Glasses and Public Education


Maybe tomorrow. I need to go to the Springs to get my new glasses. TRUST me, you want me to get my new glasses.
So, while I’m gone, someone brush RES and the rest of you put on pants, okay.

Oh, and in answer to some idiot who asked that if I don’t like socialism, am I willing to give up government education?
Sure. Tomorrow.

Government education is NOT a law of nature, and nothing in the constitution really allows it.

My father and his siblings went to various school marms his parents paid for. They knew Latin by 10. I had the benefit of public education. My little Latin and small Greek didn’t come till adulthood. And I’m not nearly as educated as dad.

But won’t you think of inner city kids?

What? with graduation rates in minority-majority (eh) schools of 30% and most of those incapable of reading and even fewer of reading in English?  Letting them just roam around might achieve better results.

Also, trust me, most of the kids are not just prevented from reading. Immigrant kids are told they can never assimilate, that they’re oppressed and that this country is the worst in the world. (Trust me. They tried that on my kids, as well as education in Spanish.)

WHY do you hate minority immigrant kids so much you want them to be a permanent uneducated serf class?

The parents who care will arrange for kids to learn. Charities will arrange for the rest. States and cities might make their own arrangements. Some kids will fall through the cracks. As opposed to now?????

Sure, a public education is great for a country of immigrants. It helps foster common culture. Except when the common culture is hating the country you’re in, and a bunch of lies about its history.

Then it becomes an instrument of destruction.  And you want to know if I wish it were done away with? Why are you asking? Is this a trick?

Bah. Throw me in the briar patch.

288 thoughts on “Glasses and Public Education

  1. > willing to give up government education?

    Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I saw that… I’m still chortling…

    1. Give up government indoctrination? Sure. Cut a voucher equivalent to eighty percent of the public school per capita expenditure and let’s see where the kids get sent.

      Only somebody indoctrinated by the government could believe those schools educate students.

      1. “We don’t need no education
        we don’t need no thought control
        no dark sarcasm in the classroom
        hey! Teacher! Leave us kids alone!”

      2. The same folks that scream that government must do the schools then tells the kids they have to continue learning by going to organizations that are run privately in many cases and whose certification bodies are nongovernmental. You could accredit a high school just as you do a SJ College.

  2. They really hate it when they ask what they consider a rhetorical question and you answer it honestly. Especially if your honest answer implicitly says that their assumed-to-be-axiomatic truths are nonsense.

    1. They consider their ‘arguments’ unanswerable, and are thus disconcerted when they discover that We the Unwashed don’t even really consider them arguments.

      1. In fairness, many of their arguments are unanswerable — in the same way in which much of their “science” is unfalsifiable. The structure and internal logic of their arguments are so insubstantial that there is nothing to answer because there is no rebuttal to “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms” nor any logical response to a cohort of forest cos-players singing “There’s a hole in the sky where a tree used to be!”

        You might just as well try to debate a street-corner panhandler’s assertion that “Saturday is mauve.”

  3. But what about all the teachers, and principals, and counselors, and supervisors, and school boards, and teachers union representatives, all the dozens of other hangers-on our wunnerful Publick Skools can’t function without? If you won’t Think Of The Children, will you think of them?

    ‘Scuse me now while I go wash my hands…
    If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world can’t stop you. If you don’t want to learn, the best can’t help you.

      1. Hitler’s mistake was he got rid of the wrong people, in the worst possible way. Well, that, and thinking he was the Universe’s answer to everything.

    1. what about all the teachers

      Good ones will continue to teach with all the administrative BS. Well there will be some administration because teachers will have to be responsible to the parents of the children who are paying for the education. But not the make work. Teachers will be allowed to fail students, & not just pass them on; or rather than failing, student will move on when ready. Parents will care or not send (pay) for their child’s education.

      The rest? Well those who got into administration to help/buffer teachers under them, will go back to teaching. The rest? Who cares? Education is not suppose to be a jobs program … not for anyone. Not administrators, not teachers, not even the students. Sure education generally helps get a job, but in a lot of cases, not even required.

      I enjoy teaching. Could never be a classroom teacher in K – 12. 1) Don’t like large crowd teaching. 2) Couldn’t put up with the BS. But I have taught. Or maybe it is called tutoring …

      1. Compulsory education was explicitly a jobs program; or an anti-jobs program if you will.

        It was meant to pull as many teens out of the workforce as possible.

    2. “If you won’t Think Of The Children, will you think of them?”

      Sure. I’ll be wondering why they can’t comprehend “Small fries, large coffee, and no, I really don’t want cheese on my burger today!”

      Large fries and a Big-Gulp cup…. grumblemumble…

      1. …or around here, where you have to pay the cheeseburger price and ask them to leave the poison off, since “hamburger” is no longer on the menu.

        1. Still rather have a flesh and blood taking my order. Humans are at least trainable, even these sorry excuses for college students. If I ever find out who programmed those idiot kiosk machines at McDonalds, I’m going to defenestrate them from the top of the nearest skyscraper. You can’t argue with, or explain, to a program that you can’t get from point A to point B because they didn’t put the link in.

        1. Meat and cheese are expensive.

          Lettuce is cheap.

          Most people don’t complain.

          They did the math, and that’s what they came up with.

          I don’t put salad on my sandwiches or hamburgers, and I agree with Jimmy Tudeski about mayonnaise. Although I wouldn’t threaten to shoot the waiter’s dog. It’s not the dog’s fault.
          G’Kar: “I have looked into the darkness, Na’Toth. You can not do that and ever be quite the same again.”

    3. Well, their rapid entry into unskilled work would mean I could afford to pay to have my lawn mowed instead of doing it myself.

      Maybe sweep my carport, too.

      1. Drive the price down, it would. Supply and demand. Also might create work ethic in a small minority who somehow realize that the only thing stopping you… is you.

      2. You don’t want to hire any of the ‘educators’ who couldn’t find work as actual teachers to do much of anything. You’d end up having to do it over yourself, anyway.

        1. For some inexplicable reason, the education poobahs seem to prefer candidates with education degrees over those with an actyal degree in something like math. This is where I’ll mention that Education majors, as a group, have the highest avg. GPAs and the lowest avg. standardized test scores.

          1. Because if some hoopty who never went to the schools these poobahs went to but has worked on the oilfields for 20 years is better at teaching Calc 1 or Geometry or Geology or so on it proves just how useless they are. Granted, teaching is a skill just as anything else is, but if you needed help learning to cook would the chef from a local restaurant who hires & trains a couple assistants a year on the side of cooking meals for tens of thousands be a better idea than a teacher that just cooks at home?

            1. I have lots of experience with immobilizing via leather and chain and I’m learning rope (have a great food thing that makes it easy to drag a person around).

              As for sound, I’m also good with improvised gags.

              And none of that is sarcasm, although it was learned for a different application.

    4. i love that per-student spending is used to measure how good schools are, when increased school budgets seem to buy mid-level administrators not teachers…

      1. Two-thirds of the members of the ‘California Teachers Association’ rarely set foot in a classroom. They are bureaucrats, and they are paid three to eight times as much as the actual teachers. Union dues are a percentage of salary, so the union gets more out of them, too. The union bribes contributes to the politicians making those decisions. All very neat and cozy for everybody except the students, their parents, and the taxpayers.
        “They were the bad guys, as you say, we were the good guys, and they made a very satisfying THUMP when they hit the floor!”

    5. TBH, bad teachers can do immense damage even if you want to learn. A bad teacher is orders of magnitude more damaging than none.

  4. There was a Mark Steyn column about a decade back comparing per pupil costs and results of the D.C. Public schools along with tuition and results from Swiss boarding schools. His conclusion was that we would both save money and get better results if we just chose one in three kids via lottery and sent them to Switzerland at public expense.

    Now, in obedience to the hostess’s first command, I’m off to see if I can find a clean pair of pants…

    1. I made that same comparison when I was casting around for a private school for my then-HS age daughter. (Who was absolutely floundering in a large public school setting, even though the schools were relatively good ones.) IIRC, I had read that the cost of pubic school per pupil was something like $6,000 a year … which was about what the tuition of the top-rated private HS in San Antonio was at the time.
      All I could think of was how very little we were getting for all that money. I understand it’s even worse now.

      1. For folks who are interested– here’s the state averages, and cities with the highest spending in that state:

        National average for private school high school is less than $9500; national average per-student spending (rolling the less expensive grade school students in to the total) is over $11k.

        Now, there are not likely to be a lot of private schools in the logistically more expensive areas– say, so small they combine grades type areas– but it is…yeah, really not THAT easily supported.

        1. I eventually parked the kid in the smallest and least expensive of those schools that I could find: a private all-girls Catholic school, just around the corner from Kelly and Lackland AFB. It was a largely Hispanic school, the physical plant was from the 1960s, the library was a joke, the textbooks were old and falling to pieces, as was the single school bus (used for athletic team transport) but the classes were small and the academic standards were rigorous. It set me back about $2,000 a year. I suppose that the diocese and the scholastic order of nuns who ran it were the main parties keeping tuition so very low.

        2. Good lord. I looked at my state, and the 4 spendiest are, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere. If the teachers are living in those districts they, and their students, probably make up close to 10% of the population. The 5th is just outside our capital city, which is growing by leaps and bounds, so I don’t understand how that one is so expensive.

          1. Usually it’s not going into teacher’s salaries– although they do have to have all the Required Support for the district, and a lot of places outlawed having folks do double-duty like the nurse being the school secretary– but it’s the building and the buses, too, divided by far fewer kids.

            Our car is a lot more expensive than the average family, because it’s a kid hauler, but the per-kid cost is lower.

