probably the one that existed over most of the country's history, which was that in areas like music and holiday decorations there was acknowledgment of the generally dominant Christian culture in non-sectarian ways, but the public schools did not teach 'Christianity' in any direct way. We have this modern idea that the 18 and 19th centuries had less scruples about politico/religious separation, but I don't think the facts bear it out. Things like 'In God we Trust" and the "Under God" in the pledge are mostly 20th century additions. 

Granted, it was a different scruple - based on the fear of sectarian disagreement between Christians rather than the more current disagreement between the religious and the secular, but the scruple was there none-the-less.

Edited January 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

 

The not quite enough caucus

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Granted, it was a different scruple - based on the fear of sectarian disagreement between Christians rather than the more current disagreement between the religious and the secular, but the scruple was there none-the-less.

To expand, I would note that the thing about the US is that we have *never* have a majority religion. From the founding we had a bunch of different Christian denominational minorities, plus RCCs, none of whom ever wanted someone else's catechisms visited upon their children in the public schools.

Edited January 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

To expand, I would note that the thing about the US is that we have *never* have a majority religion. From the founding we had a bunch of different Christian denominational minorities, plus RCCs, none of whom ever wanted someone else's catechisms visited upon their children in the public schools.

a bunch of different what kind of denominations?

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, buddha said:

a bunch of different what kind of denominations?

Don't follow. You think just because the sects are all Christian they can't/wouldn't violently oppose one another? Isn't the RCC 'Christian' (and how much blood spilled between?) weren't the Hugenot's Christians? Aren't the Shii and Sunni both Muslims? Internecine warfare in religious history doesn't require differences more severe than whether you genuflect from right to left or left to right. The Episcopalians are filthy Royalists, every Presbyterian sees heresy in John Wesley, they all see heresy in the Adventists, and the Anabaptists are right out. The only safe course for the children of all was ever that no-one teaches religion in the public school.

The first amendment wasn't some kind of forward thinking intellectual exercise, it was an immediately pressing political need.

Edited January 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

This is beyond insane.  Haven't these ass-hats heard Neutral Milk Hotel?

 

[pfife]

A total classic

[pfife]

cancel culture?

[buddha]

48 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Don't follow. You think just because the sects are all Christian they can't/wouldn't violently oppose one another? Isn't the RCC 'Christian' (and how much blood spilled between?) weren't the Hugenot's Christians? Aren't the Shii and Sunni both Muslims? Internecine warfare in religious history doesn't require differences more severe than whether you genuflect from right to left or left to right. The Episcopalians are filthy Royalists, every Presbyterian sees heresy in John Wesley, they all see heresy in the Adventists, and the Anabaptists are right out. The only safe course for the children of all was ever that no-one teaches religion in the public school.

The first amendment wasn't some kind of forward thinking intellectual exercise, it was an immediately pressing political need.

lol.  of course i dont think that.

i think that the founders were influenced by the political situation in europe where the church was often a state unto itself or, in england's case, the state itself.  they didnt want that repeated in america.  however, that didnt mean not teaching about god in the public space, nor did it mean that putting up a christian symbol in a public space was unconstitutional.  they were all about that.

our interpretation of what constitutes the "establishment" of religion would be beyond the scope of how the founders thought of it.

[1984Echoes]

I'm an atheist.

So I'm pretty happy with separation of church and state.

I have no interest in living in a theocratic fascist country like Iran.

[romad1]

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

A total classic

One of my reserved-for-an-angry-day at work albums.  I've always thought that "Untitled" because of the bagpipe sound is when the 11th British Armored Division rolled into Bergen Belsen in the lore of the album being about the Diary of Anne Frank.