Hodges reached for the secret too soon,
And now she is crying for the moon,
Shine on, you Derpy Diamond!

technicolor-misfit: monoski: BeesNuts: THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VOUCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

This!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

This is about a bait and switch to defend the public school system.


"Hey guys, what if... instead of going to stupid old public school with all the dumb poor colored people... I told you that I would give you a voucher to go to the finest private school in your community?!? Heck, you could EVEN send your child to a school that would indoctinate them into the supernatural mythology of YOUR choosing! Sound good?!?! Just sign right here!

And here is your $10,000 dollar voucher for the school of your choice!"

"But, the tuition at the top private school is $30,000?"

"Yes... now all you have to do is pay the other $20,000! Isn't that wonderful?"

"But, I don't have $20,000..."

"Isn't that a shame. Well, just know that those of us who do are thankful for your support in moving those public funds into our private institution... Now please get your dirty off-brand shoes off of our school lawn. You're making the grass stink of poverty. Best of luck to you and your child... now that his public school's budget has been halved... He's gonna need it!"

I really do not see vouchers getting anywhere near tuition at the finest private schools in my area (some approach $70k a year if you board the kid) so though your line of thought is well intentioned that this will provide an avenue to better education, there are some holes in your assumptions.

technicolor-misfit: monoski: BeesNuts: THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VOUCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

This!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

This is about a bait and switch to defend the public school system.


"Hey guys, what if... instead of going to stupid old public school with all the dumb poor colored people... I told you that I would give you a voucher to go to the finest private school in your community?!? Heck, you could EVEN send your child to a school that would indoctinate them into the supernatural mythology of YOUR choosing! Sound good?!?! Just sign right here!

And here is your $10,000 dollar voucher for the school of your choice!"

"But, the tuition at the top private school is $30,000?"

"Yes... now all you have to do is pay the other $20,000! Isn't that wonderful?"

"But, I don't have $20,000..."

"Isn't that a shame. Well, just know that those of us who do are thankful for your support in moving those public funds into our private institution... Now please get your dirty off-brand shoes off of our school lawn. You're making the grass stink of poverty. Best of luck to you and your child... now that his public school's budget has been halved... He's gonna need it!"

Excellent, excellent point. Most people who whine about the cost of public school have no idea how much private school actually costs. Most private school tuition is quite a bit more than is spent per pupil in the public schools despite the fact that, typically, there is no cafeteria, no one on free or reduced lunch, and no special education teachers for children who are handicapped or just learn differently.

spongeboob: How can that mean anything other than you would not vote for someone who believes in God?
That is as intolerant as someone who would not vote for an atheist

Addendum: If you're an adult with an imaginary friend who consults said imaginary friend for political decisions AND believe that this being talks back to you, you are too incompetent to serve.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --Susan B. Anthony

Rent Party: azazyel: Rent Party: Not really. Integration in American society has followed the same pattern as it has for the last few centuries. Immigrants show up. Don't speak the language. Gather together in groups to help themselves get by. Their children grow up bi-lingual, get better jobs, still retain some of mom and dad's cultural norms, but are more "American" than not. Their grandchildren speak only English, and carry almost none of grandma and grandpas cultural norms, and are fully integrated. Three generations, fully integrated. Same as it ever was.

I'm second generation native born American. My grandparents were really big on having their kids be "American" so they gave their kids very "American" names and wouldn't speak Norwegian in the house. Which really bums me out because I really wish they would have taught me as a kid.

What is bizzare about this trend is that being bi-lingual is an absolute advantage in today's economy. People screaming about being ENGLISH ONLY!!!! are denying kids a distinct advantage in the market.

I feel schizophrenic giving a shout out to a private school I a forum where so many of us are trying to explain the importance of public school, but I think this school really gets the attitude towards language right ... Link

Meanwhile, local some local school board members proposed cutting all music, art, and language instruction from public schools to close the gap on a recently discovered deficit. I am making a point to remember all the "no increase in taxes" board members so I can vote against them next election.

vernonFL: One of the Founding Fathers was Catholic, and at least one of them were Quakers. One founding father was Jewish (though he is often ignored)

Mind providing a list? I knew there was a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, but not that any of them had gone into politics.