            1. It honestly would be nice to have the average be broken up into capital and pupil. For instance in OK a lot of the schools are aggressive in capital bonds because they can get them a lot easier than stuff for like teacher salaries or the like.

              But that would be a good way of understanding whether it is density or waste that is running costs. If you need 100 schools to cover 50,000 students the costs will be different than 75 schools to cover 150,000

          2. And just noticed I misread that as being about income, not total population.

            Hm, your last point on the 5th being next to the capital suggests that they’re doing a by-year spending, too. Which is good in some ways and bad in others– there’s a place over in Waukee that just built a freakin’ compound and put in roads and…well, they’re very future-proofed, even with the rate that they’re growing.
            But holy cow that must have cost out the EARS for the kids they do actually have this year. (And there’s like six developments right next to it they’re still building.)

          3. I noticed the same thing in my state. It makes sense why it would cost more per student to run some of these small districts, but it makes the comparisons rather meaningless.

        3. 2.3 million $/student!?! Holy Simoleons! I knew my state’s educational spending was (out of) whack, but that’s crazy!

        4. Holy … RI spends as much on two students in one year as I have left on my student loans for a BS and MS while I was stupid with money. IIRC that’s less than what myself and my brother cost together at private HS

  5. So, while I’m gone, someone brush RES and the rest of you put on pants, okay.

    *dryly* Oh, I can’t, someone is starting up the Pants On Women wars again. (eRan into someone who is somewhat sympathetic but not a supporter this morning.)

    1. So is it a campaign to have all women always wear mens clothes because patriarchy, or is it a campaign to have all women remove pants because patriarchy?

      What about women in swimsuits? Are those pants or not-pants?

      Do leggings count as pants?

      How about jeggings?

      1. It’s one of the more-christian-than-thou shticks that notices the disfunction between the sexes but pegs clothing as some sort of an important signal, so it’s only slightly less silly than your two examples.

        Leggings actually come up almost every time such a thing is mentioned, in a variation on the “yoga pants are a privilege not a right” shtick.

        1. Well, generally, I personally am all in favor of women removing pants, but it should be a task-oriented action in the preparatory sense, and not something ideology-directed.

          And in the specific this applies to one particular woman to whom I am married – strange women removing their pants is no basis for a rational system of anything.

          And re leggings, some persons wearing leggings have done more to damage my Male Gaze Superpower than any ideological campaign.

          1. It’s getting to the point where I want to make bingo cards…..

            Even the mandatory “what if I showed up in cutoffs and a low-cut shirt? Huh? Huh?” guys, who have apparently been too blinded by Teh Immodesty!!!1! to notice that’s dang near a uniform for guys in the summer.

          2. When in a task oriented environment where my opinion matter, I prefer skirts as they make task preparation easier.

            When in a task oriented environment where my opinion doesn’t matter, well, it doesn’t matter. I usually don’t have pants then either.

            strange women removing their pants is no basis for a rational system of anything.

            Oh, its a basis for a rational system for a lot of things, just not things we talk about more than euphemistically in most spaces.

        2. This seems to be based off of Deuteronomy 22:5
          5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the Lord your God.
          (NET translation) And no where else really. No clear context, its just wedged amongst a bunch of other commands. Paul/Saul brings up modest dress a couple times, but almost always in two contexts 1) Don’t dress like the temple prostitutes or women of “easy virtue” lest you give christians a bad name 2) Don’t dress fancy to lord it over the poorer members of your churches and make them jealous.

          I imagine these folk that say no pants for women eat pork, lobster, shrimp and cheesburgers all of which are also forbidden under related Levitical law and its interpretations. This kind of nonsense is part of why Christians get portrayed as idiots.

          I do wonder what they think of kilts for men (no I don’t own/wear them though I used to threaten my daughters that I would do so to embarrass them :-).

          1. Some of the mildly crazy bible-Christians do, yeah; the ones I usually run into are reacting to the hyper-sexualization and there’s a LOT of BS involved. Good heavens, it’s enough to put S. Fisher and me on the same side of a subject, that’s a lot of…er… extremism.
            Stuff on it here:

            With bonus points for a Vatican approved appearance of the Virgin Mary in pants. 😀

          2. > A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing

            Apparently “clothing” in the Roman Empire and its outlying areas consisted of… a long strip of cloth wrapped and tucked so it wouldn’t fall off, or what I’d call a “dress.”

            Searching “Roman female clothing”, the difference between “man dress” and “woman dress” isn’t readily apparent to me.

            Granted styles probably changed over time and by region, so I presume there’s some context I’m unaware of.

            1. Well, if you’re looking at respectable/noble ladies, the main thing you see is their over-robe, which is kinda like the toga; then the ladies have the slip-dress looking things that pin at the shoulder, and an under-tunic. Guys wore tunics, too, and early on women wore just tunics.

              It’s probably a little too… in depth…for these folks….

            2. TRX I doubt that 1st century Judea was much different. From my latin class long ago I remember that the uper class roman males wore the toga virilis. it was 14 yards of heavy duty cloth , don’t remember what kind. Wool? Linen?Cotton is darned rare comes from Egypt and is a pain to work with in its earlier forms before it is heavily domesticated and the bolls get bigger and open better. VERY heavy. Period Greek garb consisted of a chiton (basically a night shirt/chemise) under a heavier garb that looked kind of like a belted sack. Pants are mostly unknown. There are legging/sock like items for cold climate I think I’ve seen them for legionnaires up in Britannia. Certainly there were some differences for the sexes, but I think short decoration they’d be lost on us 2 millennia later. And as Foxfier kind of implies rich folk have far more differentiated clothing. Poor folk are just happy to get there *ss covered.

              1. I understand that they were primarily wool. I had an authentic one made while in Colombia for Halloween. A By God authentic toga virilis is a load to haul around all day. I understand why upper class Romans had a full-time attendant to follow him around to help keep the toga properly draped.

      2. Generally speaking, I’m against women in pants. First of all, women aren’t men, and trying to disguise them as such is, well gosh darn it, like putting lipstick on a pig. Second, if it’s okay to put women in pants, then it’s okay to put men in dresses; and frankly men in dresses look stupid. Heck, most men have a tough time pulling off wearing a kilt without looking like loons. Third, well, I’m just a patriarchical, sex-obsessed, old geezer. If my honey is wearing a dress and laying on the couch, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to get her interested in something, or at least laughing, than if she was wearing trousers. Heaven forbid some poor feminist creature laugh or be interested in a guy.

            1. Sadly,, my only recollection of Dr. Hook is “Sylvia’s Mother”. That was a Shel Silverstein song, and I have a fair amount of them on LP as done by Bobby Bare. (Just got an audo-USB interface widget, and plan to expand my MP3s beyond our CD collections.)

                1. Hey, even I’ve heard of that one!

                  (And now I’ll be howling “onthucovahuhtha ROLLIN’ STOOOWNS!” in my head for a few days. May have to purge it with “Tell Me Ma” if it gets too bad.)

                  1. Gonna send five copies to my mother.

                    I discovered in high school that envisioning Darth Vader and Stormtroopers doing the Macarena to the Imperial March would shake most unwontedly persistent thoughts. I have no idea if this would work for other people.

        1. then it’s okay to put men in dresses; and frankly men in dresses look stupid

          Two major changes fix that:

          1. Shaving.
          2. Learning the right body language.


      3. I am wearing a skirt because I like to.

        I mean, ‘because screw you, feminazis’ did get added to the list after one scolded my husband for ‘not letting’ me wear pants. I had four kids six and under at the time: skirt was for having them hang onto since I only have two hands and a newborn. But it’s way, way down the list of reasons to wear skirts, after more comfortable, warmer or cooler, and fun.

        Pants, eh, they’re handy for certain sorts of work. Usually work involving shovels, saws, livestock, or moving furniture. I’ll probably wear them for scything when I try that. Maybe this summer. (Mechanical vibrations set off my carpel tunnel something horrible. Highly do not recommend carpel tunnel.)

          1. Reminds me of an old western I saw on TV. “How come you’re called Rawhide?” I came here from Scotland, and got on a horse wearin’ mah kilt!”

        1. But it’s way, way down the list of reasons to wear skirts, after more comfortable, warmer or cooler, and fun.

          The cooler and comfort was a big reason I adopted the common goth fashion of everyone in a skirt on club nights.

          The difference after four hours in a packed dance club when you’re actually dancing is huge.

        2. Pants are considerably more challenging to find a proper fit, what with waist, hips, waist-to-crotch depth, inseam and multiple other complicating factors. Which is why the Women’s Pants selection is so large in comparison to the Men’s.

          Women in pants is wasteful and harms the climate. I leave subsidiary arguments in support of that assertion as an exercise for the student.

          1. I learned to despise skirts/dresses starting at age 12. Why? Dang snow storm where they shut down schools early (Willamette Valley) and made the bus students wait outside the building. Still in knee highs. Froze. It. Was. Cold. Little better when I started wearing long skirts/dresses in HS; never was into the mini-skirt no matter how popular they were back then. But those were problematic riding a bike to school. Either ride bike or walk, back then (too close to HS school, for all that it was almost 2 miles). Now, HS I went to, students take the city bus, which would be doable. For some reason, never wore shorts under skirts, which would have helped. (If it helps, I graduated ’74, at 17.)

            Got away from dresses in college and afterwards due to profession. Even after switching to computers, until 100% into software development, spent too much time on floor dealing with cables. Got out of the habit, except special occasions. Hubby never knew me when I wore skirts/dresses regularly as we met in college.

            1. I hate wearing skirts because– besides comfort issues, I only own two or three that are at least as comfortable as my jeans in function and appearance, only one of those has pockets, plus one that’s a long skirt version of a pair of slacks– I keep ending up in situations where things need to be done.
              I Do Things. Especially when it becomes obvious we’re in one of those obnoxious stand there and talk about how it needs to be done situations.

