Intellectual Odds & Ends 3

Ok, I read your link. So here's my response:
http://shiningcity.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/07/howd_you_lik e_that_exam.thtml

Now I will actually read the current post.

"It Takes a Village to Raze a Family"

Can I borrow that line for this article? That is spot on brilliant my friend.

But I think it would be better using "Child" instead of "Family." [the Editor in Me again]

Is that true that in California you can't homeschool your children? When/ how did this come about? Scary!

Speaking of scary, I mean feminist, they are by nature schizophrenic. They don't know what they want any more than little children. They want, they complain, they get,then they whine. Their like dogs chaseing their own tails. Never happy when the catch it.

Here's a link to both issues from a blog posted by Carol Platt-Liebau:

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/07b75e8a-e1d0-4c4b-99ae-4d9c 02751e3d

Thanks for the link. America is turning into a treacherous place to live and raise children.

As Karl Marx said in his Communist Manifesto:

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

And THAT is how you destroy a represenative republic!

it seems the leftist are becoming more blatant and aggressive in the pursuit of a Socialist United States,Just this morning on local television I watched in abject horror as a seemingly educated man stated we should be comfortable giving away some of our freedoms so that more people can feel secure(i.e. fewer handguns,the same man stated that other industrial nations still have crime but not as many gun deaths,another panelist stated those who oppose gun laws are not the people who live with the violence....I am willing to bet these folks are also the people who oppose the death penalty, accuse the police of racism,and are strong proponents of not blaming criminals for their own actions.) But then again I was watching a show out of Philadelphia. Have the masses become so riddled with short term memory loss that the lftist no longer need hide their agenda?????

The benefit of adopting Socialist doctrine is you never have to look at things with any greater depth than that of a six year old. If you have about 45 minutes, check out the lecture at the Heritage Foundation by Evan Sayet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

very entertaining and informative, he does give some very compelling points about moral relativism and how it pervades our society. I don't think he takes it far back enough to when it became a more powerful force under FDR though.

You've found a common strain among conservatives.

The Left seems to think we're all rich and were born that way. I've never had much money but I never thought to live off the govt or that they owed me anything. And I've always worked. It doesn't seem right to do otherwise.

Voter IDs are big deal here in GA esp. the ATL area. The argument is that 80 year old black women won't get to vote so "let's scrap the whole idea". The Governor and the Sec. of State said they'd drive to your house and give you an ID if you have any trouble obtaining one. It's all hogwash of course. I bet they have an ID to open a bank account or to rent movies or check out books.

Women's Lib. Not all bad of course in regards to employment fairness. But the sex and babies side of it has left women holding the bag. They can't play the free sex game as well as men.

Read your comment over at Shiela's blog regards her post about Limbaugh, you nailed it 100%.

I was reading down the comments and could not believe some of what I was reading getting ready to inform them when I got to yours and said someone beat me to it.

Then I read BrianR's comments and he said it like it is [as always].

My point on feminism isn't fairness or whether it's better or not. The point is that women have renegotiated the social contract and are now trying to blame men for the changes their demandeds brought about. It's a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.

In retrospect, it was inevitable. If men are denied the social constructs that used to reward them for shouldering their traditional responsibilities, they will often opt for an extended adolescence and forgo the heavy lifting of adulthood. All risk and no reward is a fools bargain, even for a knuckle-dragging testicularly impaired, simple minded man.

Better to play video games and collect high tech toys while bedding an assortment of available women. Getting married has become as treacherous for men as being an expendable crewmember beaming down to an alien planet with Captain Kirk and Spock's landing party. It's such a bad deal, even MEN can figure it out.

What can I say, she invited me to the party, so I brought a nice bottle of very dry "Think!" with me as a gift to the hostess.

As for Brian, he's entitled to his opinion. I think we gave it our best shot during the primaries, but the party has spoken and McCain won the nomination fair and square. I don't like it, but on his worst day, he's not as bad as Hillary would be. If it was possible to get a better candidate, we would have done so. Alas we didn't and now the question is to pick the best of a pretty poor lot.

One can hardly blame McCain for the self-destruction of candidates I would have preferred. Guiliani imploded with what was in retrospect a tragically flawed campaign strategy. Thompson didn't have the stomach or ability for retail politics. Romney couldn't close the sale. Huckabee was a likable guy with too many Guliani tendencies. And Ron Paul would have been my favorite if he had a realistic foreign policy. None of the other candidates could generate any support or momentem.