And to be fair, the Quakers back then (cutthroat capitalists, very much Christian-identified) were nothing like the Quakers we have now (many of whom are pagan). Ditto for "Unitarians".

hubiestubert: Lunaville: Rent Party: azazyel: Rent Party: Not really. Integration in American society has followed the same pattern as it has for the last few centuries. Immigrants show up. Don't speak the language. Gather together in groups to help themselves get by. Their children grow up bi-lingual, get better jobs, still retain some of mom and dad's cultural norms, but are more "American" than not. Their grandchildren speak only English, and carry almost none of grandma and grandpas cultural norms, and are fully integrated. Three generations, fully integrated. Same as it ever was.

I'm second generation native born American. My grandparents were really big on having their kids be "American" so they gave their kids very "American" names and wouldn't speak Norwegian in the house. Which really bums me out because I really wish they would have taught me as a kid.

What is bizzare about this trend is that being bi-lingual is an absolute advantage in today's economy. People screaming about being ENGLISH ONLY!!!! are denying kids a distinct advantage in the market.

I feel schizophrenic giving a shout out to a private school I a forum where so many of us are trying to explain the importance of public school, but I think this school really gets the attitude towards language right ... Link

Meanwhile, local some local school board members proposed cutting all music, art, and language instruction from public schools to close the gap on a recently discovered deficit. I am making a point to remember all the "no increase in taxes" board members so I can vote against them next election.

What's odd is that kids who take art classes are far more likely to make a living in their chosen form, as opposed to those who play sports. Arts education is more likely to relevant, and yet, it's deemed useless to "real world" skills...

I have no genuine artistic talent, but art classes were important to me because they kept me from snapping and killing a dozen or so people in the halls. So, I could argue that proposing to slash arts funding is a pro-mass murder position.

monoski: technicolor-misfit: monoski: BeesNuts: THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VOUCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

This!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

This is about a bait and switch to defend the public school system.


"Hey guys, what if... instead of going to stupid old public school with all the dumb poor colored people... I told you that I would give you a voucher to go to the finest private school in your community?!? Heck, you could EVEN send your child to a school that would indoctinate them into the supernatural mythology of YOUR choosing! Sound good?!?! Just sign right here!

And here is your $10,000 dollar voucher for the school of your choice!"

"But, the tuition at the top private school is $30,000?"

"Yes... now all you have to do is pay the other $20,000! Isn't that wonderful?"

"But, I don't have $20,000..."

"Isn't that a shame. Well, just know that those of us who do are thankful for your support in moving those public funds into our private institution... Now please get your dirty off-brand shoes off of our school lawn. You're making the grass stink of poverty. Best of luck to you and your child... now that his public school's budget has been halved... He's gonna need it!"

I really do not see vouchers getting anywhere near tuition at the finest private schools in my area (some approach $70k a year if you board the kid) so though your line of thought is well intentioned that this will provide an avenue to better education, there are some holes in your assumptions.


I think you misunderstood my post. I DON'T think it will "provide an avenue to better education." I believe it's con game in which middle and working class parents are misled into believing they'll be able to send their kids to the top private schools in their area... when in reality they will neither have the money nor be accepted, and all it will really succeed in doing is further defunding the schools their children actually attend.

pciszek: vernonFL: One of the Founding Fathers was Catholic, and at least one of them were Quakers. One founding father was Jewish (though he is often ignored)

Mind providing a list? I knew there was a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, but not that any of them had gone into politics.

And to be fair, the Quakers back then (cutthroat capitalists, very much Christian-identified) were nothing like the Quakers we have now (many of whom are pagan). Ditto for "Unitarians".

Which early American Quakers were "cutthroat capitalists"?
Please, list all the Quakers you are acquainted with who are "pagans"? Keep in mind when making your list, that a Quaker refusal to disrespect those who are pagans does not, in and of itself, make these people pagan.

what_now: Didn't this happen in some other useless part of the country? A school district successfully passed a law allowing children to pass out religious materials to other children, so some angry parent created 500 flyers on Wicca and stupid soccer moms were clutching their pearls in horror.

I feel like I read that somewhere....

It was actually Jerry Falwell and his army of laywers who successfully used the "freedumb of religion" ploy (with threats of lawsuit) and I never did hear what became of that after the wiccan yuletide festival.