              Doing Things in a skirt when you aren’t graceful in the first place bites, and it tends to flip folks from “oh, hey, she’s doing it, I better help” to “run over and tell her how she couldn’t do it. Don’t bother actually doing it yourself, leave that to the old guy who also rushes over when he really shouldn’t but he is a gentleman.” (Yes, I do have terrible luck like that.)

              1. $SPOUSE stopped wearing dresses or skirts when she retired. There’s always something that needs to be done. Besides, it’s a rural county, and dressing up (even going to church) was optional.

                  1. This thread about skirt hate amuses me; because any day I can wear a kilt instead of pants is a good day.

                    And since all my kilts (even the tartan one) are utility kilts I still have pockets.

                    1. Oh, if I had a utilikilt like my cousin, it’d be pretty cool– problem being, it cost more than all the pants I own, and I’d still look terrible.

                    2. My workman’s model utilikilt is the single most expensive piece of clothing I own; even more than my full tux with tailcoat (which I did admitedly source from thrift/vintage stores).

              2. [from a 1988 session capture from Byte’s BIX online system]

                So I was backing out from under the desk and looked up, and my boss asked “What are you doing under there?”

                “I was searching for an outlet.”

                [pause] “Have you considered primal scream therapy?”

                1. I don’t know if that boss was honestly confused or a champion snarker, but that’s hilarious either way. 🙂

                  1. I used to fit in my Dad’s old curdoroys, when I was in college. He blinked when he recognized them. I wouldn’t fit in them now, sadly (because hips) but I’m hoping to be able to fit into men’s denims again one day and learn the sewing skills in order to shorten the legs, as I have the universal issue that you do.

                    Hell, most women’s pants here… I hold them up and the waistline is to my armpits. *sigh*

                    1. Oh, gads, yes.

                      Once we were at a western store, and I was delighted because I found a pair of really nice looking lady’s fashon jeans that (from looking at the size of the waist) I could tell would fit very nicely–it was shortly after I got engaged and I looked rather nice, for me.

                      So I unfolded them… and called my folks over, because with the hem on the floor it was over eye-level on me.

                      We STILL have no idea what on earth the target demographic was.

            2. What killed them for me was slides. When I was in pre-school, I wore dresses every day and refused to consider wearing pants like a boy. Then I went to an elementary school with tall, slick metal slides. I tried going down one in my little dress.

              The next day, I wore pants. I’ve never looked back.

              1. Why I mentioned what year I graduated from HS. Didn’t have a choice. Pants weren’t “allowed”, except snow days. And Willamette Valley. Snow days = shut down. I did in HS, because I had a Forestry Science class Jr year, and regularly went on field trips where a dress was ill advised. Then Sr year had an Environmental Block of Science, Math, & English. Lots of field trips. Dresses worked, just chose not to. Mom wasn’t real thrilled with pants. When I graduated & started college, she lost that vote, for all that I was still 17 (not for long, but still …) What really got her to shut up was a conversation that involved my then fiance. Don’t remember the exact conversation, but somehow it came around to the fact I rarely wore a dress, … his response was “So?” 🙂 Yes. Definitely a keeper.

            3. The dress code was skirts and dresses for the girls, and Levis *without* rivets for the boys, or better slacks. This changed in the 1969-70 winter (my senior year), when we had several days of sub-zero weather–there’s usually a short cold snap in suburban Chicago around the New Years, but this was long and freakin’ cold. TPTB decided that the skirt rule was going to get them sued or decorating a lamppost, so that got relaxed. Not sure when blue denim got allowed (might have been OK for the girls because how many HS girls in that era had dressy slacks), but a couple of years after I graduated HS (June ’70), blue jeans were standard. As I recall, Levis came up with non-riveted jeans, though I never got the explanation why rivets were verboten beyond shut up.

      4. Leggings are only pants with either:

        1. Exceptional legs and butt.
        2. Long, tunic top.

        Swimsuits are Pantscon 0 items as are skirts, dresses, and kilts.

        Swimsuits are awaiting a ruling.

        Jeggings are right out.

        1. Male Student: But they have pockets! They’re not leggings.
          Dean of Students: Put something in the pocket.
          Male Student: Um, ah, I can’t.
          Dean of students: Go to the uniform closet. [Male teacher] will get you trousers to wear until your parents bring you suitable clothes. And you are on the dress-uniform list for the rest of this week.

          1. Great, more Emo kids. I’ll get on the Elder Goth network and send in a deprogramming team, because Elder Goths don’t let angsty teenagers go Emo; they are ours.

            1. I do what I can for the cause. It’s amazing how Within Temptation’s “Our Solemn Hour” as pre-exam music flushes, er, allows them to self-identify.

              1. I am a Within Temptation fan myself, but I’m sure glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this, or I’d have to explain to the IT guy why I need a new keyboard.

                (Though I didn’t discover WT until I was 30, so that’s probably part of it.)

    2. What????

      You’re Not Wearing Under-Pants!!!!! [Shocked]

      [Very Very Big Grin While Flying Away Very Very Fast]

  6. When I first lived in New Orleans, within a week, I could show you a dozen schools.
    only one was a public school. And that one was the hardest to get into (the old Ben Franklin School was the college prep/magnate).
    I later learned where the other public schools were but they were the rarities. Anyone who had a job, tried to get their kid into a private school, and the biggest historically black school there was a private (Lutheran iirc) school.

  7. >> “So, while I’m gone, someone brush RES and the rest of you put on pants, okay.”

    So if I’m parsing this correctly, the person who brushes RES doesn’t have to put on pants? You have a very strange incentive system around here.

    BTW, just to check: did you receive the guest post I sent yesterday?

    1. I would definitely want to wear pants if I was brushing Res.

      Old pants, because I’m sure Wallabies shed prodigiously.

    2. Well, duh. What would happen if the incentive system were not strange? She would have panicking Huns!

      1. Well, she said not long ago that she wanted to avoid scaring any normals we had around here. I’m not sure this is the way to go about it. 😛

  8. My whole childhood, taking cattle up to the “School Range” was a normal thing– several different School Ranges.

    A school was granted land, and that was used to make the money to educate the kids in the area; usually by renting it out for grazing, or selling logging rights.

    …see why I get so angry about the idea of national parks being something that needs to be paid for, rather than responsibly managed to pay for themselves and more?

    1. > pay for themselves

      It’s not in the best interest of the pols if the parks pay for themselves.

      Now, an appropriation, that’s free money…

      1. It would also make it hard for the activists to get to act like it’s the king’s forest if the allowed the actual owners (everybody) to profit from them at least enough for it not to be a drain that needs to be locked off from access.

    2. Ah, but those are _national_ parks! Didn’t the federal government try to run a brothel at one point and fail to show a profit? If they can’t make money from the oldest profession, how are they supposed to make money at anything more complex?

      (Sadly, the Overton Window still rules out a healthy rate of lynched politicians per year.)


        1. As I recall, they got the brothel because the owner wasn’t paying any taxes. That COULD be because the Brothel wasn’t making money, but I think it was because the owner was a crook.

          OTOH, I know of an ‘Adult Media’ store, from back in the day when VHS was still a thing. It was in a good location (not too seedy, not so clean you wondered what the hell it was doing there) and had decent traffic. According to one of the guys who worked there, it was in tax receivership because the owner was fond of excessively dodgy deductions, and the Government was losing money running the place.

          They couldn’t lead a pack of hungry vampires to a blood bank.

          1. It’s entirely possible that a lot of “adult shops” don’t actually make money.

            That’s a business where it would be not just possible, but likely that you would have people spending large amounts of untracable cash and paying vastly more than the supplier did for the product, and avoiding being seen going in, etc.

            1. Now you have me wondering if I should take a pen and clipboard down to a couple of “adult bookstores” in the area and inventory their merchandise and prices.

                1. I don’t exactly give off “Mug me” vibes.
                  Rather, the opposite, if not quite up to the Hoyt Security Escort Service. (You want protection? Raise BIG sons!)
                  Of course there are the occasionally clueless criminals…

                  1. Oh, it wouldn’t be a real mugging.

                    That’s just how it would be reported.

                    Kind of like how that witness against MS-13 in New York got randomly mugged to death after they gave the cartel guys’ lawyer his identity.

                  2. Like the two psychopaths who tried to flank me AND Robert, who is six one and built like a weight lifter? Or ancient statues of Hercules?
                    And then were shocked when I pulled my knife out?

            2. I suppose. Certainly these days, I tend to assume that any ‘Adult World’ type store is probably a money-laundering operation. And I read that much of the non-film porn industry in the ‘70’s was all one octopus with a lot of mob connections.


              Still, in the days before the internet got going, you’d think the government could run a business catering to one of the basic vices without LOSING money.

          1. “Failure to pay taxes,” was the version I heard.

            Looks like failure to pay taxes was the actual disagreement– went into bankruptcy rather than pay the difference– but more importantly the gov’t never got a chance to run it anyways, the license didn’t transfer:


            Bonus? Some of the other places say that it was bought and re-opened….by the guy who didn’t pay taxes before, under an assumed name.

          1. That’s what I heard. Found a newspaper link and posted it under A. S M..

            The place wasn’t running the short time they owned it, license didn’t transfer.

            Was a “tax disagreement” where he said he owed about half of what they said… and now I’m wondering if HE had cartel ties, ‘cus that’s a big disagreement.

            1. The government isn’t all that good at determining who actually owes taxes. A couple of decades ago when I was looking at the Gordon Kahl fiasco (brother of our Det. Sgt. was an investigator on the Medina shootout and previous US Marshall, so I got to see his written report) one of the initial issues, of which there was a very long string of things that didn’t add up right, was that Kahl was convicted of failure to file a tax return on farm income that was so low that it didn’t actually meet the threshold of requiring to file one. Kahl appears to have been a class A, no.1, A-hole and badly misinformed on legal principals. But that doesn’t excuse the IRS from acting like the Sicilian Mafia.