So we have John McCain. There it is. Now we have to deal with it. How we choose to do so will be as individual as each of us. See my article: "Self Made" for more on that.

and comments.

Kind of a potpourri.

The femi-nazi's are the women you speak of Scottie,my man! As you once wrote to me,"Nothing wrong with independence, but let your man be a man."
These FN's are the ones blaming men for their emotional, physical and barren lives, when in effect, they should get out the mirror. They didn't expect those unintended consequences and now they have nobody to blame but themselves. They are sad creatures, are they not?
Did you see my "Sounding off" blog? Same kind of wondering...
As Peter from the Brady Bunch said as he pounded his fist on a desk as Benedict Arnold..."There will be no discussion!!" No bra-burning or proverbial ball wearing in the presence of my sugar daddy!!! No demasculatng allowed!!

Since men have been so marginalized, and fathers treated as optional or expendable, where are the boys of today going to learn to be men? It took a generation for this to become so obvious.

Here are links to a couple of recent articles:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/art icle3283690.ece

Good to see you still making the rounds old friend. Yep, a putative potpouri of pedantic pablum and pontification.

We've broken 12,000 visits folks! Thank you all for your visits and comments, it is gratifying and humbling. I appreciate it.

Even from swamp rat sitters in pink shirts.

You have amazing wisdom...isn't liberalism a wonderful thing? It ruins everything it touches...

...fostered independent of blatant socialism eventually lead to socialism disguised as concern for your fellow man. Well said. Unfortunately, there is nothing new under the sun:

http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/02/liberals%e2 %80%a6the_early_years%e2%80%a6.thtml

That is the kindest thing I've ever been accused of, and a wise observation of your own to accompany it. Thank you.

I'll bite.

[closes his eyes and ever to tentatiely clicks on the link...]

Actually, I bailed from California about five years ago and have no regrets. It's only a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of its ever expanding government and steadily dwindling tax base. The middle class is cashing in on the housing prices and moving out. Most seem to be going to Colorado from the looks of things, and trying to recreate the same problems there.

As for feminists, when you renegotiate a contract, both parties come away with different prospects. Now men have been so marginalized, and marriage so delayed, that by the time the biological clock starts ticking, men have no interest in undertaking the risks of wedlock.

The deck is so clearly stacked against men in divorce court they have every reason to opt for a continued adolescence. Now they simply keep their money and bed a variety of young available career women without consequence, leaving the desparate thirtysomethings to wonder where it all went wrong.

This isn't particularly good for men. They've been robbed of the maturing influence of marriage and the obligations children provide that drives them toward their full potential. But the deck has been so stacked against them, that the prospect of divorce and paying child support with no corresponding benefit turns out to be a deal breaker. Better to not have children and play the field indefinitely.

It is the thirtysomething childless woman that ultimately bears the cost as she searches in vain for a partner to provide the children she put off until it became untenable. Remember, our first purpose as humans is to forge the next links in the chain of life, not to be a hotshot professional for XYZ Corp. Mother Nature is a b*itch.

..for the link You passed on to Me. Another remarkable story about Our Best.

Our Fighting Forces are truly an amazing Breed of People.

I'm trying my hand at a different kind of blog over at "Moments". Shameless plug time...LOL

Roe v Wade was feminist's gift to America...

I pray your observation was more than an aberration. Let us pray that the pendulum will swing back toward traditional (i.e. time tested and proven) values.

One my way over, gimme a minute to saddle ol' Bessie.

Do be so kind as to provide a link to your new place dear, I can't find it.

I agree with your comment to Doc...hopefully the pendulum will swing back to the values that made our country great...only God knows...

It seems our country has been drug into the gutter thanks to the far left and their misguided agenda...it is very sad.

Btw...sorry about not leaving the link...seems you found my new blog anyway! Thanks for stopping by! How did you find it? That was very kind of you to take the trouble!

Hey Scott, was a little interested in this proported issue of homeschooling in CA. Is this the Long case you're referring too? If so while the ruling was definately too broad, this isn't the case you want to have as a rally call. A quick google search reveals this was part of a DCFS case, the mother didn't have a high school diploma, and really had no business homeschooling her kids. It also involved two of the children wanting to go to public school.

Unfortunately, the ruling goes far far beyond this particular family. Ultimately, this boils down to who controls how our kids are educated, parents or the "village"?

