Skip to main content

YIPPEE!!!





Court upholds school vouchers



The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the use of taxpayer-paid school vouchers to send children to private schools, finding that a Cleveland program does not violate the Constitution’s church-state doctrine even though the majority of students use the vouchers to attend parochial schools.
Of course, since this story is on MSNBC.com, it reeks of bias. Gads, it's not even subtle!



"The 5-4 ruling led by the court's conservative majority...." How come nothing else is ever reported as being led by the "liberal majority"? Why does this matter? The implication is that this is purely a conservative vs. liberal matter, and if that's the case the matter isn't being resolved by the law but by political ideology. And if that's the case, which "side" is letting ideology lead the way, because that side isn't doing their job.



"...lowers the figurative wall separating church and state..." How in the hell does it do that? The majority opinion is clear that vouchers are not a violation of the establishment clause because the parents are making the choice, not the school, not the state.



There is also the silly quote from the dissenting opinion, Justice David Souter writing: "There is, in any case, no way to interpret the 96.6 percent of current voucher money going to religious schools as reflecting a free a genuine choice by the families that apply for vouchers."



Nonsense! You want interpretations? 1) That percentage of families are religious and don't mind sending their kids to a religious school, since doing so supports the faith of their choice. 2) People choose these religious schools, knowing that their teachings of faith (or lack thereof) at home are what count, yet also knowing that these schools provide a vastly better education that the existing public school system. 3) Due to the suppression of this concept, the choice are largely limited to existing religious schools. As vouchers become the norm, more alternatives will develop. It's called "free enterprise," bobo.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more