              1. *ears perk* I’ve never heard of a farm that legally did not have to file income taxes– a lot that got caught, and “caught,” under-reporting income or over-claiming expenses, though. (my sample is screwy so a lot more were actually caught than “caught” meaning accused and lost– it’s a popular tax dodge in pretty much any nice area somewhat close to a big city, or hunting areas, and that gets a lot more of the sincerely dishonest folks.)
                It’s a business, they’ve got different rules. It’s part of why I start to shudder every time someone suggests a national sales tax.

                Since the search sites are all jacked up (no, stop “fixing” my search! I mean farm taxes 1980, NOT the farm bust of the 80s, NOT current farm taxes! NOT 1040 filing levels!) do you remember any other details?

                *pokes a bit* … it appears that he was one of those guys who started the “it’s illegal to file taxes, and immoral to ask me to pay them” thing? The only stuff I can find is that they didn’t prove he owed at least some of them, which is rather hard when you refuse to file, which is why there are so many things you’re required to file for.

                1. IIRC usually the threshold for filing for a business is total income has to exceed 10,000. Mostly because they figure every business is going to spend at least that much in rent, wages, supplies, etc. Been a while since I worked as a VITA; and we weren’t supposed to do business taxes; but every so often some junior GI would walk in with a home business and needed help.

                  1. Ah, the Hobby exception– although states will have different stuff, too, before requiring a license. (I think it was $500 in Cali in the 90s.)

                    But, as you point out, that’s because you can’t live off of it if you’re not nearly entirely off the grid sort–neither buying nor selling nor hiring, and of course trading stuff is taxable at least now, though this is 40-50 years ago or more so…aaargh.

                    No wonder so many folks who do REALLY historical stuff throw their hands up in the air about what the laws were at the time.

                    1. Federal & State may have a limit. But local county requires reporting regardless for LTD taxes. I never made more than $2k/year independent income (early ’00s).

                2. I feel you on the internet searches, they aren’t helpful at all. Most of the information I got was from the hard copy report I read during downtown at WFPD.

                  And yeah, he seems like a complete and utter horse’s posterior, with a side order of bat guano. But there was a whole host of issues regarding his case, and the subsequent case against his family/friends after the shootout. It seemed like some of the Feds wanted to make an example of him, rather than actually enforce the law as written. Off the top of my head, and I may not be remembering everything correctly:

                  He was charged with a misdemeanor, but was sentenced under felony guidelines. Might have been that his parole was changed to felony guidelines rather than misdemeanor, I can’t remember right now. His parole required he give up his 1st Amendment rights. Original warrant was cancelled by another judge who felt the warrant was invalid as written. Original judge who issued the warrant reissued the warrant after it was cancelled. US Marshal Bud Warren spoke to Kahl several times over the phone, but didn’t see the necessity of sending anyone out to enforce a questionable misdemeanor warrant against someone likely to fight. Everyone in the area knew where Kahl was, but thought better of trying to pick a fight with him. Any action against him didn’t need to be hasty. New US Marshal was apparently a friend of the original judge who issued the warrant, implied in conversations with coworkers that making a name for himself would get him promoted out of ND. The original roadblock may not have been with marked law enforcement vehicles. There’s questions about who fired the first shot. IIRC one of the law enforcement officers was shot by one of the Marshals. During the court cases against the Kahls and Scott Faul, prosecution witnesses were allowed to sit in the courtroom during testimony of other witnesses, and also allowed to interact with the victims’ families.

                  1. Another thing to stick in the back of my head to noodle around with when I run into it. At least there’s enough pieces that if I run into it, it should be at least on the level of “hm, that sounds familiar….”

      1. They did indeed attempt to run a brothel, and had it go bankrupt. THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T EVEN SUCCESSFULLY SELL SEX what on earth makes anyone think they should be entrusted with something like health care?!

        I–a fed gov employee, mind you–frequently point this out to anyone in my range who makes the slightest noises about the gov being good at something. WE ARE NOT. (I also point out to folks that those of us stuck on the INSIDE of the bureaucracy hate it as much as the ones on the outside. Yes, it makes us ALL unhappy, and keeps us from doing our jobs efficiently. I just had to tell someone that, while her company was awesome and amazing for getting on top of something with us a YEAR in advance…I couldn’t accept it, because the odds are so darn high that if it sits on someone’s desk for a year or more, it will get lost/forgotten about/screwed up. So please send it in August, and things will go smoothly. I hated having to tell her that, but…I know how things work.)

        (I’m in this job for the insurance, I admit it. And a steady paycheck whilst I line up other, better paying self-employment options. 😀 )

        1. “Well, I know the Canadian government lost loosing money on pot.” Fixed it …

          Oregon is not getting the taxes they thought they would. OTOH they aren’t collecting from the mom & pop neighborhood sites. That technically are legal grows for self medical use. Really? Illegal grows didn’t go out of business. They took some of it legit. Some of it they didn’t (majority). Only thing it has done is drive the non-legit stuff prices down. Or so it is alleged. I know the neighborhood, or at least one, site, didn’t shut down … the one next to mom’s house.

          1. There’s a known issue with legal grows getting “pressure” to trade the good pot they grow for the low-quality stuff from illegal grows.

            It is… not a voluntary type arrangement.

            Major reason folks leave the business.

        2. And California didn’t even manage to dent the illegal market. The only people buying legal in California are those who would never ever buy it illegally.

    3. My understanding is that a lot of them do pay for themselves. It is just that they do not get to keep it. The gross receipts go into the general pile of government money then they have to beg to get the money out that they need for maintenance. It is then recorded that they are a money drain as their receipts are not counted.

      1. The forest roads are a *big* sore spot, and when they disallow logging, the fire fighting costs are…. ouch.

        On top of that kind of BS.

        1. That’s a cause of much complaint–at least on our (the BLM’s) side–regarding the stupid tree-huggy policies implemented at least as far back as Clinton.

          We’ve had some doozies of fire seasons here.

          Most of the BLM lands in my state don’t have a lot of trees on them, but our fire guys spend fire seasons helping the forest service. Because our forests here are chock full of beetle kill and by this point it’s very dry indeed…

          (I also suspect part of the problem with the forest service roads in my area is that…the local FS field office is crazy. No, seriously. They are REALLY crazy. We’ve had BLM-ers go over to them–partly because the office was a lot closer to where they lived–and flee back to the BLM as soon as they could, because their crazy so far outstripped ours. And we’ve had some managers that were, quite literally, insane.)

          1. So if someone were fired from the Forest Service for being crazy, and it stuck, that would be pretty unusual?

            1. Hm. Makes me wonder even more about how the schools used to try to direct so many students to “Forest Ranger.”

              Default for the crazies, Odds, and troublemakers?

          2. Wow. In our county, the FS tends to be fairly sane while the BLM isn’t. The FS situation might be helped because ODF (Oregon Forestry) does a bit of the fire prevention/suppression work in season, while the BLM fire guys come across as jerks.

          3. There are days I read of the (mis) adventures of some Forest Service offices and wonder if crazy is contagious. Because they can’t have started out that strange, but after a decade or so, wow.

      2. National Parks (& National monuments, despite the naming are still national parks) that are fee based, keep a high percentage of the gate receipts. Not sure about the fees generated by the private enterprises that manage campgrounds, or the commissions generated by entities like Xanterra (Yellowstone). “My understanding is that a lot of them do pay for themselves. It is just that they do not get to keep it. The gross receipts go into the general pile of government” used to be true, but changed about (???) 10 years ago.

        Look at the recommendations when buying an Annual All Access Pass or the One Time Senor All Access Pass, recommendation is to purchase it at your favorite park, if you can’t do that, any park, as the park purchased at gets to keep most if not all the proceeds. True when it was only $10 for the Senor version.

        Xanterra isn’t one of them (Yellowstone has it’s own version that operates gift shops), but I believe Yosemite, one of the controversies when the management of the hotels & campgrounds went out for bid (standard procedure) that it was awarded to a not-for-profit company formed specifically to funnel money back to Yosemite as it’s mission statement. The prior company who’d had won and been in charge for years, uh, was not happy. It makes me think that the money generated by these management companies, that the percentage of receipts they pay for the privilege do go back to the general fund. But people have figured a way to at least put profits back into the park of their choice & thumb their noses at the general fund. But I don’t know.

        “My understanding is that a lot of them do pay for themselves. It is just that they do not get to keep it. The gross receipts go into the general pile of government” is still true for BLM & USFS national forest funds. Not that either is generating any money, or much, due to the lack of logging, regionally anyway.

        Fire fighting? With the number of forest roads that have been decommissioned? Um, yea, that …

        1. And the “lovely” habit of decommissioning by digging a ten foot ditch, ripping the heck out of the road, and then digging ANOTHER ten foot ditch…and oh yes they “accidentally” did several roads they weren’t supposed to.

          1. West of the mountains, Cascades, decommissioned roads are overgrown within half a decade, even well established ones. Coastal west, even faster. Heck, even not decommissioned by ditch or other means, are overgrown due to lack of use & maintenance. May not be much in the compacted well used ruts. Down the middle and brush taking advantage of the light, definitely narrow down the road to impassible.

            1. TRust me, I know! Part of the lease is doing basic upkeep on the roads– it is freaking AMAZING how fast trees grow, I KNOW we had cleared the ones I helped on, well back from the road, but in addition to the fallen trees there were always a bunch of branches blocking the way, too.

              That’s how I know about the “accidentally” decommissioned roads. We were tasked with upkeeping some of them.