Ironically the wiccan festival was FAR more likely to actually be educational (they were talking about actual history as well as their religious mythology) but then religious people have never really liked education except as a subset of indoctrination.

Just last night I was having a discussion with a group of friends of mine about "natural" rights. Not a single one of them knew that any person in United States territory, regardless of their country of origin, has the same freedoms as a U.S. citizen.

It took me a few minutes to fully articulate that yes, anyone can come to the U.S. and say whatever they please and follow any religion they want, so on and so forth.

Geez subby, the Founding Fathers were either: 1) Hard Core Atheists that hated Christians! or 2) Super Christians that meant for this to be a shining beacon of a nation unto the Lord!

There was no inbetween. They were all either 1 or 2 depending on who you ask. They certainly were not Deists, since most Americans would simply have no flipping clue what that means...

vernonFL: brigid_fitch: You mean Deism, where they believed in reason and scientific observation over a Supreme Being?

One of the Founding Fathers was Catholic, and at least one of them were Quakers. One founding father was Jewish (though he is often ignored)

One was atheist as well.

Lunaville: Which early American Quakers were "cutthroat capitalists"?
Please, list all the Quakers you are acquainted with who are "pagans"? Keep in mind when making your list, that a Quaker refusal to disrespect those who are pagans does not, in and of itself, make these people pagan.

As for the first question, it was how they were stereotyped at the time. "A Quaker can buy from a Jew, sell to a Scotsman, and still turn a profit." How fair this stereotype was, I do not know. Allegedly they were responsible for the practice of posting fixed prices for goods, instead of haggling, becoming nearly universal in the United States. The Quaker character Starbuck in Moby Dick cites the ship's owners' financial interests as a reason to override Ahab's madness, while the other characters at that point still find mutiny unthinkable.

As for the second question, many pagans in the USA have joined some of the more liberal Quaker congregations, as described in these links:
Link Link Link

chuggernaught: Geez subby, the Founding Fathers were either: 1) Hard Core Atheists that hated Christians! or 2) Super Christians that meant for this to be a shining beacon of a nation unto the Lord!

There was no inbetween. They were all either 1 or 2 depending on who you ask. They certainly were not Deists, since most Americans would simply have no flipping clue what that means...

I typically link to this anymore.

pciszek: Lunaville: Which early American Quakers were "cutthroat capitalists"?
Please, list all the Quakers you are acquainted with who are "pagans"? Keep in mind when making your list, that a Quaker refusal to disrespect those who are pagans does not, in and of itself, make these people pagan.

As for the first question, it was how they were stereotyped at the time. "A Quaker can buy from a Jew, sell to a Scotsman, and still turn a profit." How fair this stereotype was, I do not know. Allegedly they were responsible for the practice of posting fixed prices for goods, instead of haggling, becoming nearly universal in the United States. The Quaker character Starbuck in Moby Dick cites the ship's owners' financial interests as a reason to override Ahab's madness, while the other characters at that point still find mutiny unthinkable.

As for the second question, many pagans in the USA have joined some of the more liberal Quaker congregations, as described in these links:
Link Link Link

I can't argue with the first link as self-described Quakers do cover a very broad spectrum. The second two links, however, constitute a form of dishonesty. The second link alleges that the number of Quakers is declining when, in fact, the numbers are increasing. They are not increasing in North America as rapidly as they are in Africa, but they are increasing.
The third link is little more than the ramblings of a self-appointed guardian of what constitutes a "real" Christian.
I doubt very seriously that you have ever attended a Quaker worship. You have, most likely, never met a Quaker. It is highly unlikely that you have ever read a single Quaker publication.
Sorry, but I do not believe that Herman Melville was an expert on the Quakers nor does Moby Dick constitute a treatise on Quaker beliefs.
Furthermore, the 'stereotype" about Quakers and business is/was that they were very honest and fair. That stereotype is why businesses with no relationship to that particular group have tried to cash in on associations with the name. Thus, we have Quaker Oats and Quaker Oil.Neither of these products have anything at all to do with Quakers. The manufacturers of these products are trying to imply to consumers that these products are trustworthy and that the manufacturers are fair and honest.