You might look into the disgusting sexual program material incorporated into the cirrula in California schools while you're Googling. You will find the GLBT lobby has been particularly successful in that state. I can easily understand a parent wanting to shelter their kids from it.

Previous rulings by the same court have held that parents cannot object to any material taught in the schools since the kids are enrolled there voluntarily. What other choice is there for a poor parent that cannot afford private school?

Found the link in your blogroll and stopped by. I've added it to my daily blog tour de force.

I agree with you on the broadness of the ruling. However, it doesn't effect anyone yet as it's an appellete court ruling that's going to be challenged at the CA supreme court and will most likely be narrowed to a sane level or overturned. However, only mentioning the ruling without the additional facts (facts many homeschoolers would find disgusting and leads to the stereotypical view of homeschooling) we've now got an overhyped political situation which is likely to result in new legislation before the courts have time to iron things out.

At the same time we lose the opportunity to ask the more interesting questions about the case. One of which is how much say can a minor have in their own education.

Another, more mundane question is how much oversight this Sunland Christian School provided and whether they should remain accredited.

Admitted bias: I've taught homeschooled kids and met others most do very well. The ones that don't do well do very poorly and were homeschooled by parents lacking college degrees(admittedly anecdotal) . So I have no problem with competent people homeschooling their kids but issues with incompetent ones.

Now, I'll google the CA schools sex ed program I may learn something kinky.

In a forum today with John Eastman, dean of the Chapman Law School (conservative) and Erwin Chemerinski, dean of Duke University Law School (liberal) on this case, both agreed that this ruling is fundamentally unconstitutional and will be overturned by the California Supreme Court. They further agreed to coproduce an amicus brief laying out the manifold reasons it should be.

Further note that whatever the issues with the social workers, they weren't part of this particular ruling, the court had specifically severed this particular issue from the rest.

To contend that this will result in hysterical legislation puts the proverbial cart before the horse. The court is already interpreting legislation, or more appropriately mis-interpreting it. The answer isn't more legislation, but to let the courts complete their process. I don't think the legislature will act just yet.

How much input in their education should minor children have? None. Their mother, like yours and mine should have the final say in what education her children receive, period.

I have heard nothing to impugn the qualifications of the sponsoring school district. It's a distraction from the matter at hand, interesting or not. Their cirriculum had to be in conformity with state regulations, and there is no allegation that it wasn't.

Given the variability of results within the public schools, it hardly seems fair to denegrate the home schoolers based on anecdotal evidence. Consider that most of the freshmen at your own college, almost exclusively products of the public school system, require remedial coursework.

That a parent can miseducate or poorly educate their children isn't a sufficient reason to usurp their right to do so. If you want to outlaw unreasonable parental behavior, how about making it illegal to name your child Moon Unit or Dweezel?

I have been trying very hard to completely ignore the news the past few weeks for this very reason.

I will apologize for not fully investigating the matter before speaking. I'm currently reading the court ruling and EDUCATION CODE SECTION 48220-48232 which are where part of the ruling came from. There both here:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group =48001-49000&file=48220-48232
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

if interested. And other junk.

Second, wanted to clarify I'm pro-homeschooling in most cases. I'm considering options for it with my (future/hypothetical) kids. The anecdotal evidence is mostly favorable.

I have a lot on my plate right now, but the link will be there later in the week and I will likely check it out then.

I think you will find the consolidated statistics on homeschooling even more encouraging than the anecdotal evidence. I for one, don't think the graduates of "Schools of Education" have more to offer than reasonably educated parents. This is especially true of basic fundamentals like the three R's.

And dispite your penchant for dabbling in odd ideas (a testament to your intellectual curiosity in my opinion), I heartily support your desire to educate your own children when the time comes. Some would say you are too far from the mainstream (in their opinion) to do so in today's PC world.

Would you argue your qualifications to teach them, or assert your right to do so if you were so confronted? I know you would do both, but which option triggers your gut level response? Personally, I reject the premise that the state cares more deeply for one's children than their own parents do as laughable.

I'll have to see if I can find the commentary/post, but I saw something after the homeschool decision was issued that indicated it wasn't really as far-reaching as the press was making it out to be. Shocking, I know, that the press may get a story wrong in a way that tends to besmirch individual liberty, but it's possible.

First, welcome to the Heartland! Always good to see you here. My point isn't so much the decision itself, but to show the heads we win, tails you lose nature of the process that whittles away our freedoms. We won't lose them wholesale, but rather by the accumulation of endless piddling rulings like these.

You are too kind...thank you!