              1. Hmmm. I thought it was just our local FS folks who did crazy crap like that…(Small wonder most of the locals–including those of us in other gov agencies who would like to spend time in the forests, thanks–hate them.)

                  1. Yeah, given the waves of dysfunction I’ve seen here over the years (I was a contractor here for a number of years before actually becoming an employee), as well as the pure insanity I see/hear about in the very small field offices…::shudders::

                    (Part of it is the fact that it’s really, REALLY hard to fire someone from a gov job, because the HR department is ten times as evil as even private sector HR departments, and they are violently allergic to lawsuits…and will cave even in the face of patently frivolous ones. “Oh, we fired this person because they hadn’t actually done any of their job in YEARS and have cost us millions of dollars. Wait, she’s suing us? ::whimper:: Okay, she can have her job back for now…” I kid you not, this actually happened here. I don’t think the woman in question ultimately won…but the HR people–and by extension everyone else–rolled over and played dead the minute “lawsuit” was mentioned. It’s ridiculous.)

                  2. I suspect it is more a matter of the crazies crowding out the only somewhat disturbed and possibly transmitting their craziness to the folk who remain.

                    Working among zealots can be exhausting and compel sensible people to pursue other career opportunities.

                    The same dynamic is why political movements tend to become more extreme through retention of fanatics and departure of those desirous of having a life.

            2. Even here in the East an unused road quickly becomes impassable. In 3-4 seasons the frost heaves and potholes have torn up the tar, and shortly after that bushes and fast growing trees are growing in the exposed soil and tearing up the road even further (and impeding passage). Within 30-50 years its gone. Go walking in rural New England and you’ll often see bits of roads or long stone walls in the middle of nowhere. By the late 19th century farmers had left the more difficult to farm sections for the West abandoning stone structures and well worn roads. Now much of New England is back to forest though not the same as when settlers first got here as the elm and American chestnut are long gone.

              1. “frost heaves and potholes have torn up the tar”

                No tar or asphalt on forest road locally, or rarely. At best gravel based single lane with pullouts.

              2. There is a clover leaf near here where I noticed — after many years — that it has a stone wall crumbling in the middle of the forest.

              3. We’re working on bringing back the American Chestnut.

                Two main avenues. One being done by the American Chestnut Foundation by crossing with Chinese Chestnuts and then back breeding the hybrids with more American chestnuts to keep the resistance, reduce the Chinese traits and increase the American traits. Second one being done by a small organization, American Chestnut Cooperators’ Foundation, and they’re selecting and breeding native resistance 100% American chestnuts. I’ve got 9 trees from the ACCF in the back that I started from seed (started with 11, lost one to chipmunks, the other to ice storm.) We’ll see if a couple of them decide to bloom this year or not. No blight on any of them yet, and one is nearly 20 feet high.

                1. OK Mike that is seriously cool. American Chestnuts got to be HUGE trees, large trunks, huge high spreading canopy. Makes for a VERY different forest than Maples, Oaks, Birches and Conifers. And the wood when we get there is magnificent. Tight grained, strong, very slow to burn in a fire. Sitting in my cellar is an 8×12 (roughly) of about 12′ length of Chestnut that was milled at my great grandfathers (John Miller yes that was his name 🙂 ) lumber yard. Part of it ended up as the mantle for my grandparents fireplace. I almost did the same with my first house but glad I didn’t as we sold that house 20+ years ago and I don’t know if the buyers would have appreciated what they had. Here’s hoping ACCF succeeds.

        2. The BLM gets touted as “the only gov agency that actually turns a profit” It is true. It’s just a very, very tiny one. A coworker and I were discussing this just yesterday–technically, the amount of rent charged by the BLM for a BLM-surface right-of-way is really, really low. (I pointed out that really, the point isn’t to make money, even though, as stated, we’re the only agency that makes any. Not that you can tell it from the paychecks, either…unless one is connected or blatantly corrupt, one does not get a government job for the size of the paycheck but rather the decent insurance and the nice days-off policy. Especially when an area is like mine, and the economy otherwise operates on a boom-and-bust standing, which makes feeding one’s family difficult.)

          Our busiest folks are still the fire fighting teams. They spend most of their time on Forest Service lands, though, since most of “our” lands are just sagebrush, greasewood, and crappy soils 😀

  9. “<ISo, while I’m gone, someone brush RES and the rest of you put on pants, okay.”

    What, nobody gets kilted?

    For the record, RES objects to brushing by anybody other than Beloved Spouse.

    As for getting glasses, I find the twenty-four ounce tumblers well suited to consumption of Iced Tea.

    1. I am actually surprised there is not yet an “Oh John Ringo No!” branded line of tactical kilts.

    2. I am kilted and kiltedDave will likely be unbifurcated as well. As to Paul’s question on underpants, I cannot speak for kiltedDave, but only three persons have the need to know in my case. Me, my wife, and God.
      As for brushing RES, have you ever tried to get hair off Scottish wool?
      I am not surprised at public schools trying to educate your children in Spanish – Your Latina, aren’t you? Don’t you want your children to learn their heritage? (sarcasm) I know of several parents who got this line. One set the mother was old hacienda Californian and objected to “that gutter Mexican, we speak Castilian!”; and another who were Syrian and assumed by school authorities to be Latino (whatever that means) because they tanned well, didn’t appear to be African American, and spoke something non-English among themselves!

      1. I recall one interview with an immigrant mother where she was asked why she didn’t teach her kids Spanish or insist upon it, but pushed English. Her reply was, roughly, “Doctors and Lawyers speak English. Gardeners speak Spanish.” The interviewer was a bit jolted by that response, as I recall.

        1. Good for her!

          I have only occasional and tangental contact with the legal Hispanic immigrant community, but my take has been that the Democrats conflate the entire community into one set of characteristics, and those characteristics are only applicable to a small minority.

          1. Democrats are only concerned with the Authentic Minority Community … meaning, of course, those conforming to the Progressives’ stereotype.

            1. Those are the loud ones. The quiet ones, when you listen, tell you “WE ARE AMERICANS, D*MMIT!” At least the ones locally do. Might want to invest in earplugs.

              Why? So you can hear the quiet ones, naturally.

      2. I had a Great-Aunt who was old hacienda Californian and she would have said something similar.

        She rejected the idea that she was “Mexican”. She was Spanish. 😀

          1. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I live in Illinois and she was a Californian so I only met her the summer of my sixteenth year when my family vacationed in California. 😉

            Oh, the brother of my grandfather Howard moved to California from Indiana as a young man and started the California branch of our family.

        1. Yeah, you have to remember that what little colonization actually occurred in Alta California (which ran all the way from the Pacific coast to the Rockies) really happened under the rule of the Spanish Crown. The missions and the land grants were all authorized by the crown back in Madrid before 1821. Once the revolution came in Mexico, other than disestablishing the missions and taking church lands to sell off to generate revenue, the new Mexican aristos pretty much ignored California and the rest of their territorial claims, so government services were basically self-serve.

          That neglect was a point of friction for some Spanish Californios. There was an independence coup started up north by Californios in 1836 that fizzled when they could not get the Southern (LA and San Diego area) Californios on board. It ended through a negotiated settlement that appointed the coup leader as governor of a more-independant Alta California. Another rebellion started in the north in 1846, kicked off when the Mexican government, panicked by the successful Tejas rebellion, tried to revoke ownership rights for foreign-born settlers of the land that those settlers had purchased.

          The 1846 rebellion coincided with the Mexican-American War, and with the help of the US Navy left all of Alta California in US control over a year before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo officially ceded all the northern territory claims to the US.

          Many Californios were actually happy with annexation to the US, figuring that Washington DC would at least pay more attention to them than had Mexico City – and then came the 1849 gold rush and the Californios became vastly outnumbered and outvoted by the new immigrant wave.

          But those colonists were by and large Spanish, and considered themselves such. Which puts a spin on the radical chicano reconquista nutjobs – when it was Mexicos they ignored it (see Baja California to this day), so only Spain really has a good claim if somehow one could push out the US.

          Or maybe the Russians, given their extensive colonial settlements along the coast.

          1. Heh, I can’t remember what else the guy had done to push my mom to be so rude, but at one point a real obnoxious twerp was yelling about how Zorro was a Mexican.

            Mom and dad both gave him chapter and verse that Zorro was a Spanish Californian.

            1. My wife’s father’s side of the family is Spanish. Some settled in what is now New Mexico and Arizona. Some settled in what is now Sonora and Chihuahua. They still refer to themselves as Spanish rather than “Hispanic” or “Mexican.” They didn’t start marrying outside of other Spanish families until the early 20th century, and then it was typically to descendants of other European families. I think her uncle was the first to marry outside of what .gov would classify as “white” when he married a Colombian immigrant. It’s similar to how many other immigrant/colonist communities would stay so rigidly homogeneous. Seems like things didn’t really open up among communities until WWII.

              1. That sounds about right– although the only detail I can remember, marrying-wise, is that they were not related to the Basque. At all. And for love of all that’s holy, DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THEY ARE.

                That is possible/probable a local issue, though, and my godfather was Basque, and at least one relate had a whole family of sharp-elbowed Basques, and did I mention really scary old ladies? One of those cases where I demonstrated my ability to be silent.

              2. It is worth remembering that the Mexican people – the Aztlán culture – has only ONE connection to Hispanic peoples: their Aztec ancestors were conquered by the Spanish. So all claims of Hispanic ancestry are nonsense and their proclaimed goal of restoration will include Hispanics out.

                  1. Rumor, shumor, there are at least two cartels that explicitly do it to scare folks, and a bunch that will do things like deface St. Jude statues into “Aztec Warriors.” I know of two cartels besides those that I *think* got wiped out in the course of enforcement, and then they found the shrines with bodies.