Reminds me of a conversation with a past co-worker. This person knew i was an liberal/progressive/atheist (all the evil rolled into one), so they start in one day ay lunch about how "prayer should be back in schools", hoping to get a rise out of me.
I listened for awhile, then said "you're right"... stopped him in mid-blather. Then I got out a pencil and paper, and drew a diagram of the school week with all the various faiths I could think of (Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, evangelical Christianity, Judaism etc) and tossed in atheism and agnosticism as well. Then I showed it to him with the explanation that the weeks schedule would be drawn at random on friday, and posted on the school's website so that the parents could prepare their kids the next week. They would need yarmulkes, hijab, prayer rugs, that kind of thing depending on the day the religion popped up.

He turned 5 shades of red and stammered "that's not what I meant! I meant that religion-" "These are religions", I said. "Don't most of the groups I wrote down believe in a god or gods?" "Yeah", he said, "but not -" "Just not YOUR god, right?" I interjected. "How would you like it if YOUR kids were reading from the Koran during the school day? It would be the same thing as having the Muslim kids use your Bible."

"Look", I said, "if we are going to have 'religion in schools' there must be accommodations for ALL religions, and even for those people who have no religion. All or none... your choice." I could just hear the synapses in his feeble brain sizzling trying to find a logical out to this.

Never spoke of it again.
/logic - good for stopping the stupid

spongeboob:
Fine I'll stipulate that if you think God talks to you personally as in you hear his voice you are insane, however if you think God speaks through scripture is that really much different than having a philosophy of life guiding your opinions or using I don't know the rule of law as a guide.


A God that can not speak directly with his followers is a very small God indeed.

spongeboob: Fine I'll stipulate that if you think God talks to you personally as in you hear his voice you are insane, however if you think God speaks through scripture is that really much different than having a philosophy of life guiding your opinions or using I don't know the rule of law as a guide.

the fine line is typically

you talk to god : normal crazy
god talks to you: special crazy.
god tells you to run for office: scary crazy.

hubiestubert: BeesNuts:I'll just come right out and state my thesis:

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VOUCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

Not so much. But it is a way to get the public to fund private schools.

Vouchers are bait and switch. Once you get vouchers for private schools, then EVERYONE will apply for them. Parents of kids who are already in these schools will apply as well. Since there are only so many slots available, kids will be turned down. A few kids will be brought in as token cases to "prove" the system works, but for the most part, kids will be forced to go back to their public schools. Which will be poorer from the drain on education dollars. Which will only fuel "competition" for the desired slots, but those schools will still take their desired demographic, and the proles who are ever hopeful to get something for nothing will eat up their "opportunities" with a spoon. And when they get passed over, will snap their fingers like they do the lotto...

So if I understand you right, they are designed in such a way that will systematically deprive public schools of their funding while continuing to deny access to quality education to the most vulnerable among us.

So much for "not so much"? Or do I misunderstand you?

Diogenes: Signing Their Rights Away. Don't be misled by the title - it's rather apolitical.

I won a copy of this in a Goodreads giveaway and started it shortly before I moved! Not sure what box it ended up in but thanks for the reminder. I'll have to dig it out and finish it this weekend.

alowishus: [vinteeage.com image 350x350]

I can never figure out if that's a layback air or what...

Lady, I would suggest if you are that farking stupid, you should probably resign.

Subby forgot slaveowning.

Lunaville: I can't argue with the first link as self-described Quakers do cover a very broad spectrum.

Which was my original point. Today's Quakers, some of whom are openly pagan and others of whom are willing to accept pagans into their congregations, are very different from early Quakers, who rejected Christmas celebrations and the germanic names for the days of the week because they were pagan in origin. Apparently the shift to a more universalist theology started around 1870. Any colonial era Americans who were Quakers were probably more like the early Quakers than like today's Quakers. And yes, I have met a few of the modern type.

pciszek: Lunaville: I can't argue with the first link as self-described Quakers do cover a very broad spectrum.

Which was my original point. Today's Quakers, some of whom are openly pagan and others of whom are willing to accept pagans into their congregations, are very different from early Quakers, who rejected Christmas celebrations and the germanic names for the days of the week because they were pagan in origin. Apparently the shift to a more universalist theology started around 1870. Any colonial era Americans who were Quakers were probably more like the early Quakers than like today's Quakers. And yes, I have met a few of the modern type.