                    A strong theme in the smaller cartels, too, exactly because it’s scary, terrifying and frankly evil. Some of the hitmen use head-dresses to indicate how many they’ve killed, and how, came up in the course of a female hitman.

            2. Zorro was a Spanish Californian.

              Like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes and Don Quixote, Zorro was a frickin’ fictional character,

              created in 1919 by American pulp writer Johnston McCulley, and appearing in works set in the Pueblo of Los Angeles during the era of Spanish California (1769-1821).

              Nothing Mexican in there.

              Using him in any such argument is as intelligent as defending slavery through the example of Uncle Remus or condemning hunting based upon Bambi’s mother.

              1. And since then written about by Isabel Allende, a real Literary Writer. I actually liked the novel, and we’re taking it with us when we move—encouraged by the discovery that it’s one of the few of her books we can’t get in an electronic edition, not even at the excessive prices that are often charged now. But wow, is there a case of cultural appropriation to be made out against her. A Chilean woman writing about a Californian folk hero invented by an Anglo?

    3. I wouldn’t touch RES with a 10 foot pole. Have to use a 12-foot one, and those are usually only good for washing elephants. You sure RES isn’t one of those prehistoric, giant wallaby’s?

  10. Oh, and while (sort-of) on the subject, who thought it was a good idea for a bunch of bureaucrats to arbitrarily decide which school your kids have to attend? AND gave them the power to change district boundaries, forcing you to either send them to a different school, or move?

    What DOES a ‘Board Of Education’ do, anyway? (No, not the one hanging behind the principal’s desk; i KNOW what that one does!) Why do we have so many of them? Why are they paid three to eight times more than the teachers?
    If the government sells millions of tickets and gives some of the money to a few randomly selected ticket buyers, they call it a State Lottery and say it’s a wunnerful way to raise money. If a few private citizens do the exact same thing, they call it a Numbers Racket and throw them in jail.

    1. I love the people who babble about “and we bought a house right next to the school our children will go to!”

      Not anywhere I ever went to school, from the late ’60s onward… and from what I’ve read, the whole concept of “local school” has elicited only condescending pity from those “empowered” to make your kids spend two or more hours a day on the plague bus…

      1. I actually had a decent time when I was in public school — better than the private one — but I didn’t have to ride the bus. I hear it’s gone downhill. And that the local system where we live now does frequent redistricting.

  11. “the rest of you put on pants, okay.”
    (Raises an eyebrow)
    You know me too well, my lady.


    That was 2004, and probably some of the impetus for Dims to oppose No Child Left Behind, since the “100 times more likely to abuse than Catholic priests” was considered to be a _low_ estimate of how predatory the public school personnel had proven. And that’s before modern O’bummer-infused attitudes, where schools think that parents are to be kept in the dark, to better groom the children to be LGBTQ.

    I wouldn’t bet against growing up without school in third-world urban shitholes like Chicago being _better_ for kids overall. Even gangs might be more likely to protect their kids from pedos sniffing around, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of informal apprenticeships springing up. ‘Teach my brat something and you can dock his wages until he pays for whatever he spills/breaks’, etc.


  13. My late mother was a teacher, with extensive experience at various levels, mostly in government schools. She had a lot of bad things to say about it—the unions all too often protected people who should have been fired, and the school’s priorities all too often were sports-over-education. She never forgave her superiors for forcing her to pass people who should have been flunked, so they could play sports.

    I could add that the “lockstep” nature of public education, and its “one size fits all” Procrustean approach to educating the young, does a terrible disservice to the slow ones, and it’s even worse for the gifted. Getting rid of the public schools would not end education. Except for some specialized classes (mostly in the sciences) all you need is a quiet place, some students and a teacher who knows his or her stuff. And many kids would be much better-served by being apprenticed. Apprenticing a car-crazy kid with a mechanical bent to a master auto mechanic would give him a trade he could take anywhere, that pays pretty darn well.

    1. the unions all too often protected people who should have been fired

      Moreover, they discourage striving for excellence by those who shouldn’t be fired. Excellence not only entails more effort, it is effort actively discouraged by the less interested teachers. One consistent aspect of ALL union work-sites is that “rate busters” are detested.

      As for the Procrustean approach — it tends to drag everybody down to the slowest learners. Eliyahu Goldratt explored this* in manufacturing production in his business novel The Goal, examining what processes act as limiting factors, and the principles apply equally to classroom efforts to manage Scope & Sequence. Classrooms constantly cover material no faster than the slowest acceptable student, and different students will set that mark in different topics, thus ensuring the boredom and lack of attention of brighter students until they, too, adjust their learning rate to the class’ schedule.

      *The theory of constraints (TOC) is a management paradigm that views any manageable system as being limited in achieving more of its goals by a very small number of constraints. There is always at least one constraint, and TOC uses a focusing process to identify the constraint and restructure the rest of the organization around it. TOC adopts the common idiom “a chain is no stronger than its weakest link”. This means that processes, organizations, etc., are vulnerable because the weakest person or part can always damage or break them or at least adversely affect the outcome.

  14. The teachers have crossed lines in picking a side in recent elections.

    For simple self defense, conservatives should be shutting down public education.

    That is the moderate position.

    The extreme position is ‘and banning teachers from contact with children’.

  15. Bob’s plan that might actually significantly improve education:
    1. Shut down the public schools. Make the rubble bounce.
    2. Repeal laws banning child labor. Repeal other labor laws.
    3. Let a million sweatshops bloom.

  16. No, I will not put on pants. My heavy flannel petticoat and 12 oz twill skirt are much warmer than are women’s dress slacks, thank you!

    I have firm thoughts about public education. For professional reasons I will keep them to myself. I do, however, strongly encourage a return to the three-track system of trade-training, business-training, and college-bound. Most people don’t need AP biology and English. A lot of people need applied math and something like culinary science and catering, auto-mechanics, metal and wood shop, and welding, or business math, basic accounting, and business English.

  17. It’s funny. For all the supposed loved professed by American Left for How They Do Things In Europe, the only thing they ever really want from them is an excuse to take more money. The actual techniques, culture, shortcoming, and so on are ignored in favor of their utopian idea of how they would do it.
    Kind of like a teenage fangirl crushing on her favorite pop idol.

    1. Yeah.

      “We should have free college, like they do in Europe”

      “Can we also start separating kids into ‘going to college’ and ‘going to tech school’ in junior high, like they do in Europe?”


      1. Or elementary school, in some cases. In France, at least in the late 1980s, the tests and decisions came in their version of the US 4th grade. (So about 9-10 years of age).

            1. No. One of the advantages of Portugal at that time is that no, you couldn’t get around it with money EXCEPT by hiring tutors and sending your kids to private schools that taught more.
              The exams themselves were impartial and there was no private university.
              Now, mind you, rich families sent their kids to very demanding private schools; the merely well off sent their boys to private schools and their girls to public schools; people like us, who were “root, hog or die” — not peasants, but hardscrabble and battlers — well… as my dad said “We gave you a good mind. There are books all over.” And as mom said “I will be most disappointed if you don’t get into college.”
              So, brother and I got into college. Sure, most of our classes had got cars at 18, and took foreign vacations and wore designer clothes. We still always rose to the top.
              By the eighties — a year after I entered — a public university opened that cost the Earth.
              Now you ARE right. The children without much get a free education by pounding their brains into pulp to get in.
              The others? Private, dahling, private.

      2. this^^^
        Most Americans have no idea that this is how it actually works, and that if they lived in Europe, they probably wouldn’t be going to college even if it was “free”, because they aren’t up to entrance standards.
        In the USA, by contrast, we cater to the lowest common denominator, so that nearly everybody can get that coveted college degree, no matter how useless!

        1. Both my husband and I went to college for “free.”
          I made it to the top 0.05% of students and so had college for “free.”
          He did same and therefore had scholarships for college.
          My kids did same, but ah…. have penises.
          And we made too much money.
          Merit? Bah. No. Scholarships are for social engineering now… 😉
          Yeah. if they get ‘free college” these idiots are in for a RUDE awakening.

          1. Heck, I couldn’t take the National Merit Scholarship I won in 1979. Too pale, too male, and parents saved too much.

  18. Sarah, I’ve said this before. If not here, over at Indy. So, forgive me if you’ve heard this before. I agree that public schools are little more than socially accepted child abuse. However, here’s my point. It takes very little to kvetch about a huge problem. Big whoop. Until you can offer a (workable) solution to that problem, criticism is just noise. Homeschooling is not a viable solution for the vast majority of parents. We’re now into the third? generation of poorly educated parents. You can’t teach your kids stuff you don’t know. MOST parents are ill-equipped to teach more than one or two subjects. That is, IF finances allow one parent to be home to teach the kids. IF there are even two parents in the home to begin with.
    What is a practical, workable, solution?

    1. . We’re now into the third? generation of poorly educated parents. You can’t teach your kids stuff you don’t know.

      You can, actually. It’s just a little harder, and even “I know what they told me was wrong, this isn’t what they told me, let the kids read this” level stuff is an improvement.

      That’s what Khan Academy is. It’s aimed at the people who get completely lost past whole-number division but want their kids to learn math.
      There’s iCivics for civics education.
      There’s all kinds of educational stuff on youtube.

      More importantly– holy F, I’ll pass on vouchers, if I can just keep our school property taxes in exchange for teaching my own kids! I could hire some rather decent tutors for this price.

      1. You’re sniffing around a possible solution. (smiles) How would you handle subjects that require (or are better taught with) a decently equipped lab, like chemistry or physics? Or welding, for that matter? Got a spare infrared spectrometer handy? Maybe an x-ray crystallography rig? Some stuff Khan Academy (which I like) can’t teach.

        1. It’s called “networking.”

          Homeschoolers do it a lot. They’ll even form self-help groups to facilitate it. The theme park I work at will have several home school groups visit over the course of the season, banding together to get the group education rate for admission and buying education packages like “life of a miner”, “adobe brickmaking”, or behind the scenes of stunt work.

          1. I admit it’s trivial to find ways to show kids stuff like medieval brickmaking or miner life or calligraphy. And certainly educational. Have any of those homeschool groups succeeded in networking their way into a well-equipped hard science lab? One of these things is not like the other. 🙂

            1. How does a thing that public schools don’t have relevant in replacing them?

              We’re talking about a “service” where a significant percent put out kids who are functionally illiterate. Why would we compare only to the magnet schools that spend more per kid than our entire household income?

              1. “How does a thing that public schools don’t have relevant in replacing them?”

                The topic of discussion, as I understood it, was not what public schools do or don’t have, but what sorts of equipment should be available and useful to homeschoolers, but presently unavailable. I used this equipment many moons ago, in college. But, due to starting school young, I was no older than most HS students when I learned and used them. So, I’m making a leap of faith and thinking there are other kids that age that might benefit from using them also. I could rag on public schools for not having them, but it seems they can’t even get to or past the periodic table.

                1. Your original subject was:

                  I agree that public schools are little more than socially accepted child abuse. However, here’s my point. It takes very little to kvetch about a huge problem.

                  What is a practical, workable, solution?

                  Which, when it was pointed out that homeschoolers can actually learn more than a public school, then somehow became about specialized equipment that wasn’t that common 20 years ago and was disappearing then.

                  Worse, you then elaborate that in fact you didn’t even have it in high school, you used it the same way that a homeschool student would– by enrolling in a college level class. Which they’ll be prepared for, because their parents can set them down to watch a video to memorize the periodic table, rather than “they were shown it a few times in class and told to study it for the test next week.”

                  1. As you know my kids went to school. BUT I also taught them.
                    When older developed a passion for chemistry in ninth grade, we bought him ALL THE BOOKS.
                    When that wasn’t enough we went to the library, so he could borrow the professional publications.
                    When he explained to the woman what he wanted to find out, she thought he was a college student. She later told me that he knew more than most specialized chemistry college students.
                    Later in college, when he took chemistry (his second undergrad, taken concurrently with the first.) he won EVERY SINGLE departmental honor.
                    … but he didn’t have much to learn, because he’d been reading it, attending lectures, watching demonstrations for ten years, by then.

                    1. My high school English teacher was a guy who was going to teach college…until he got a look at what that was like, 50 years ago, and decided even his misanthropy couldn’t handle it.

                      So he taught high school kids college level English. We learned all the symbols, and for all that he acted like Snape is his spirit animal, he was actually really good at encouraging people to do what they could and making them value it when they did.

                      My little sister went to college, was terrified that she’d fail in English class because she forgot there was an essay due so she whipped it out in half an hour before class, nearly fainted when the teacher asked who (her name) was– and then used her essay as an example of a PERFECT essay.

                      Basically because she knew how to use the five paragraph style, did transitions, and it was coherent.


                    2. Well, there was the time in high school English where we were supposed to look up five words in the supplementary vocabulary list, synonym, antonym, sentence — usual.

                      I remembered this two minutes before class.

                      I got an A.

                2. So you admit you’re moving the goal posts?

                  While I don’t have empirical knowledge of it; I’d say, yes somewhere in the US some homeschooler has gotten their child access to high end lab equipment through networking. Or through improvisation.

              2. This.

                Tertiary level has problems, but the sort of STEM teachers you have to hire at a R1/R2 school can still wrangle the funds for equipment and supplies to teach their own field to their personal students, and don’t have to waste as much hours and breakage on ‘LGBT studies track Johnny’.

                Highschool teachers don’t have the funding sources or the authority for that. Community colleges and bible universities are probably better environments for teaching STEM than public high schools.

                As a home school teacher, you don’t have to be better than, say, a state funded boarding high school that teaches specially selected students focusing on science and math. (Even if I might argue that it is not clear that such programs are so excellent that many parents could not do as well.) You just have to be better than the equivalent of the upper division STEM at a two year denominational college and the theology of a public university’s Latinx studies program. (I say Latinx over African-American studies because of the possibility of an African-American studies program with a solid basis in theology.)

            2. What do you mean by ‘well equipped hard science lab’, and how much experience in one of those do you really need for secondary education?

              If your other foundations are strong, and you have an aptitude, you can survive learning advanced hands on in college. If you don’t have the aptitude and interest to go to college in that subject, is it really necessary to learn?

              There are a massive number of fields in the hard sciences. You don’t have to ensure that everyone has the same cookie cutter exposure to the same general subjects with the same sorts of hands on. Decent experimental exposure can be obtained by tailoring the choice of subject to parental interest, available facilities, student interest, or a bunch of other things. People chasing down weird avenues are probably a good thing.

              A) You should expect to work pretty hard self studying even as a public school parent if you don’t want your kids screwed over by the pablum of the mass planners.
              B) There is all sorts of equipment that can be purchased really cheaply these days, and all sorts of materials for learning a related STEM field.

              Homeschooling at the bachelor’s level or graduate level is still a problem. And students who have been well prepared by their parents still have pretty significant advantages at the tertiary level, so weakly educated parents are a challenge there as at the secondary and primary level.

              1. And then there are.. work-arounds.. for those inclined/determined enough. A private citizen cannot simply purchase an X-ray tube, for example. However, a private citizen can acquire a vacuum tube diode and buy or build a high voltage power supply and still generate X-rays (please invest in shielding…). The result might not be great as it’s not purpose-designed X-ray tube, but it can be done. And it is even possible to bypass the lack of a ‘tube’ – or was, when true vacuum light bulbs could be found. The anode is simply move to the exterior of the envelope. Crude? Yep.

                1. Isotope sources fall under Federal control. But they’re hard enough to dispose of, you could find people who’d pay you to take them. There are several cases of abandoned emitters that have made the news.

                  X-ray tubes, on the other hand, seem to be plentiful on eBay, as of a moment ago when I looked. Power supplies, too.

                  Of course, C.L. Stong’s “The Amateur Scientist: Projects from ‘The Scientific American'” from 1965 had complete plans for how to blow your own X-ray tube and power it up… and it’s up on

                  [I remember watching my toes wiggle at the flouroscope at the shoe store…]

                2. Interestingly, my wife doesn’t remember the shoe store flouroscopes, and the one at (Kenney Shoes?) that I saw in the mid ’60s looked nothing like the ones on Wikipedia and elsewhere. They show something like a big dark wooden crate with periscopes; what I remember was a small shiny box with a screen like a TV.


        2. Except that schools don’t teach chemistry, or hands-on physics, and my homeschool lab is better equipped both in terms of equipment and in what we actually get to DO than anything I got in a very well funded, bragworthy public school. One of the best programs in the state.

          I’d have had to go to a community college and pay out of pocket to get anything with a lab more dangerous than peroxide, baking soda and decently high potency vinegar, our only hands-on physics class was technically illegal (old school teacher did a bouncy-ball demo, then took us to the gym across the hallway to see how the equations worked with marked spots, it was Not Allowed), and most of the experiments the teacher was required to do, on a table, in front of the class. While we wore PPE. It was ludicrous.
          We did get to do a dissection.
          On a worm.
          They stopped even that by the time my brother went through, about 2000.

          I was the last year of wood-working class; the metal shop went out two years earlier. When you can’t remove a student for stabbing another student with a chisel, it kinda destroys the point.
          The home-ec teacher was very careful about who she let chop stuff alone, too, last I knew they still at least got to cook on stoves.
          There were neither physics classes that went into crystals beyond the theory, nor astronomy beyond the classes of stars and a very bad explanation of the theory of relativity. Definitely nothing in classifying a substance hands-on like in a full-scale chemistry lab.

          A youtube video would be superior to what little we did get– which is why Khan has physics.

          And chemistry, etc; my son adores the astronomy, although obviously some of it is rather beyond him.


          Oh, another way I know you can teach what you don’t know?
          The kids are learning Japanese. Duolingo.

            1. Other than “the kids are required to attend until they reach X age,” why on earth should a basic public school have equipment that is suited to a high degree professional lab, or a non-basic college course on a subject?

              Let people take the basic classes, graduate, and live. They want to use a IR spectrometer to do incredibly in-depth organic chemistry, that is what college is for. There’s no requirement that you go for a degree.
              They want to learn about IR in space situations? They can do a study starting here:
              and branch out.

              1. RCPete, I used both of those items fall semester of my freshman year in college, in AP Chem. I tested straight into that class fresh outta high school. I might have been 17 by the time that class finished. I was 16 when it started.

                1. Interesting; not at University of Redacted in 1970, though I wasn’t a Chem major, so it was Chem 101 and 102. Advanced chem stuff came later, in the realm of EE semiconductor fabrication classes. (The professors running that corner of the department had great connections in the industry, so got some nice stuff as surplus from Silly Valley and the like. (*cough* Texas *cough*) Some went to the undergrad labs, others graduate and/or research labs. )

                  1. I don’t claim to know how we got the gear. This was at Austin College in Sherman, Texas. FWIW, we were not far from a huge Texas Instruments factory where they grew wafers to make chips. Dated girls who worked there. In 1976, we didn’t yet get all our chips from Asia.

          1. I’m going back to my highschool stuff in the ’60s. Biology lab involved dissecting worms through frogs (pre-pithed), and basic chem had simple-ish reactions. (I remember more of Chem 101 and 102 in college; lots of unknowns, doing things like freezing point reductions, making and purifying coordination compounds, and turning methyl acrylate into a polymer.