If you have met a few of "the modern type", then you are well aware that "pagan Quakers" are precious few in number.
They still refer to First day and First Day School and so on. Though, they do make an effort not to annoy other people in doing that.
Not all Quakers accept a Universalist theology. Again, Quakers cover the spectrum and some are more Christocentric than others. It is interesting that you specifically mention this particular strain of Quakerism. Do I detect a note of "not real Christians" judgment here?

I love how she uses "founding fathers" as if it were some sorf of uniform hive mind.

Crack open a history book bee otch

Lanadapter: I love how she uses "founding fathers" as if it were some sorf of uniform hive mind.

Crack open a history book bee otch


The best part is they've simply turned the founders themselves into deities.

Never mind law, never mind right or wrong, never mind "do unto others," never mind any of that because THE FOUNDERS.

The founders created us in their own image. We must not question the founders. The founders had hopes and dreams for us, and it is our duty to fulfill them exactly as the founders intended.

"All hail, the founders! All hail, the founders! All hail, the founders!"

It must really suck heaping truck-loads of shiat of to be a farking authoritarian... To have a farking hole in you that must be filled with a dominant father figure to pay fealty to.

"I don't know what to do! I don't know what to think! I'm scared and lost. Someone lead me, please!!!"

spongeboob: PC LOAD LETTER: what_now: Didn't this happen in some other useless part of the country? A school district successfully passed a law allowing children to pass out religious materials to other children, so some angry parent created 500 flyers on Wicca and stupid soccer moms were clutching their pearls in horror.

I feel like I read that somewhere....

Wicca and Islam should ALWAYS be used in such cases. Shuts the fracking Christians up like a shot to the head.

It doesn't even have to be Wicca or Islam, I'm sure Mormonism, seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarianism would be enough to drive most of the religious right into apoplexy.


/Even Catholic in some parts of the US

Well, we Pagans (Wicca is a branch of Paganism, like Catholics are Christians, except we Pagans actually love our Wiccans,) are more than happy to help.

/And some of us are still young enough to love helping because we find it utterly hilarious
//...Ahem. >.>

hubiestubert: BeesNuts: hubiestubert: BeesNuts:I'll just come right out and state my thesis:

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VOUCHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

Not so much. But it is a way to get the public to fund private schools.

Vouchers are bait and switch. Once you get vouchers for private schools, then EVERYONE will apply for them. Parents of kids who are already in these schools will apply as well. Since there are only so many slots available, kids will be turned down. A few kids will be brought in as token cases to "prove" the system works, but for the most part, kids will be forced to go back to their public schools. Which will be poorer from the drain on education dollars. Which will only fuel "competition" for the desired slots, but those schools will still take their desired demographic, and the proles who are ever hopeful to get something for nothing will eat up their "opportunities" with a spoon. And when they get passed over, will snap their fingers like they do the lotto...

So if I understand you right, they are designed in such a way that will systematically deprive public schools of their funding while continuing to deny access to quality education to the most vulnerable among us.

So much for "not so much"? Or do I misunderstand you?

The intention isn't to dismantle the system. The purpose is to get some cash for the wealthiest and most affluential of folks, and put it on the taxpayer dime. That it will put school systems in a more precarious position is a side effect. Branding it as "school choice" when it has more to do with bilking the tax payers, but its intention isn't to destroy education. It will put schools further in the hole, but that is a side effect, and those who are touting school choice don't care--because they figure that their kids will get in.

The intention isn't to dismantle the system, just get their's while everyone else can go hang. Don't get me wrong, it puts our school system ...

I gotcha. But it's just so damned direct, I find it hard to believe that anyone peddling it doesn't know what they're advocating.

hubiestubert: BeesNuts: I gotcha. But it's just so damned direct, I find it hard to believe that anyone peddling it doesn't know what they're advocating.

They're advocating getting you to pay for their kid's education, only in their school, and not with the proles. It's selfish and dickish, and to be honest, they don't really care, because the public schools are full of dirty unwashed proles, who don't matter. It's callous, it's calculated, but they don't care, because they already have their's but why should the Lucky Duckies have all the perks?

Because they're dicks, that's why. Because their selfish dicks.

Careful hubes. You're starting to sound like a proper lefty :p

/You're probably right, of course.
//I suppose saying it's *purpose* is to destroy public education's a bit tin-foil-y... but... we're more or less on the same wavelength here.