            HS physics did a bit with a wave table and some demonstrations of RF standing waves,

            I was an EE in college, and stuff as complex as an infrared spectrometer would have shown up at best at junior or senior level classes. I’d not expect to see anything on that order for kids in high school, public, private nor homeschooled. (Barring homeschool by, say, residents of Las Alamos labs….)

          2. I went to one of the bigger public high schools in my county, and was in a lot of the same classes as the kids of the rich and connected. We had a great, incredible, awesome physics teacher.
            There was nothing at all we did in physics that any homeschooler couldn’t easily duplicate with simple household items or $12 at a hardware store.

            And generally, any kind of advanced science thing in a public school has typically already had it’s funding cut or just been shut down all together.

        3. That’s not an unsolved problem. For a least twenty years it has been possible to get a homeschooling education in chemistry and physics that is adequate preparation for a bachelor’s in engineering.

          Does it scale to meet the needs of the whole population? Maybe not.

          Mass graves scale. If the status quo ultimately exerts a high enough cost in early fatalities, then wrecking the system now, regardless of the cost, regardless of the lack of replacement, is the correct call. But not the strictly conservative call.

          Of course, that is forecasting from models that would be classified with the social sciences, so it is a) garbage b) a subjective gut call.

          There is not going to be a lot of common ground for policy between those who estimate the status quo results at MZB/Breen victim level messed up and those who estimate it at only sexual revolution survivor level messed up.

      2. You can also ask friends for help; one of my co-workers home-schooled their children and when they were discussing the middle ages asked me to come over and talk about manuscripts. I was doing medieval recreation at the time. So I demonstrated calligraphy and illumination. Introduced them to Titivillus, the patron demon of caligraphy. Discussed the medieval habit of intentionally introducing error into your work because only God can create perfection, and showed them the big piece I was working on at that point, which included a large tryptic at the top telling the story of Wenceslas (and included a little picture of Titivillus climbing up the outside of the tryptic with a bag that had his collected misspellings falling out).

        1. There’s also the just-being-friendly effect– more than once I’ve just been chattering with the kids about, say, those pandas at the SD zoo– and there will be some flavor text on there about dragons, or at least a picture, and in about ten minutes I’ve got folks asking me questions. (The Chinese guards were not happy.) Been mistaken for a tour guide more than once. Come by it honest, my mom does it, too– she’s hijacked more than one public question and answer because she knew more about the subject than the poor volunteer who was standing there expecting softball questions.

          It’s especially nice because homeschoolers tend to be willing to admit a lack of knowledge– I’ll flatly tell folks I confuse tribe names like there’s no tomorrow, for an example, or that as quirky as my English pronunciation is every other language I mangle is worse– and that tends to bring out a lot more actual learning in a situation.

          1. ” Been mistaken for a tour guide more than once. Come by it honest, my mom does it, too– she’s hijacked more than one public question and answer because she knew more about the subject than the poor volunteer who was standing there expecting softball questions.”

            Guilty. Both my husband & I are. Especially those little manned nature pullouts at some of the western national parks. We tend to ask leading follow up questions, rather than directly answer if the volunteer is having difficulty, letting the volunteer actually answer question. Sometimes we gotten roped into giving actual answers. Was more prone when we had our school age child, because he was curious. Anymore we try to avoid it, or at least I do. I’m not one to speak up in a group much larger than maybe 5 or 6 people, anyway.

            Process brings out the teacher in hubby, which is cool to watch. Note this is the guy who did not go into teaching as a profession because of inner city kids in mid-70’s, and saw the way teaching politics were headed. My husband couldn’t be quiet about anything that was wrong regardless of the politics, ever. Smart to know a non-winning path. Note, what he did for a job, this, um, ability, is an asset.

            1. If you do end up roped into it, a cheery “oh, goodness, I don’t really know anything like as much as that lady does IN GENERAL, it’s the hobbyist effect, (relative) really loves (subject) so I got to hear a lot about it, and think it’s really neat” can help the person who is supposed to be doing it keep control of the situation.

              Shamelessly stolen from the guy who overheard my mom telling us kids stuff, and declared that someone who has a hobby of a specific subject is LIKELY to know more than a general expert, would she please speak up so the group he was leading could hear, too?

              1. At work, when I actually get out of my office and into the park, I often find myself answering questions about the films that were made here.

                This past weekend during Civil War Days I took great pleasure, whenever it was appropriate, in pointing out that the Civil War is why the University of Arizona is in Tucson (several of the reenactors at the event were unaware of this). Thanks to Stephanie Osborne I can also tell people that Old Tucson sits on the end of an extinct volcanic caldera.

              2. Been known to do that, too.

                Most fun we, and the volunteer guides had was the double tunnel

                The parking lot for the overlook for the lower tunnel has a 3-d diagram of the entire process. Used to be the platform was built all the way out to directly over look the lower track approach to the lower tunnel. Not quite on top of the trains as they passed by, but close. Allowed watching the train enter the tunnel & then you could see it come out the top of the tunnel loop, & longer trains (anything else in Canada) actually loop over itself. That platform is gone, now (last time we were there was Aug 2018). Do not know when it was removed. Tree heights & thickness is such you can no longer see the actual effect.

                Why it was fun this one trip. We were aware of the site. Had visited it before & learned about it in general. This trip we had our 4 year old with us, so we’d prepared before hand to be sure to translate in to 4-year-old. We also made sure to check Field (where the trains are staged for the run up), to be sure, at least one train was prepped to go through within the attention time span of a 4 year old. Success!!!

                What we didn’t account for was said 4 year old having to tell every new person who showed up. Normally people stop to take their quick picture & leave, never seeing the process. With a 4 year old accurately describing the process, if not quite pronouncing correctly (actual guide volunteers gleefully provided that), people stuck around. Especially family with children. Volunteers loved it. Great way to spend the afternoon (we hadn’t planned on that long if for no other reason that 4-year-olds don’t have that kind of attention span … but trains …)

      1. Vouchers are a stab at paying for an education, not a method for delivering knowledge. Imagine a city or state that passes voucher legislation. Do the parents come home two weeks later and tell their kids “Congrats kid! We got our voucher in the mail today! Y’all are geniuses now!”

        1. False standard– one, we’re not competing with genius anything. We’re competing that produces roughly one in five who can’t read beyond fifth-grade level*.
          Two, that’s not how vouchers work.
          Three, it takes over a dozen years for the public schools to fail so badly, how on earth can that be compared to an instant result?

          *For those who are familiar with modern kids’ books, the Wings of Fire series is about this level, 3-5 (suggested for 6-8 in a classroom setting); Dealing with Dragons is above it 6-8, Have Spacesuit Will Travel is 7th grade minimum.

        2. Vouchers offer choice, just as do Charter Schools. Some parents will exercise the choice wisely and set an example. Recent studies* demonstrate that Charter Schools improve performance of other schools i system.

          It is not for us to prescribe an alternate one-size-fits-all school system, our purpose is to enable people to get the education they want for their kids instead of the education some board of Educrats finds most convenient to deliver. We did not enter this state of disgrace by a single step and no single step will get us out.

          *Citation missing — I think it was an item at NRO gangblog The Corner during the last couple weeks and I’m not about to waste time searching every website I’ve visited in February, especially as I’ve yet to grant you the presumption of Good Faith in this argument, given the number of Bad Faith arguments you’ve essayed (not gonna list so don’t ask; not assuming intention as it is possible you’ve simply been sloppily taught argument and debate.)

  19. I went to a private high school because our school district was going from a grade/junior/high school to a grade/middle/high school. And closed one of the high schools. And moved the whole ninth grade to the single high school that was already putting portables on the front lawn.

    I’ve heard from enough people that went there…I think I would have done something extremely long-term stupid in some form or another.

    If we truly believed in education, we’d give vouchers and crucify anybody that commits fraud.

    1. If they truly believed in education, there’d be a final test you could take, and then get out of the daycare system. But keeping kids warehoused in those pits of hell is their real task; “education” is just the lie they use to make it justifiable.

        1. But you cannot test for socialization!

          As a home-schooling parent I have learned that the only people who want to know my views on “socialization” already share my views on “socialization.”

          1. Your statement is ambiguous. Do you mean ‘socialization’ in the sense of ‘acclimated to social interaction with other kids’ or ‘properly indoctrinated to be Good Little Socialist Useful Idiots’?

            Makes a difference.

            Of course, the Educators probably want parents to assume (a) while they’re doing (b)…
            Not everybody should go to college. Some folks, you send ’em to college you just get an educated idiot.

            1. I think it means “But if all the bored, smart kids leave public school, who’s going to be a free in-class tutor for my kid? And if the kids who are just being ignored are taught at home, who’s going to make my kid look GOOD?”

  20. No pants! Can’t make me.
    No pants! Won’t shake me.
    No pants, madame , for me!
    My temps won’t let me be anything but free.
    You know what? That hot flash

    You know what? Got a hot flash? You know what? Stupid hot flash
    And oh, what they do to me!

    No pants tonight 🙂

  21. Ah yes, the stupid person’s argument against socialism. Whatever government program they like is proof that socialism works, rather than just an example of the operations of the social contract. Roads, firemen, police, schools. If you like having those, then you love socialism. It’s a straw man argument because that isn’t the definition.

  22. This crowd is often on about “reparations” for past wrongs, and now they’re claiming “air travel” and “broadcasting” as government goods?

    News flash, the government simply STOLE (“nationalized”) access to airspace and the right to send and receive electromagnetic energy ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, without compensation for the taking, and then, to ensure they got the monopoly benefits, set up regulations and laws under which if you use it for private use without their permission you get fines and jail time.

    When someone robs your house and then offers to sell you your TV back, this is not an argument for the social value of thievery!

Comments are closed.