Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[goldengoal]

LA times wrote this? wow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

[Squash]

LA times wrote this? wow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

I'm actually not shocked.......not at all.

[EWSoccer64]

The Surprise is that LA Times published the article.

[Left Foot]

The Surprise is that LA Times published the article.

Why wouldn't they print it? It's in the Opinion section. The author is apparently a relatively well known right wing scholar associated with a rep think tank.

http://www.claremont.org/scholars/id.353/scholar.asp

Might have a good point. However, CA is a screwed up place, so maybe not the best comparison. And I still won't be moving to Texas any time soon.....

[Tesoro]

LA times wrote this? wow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

We have some personal experience with this subject, and I found the column generally consistent with our experience.  Some years ago, we moved the family from California to Central Texas.    Texas had no income taxes, but very high property taxes.   California had state income taxes ~9%, but relatively low property taxes  (Prop 13 legacy).  Sales taxes were pretty much a wash between the two.

In Calif we had the kids in private school  . . .  in Texas we placed them in OUTSTANDING public schools.   We could not have been more pleased with the public schools there.

Out of interest, I did the math   . . .   the difference in property taxes between TX (higher) and CA (lower) was about the same as private school tuition for two elementary school kids.   So,  we "broke even" on the property taxes vs school fees.  However, our public schools in TX were better than the private ones in Calif.    Also,  we saved on no state income tax.

By comparison,,,,   Washington  ---  in our experience  ---  has been between TX and CA.   The property taxes here are less than TX and the public schools (at least in our district) are MUCH better than California, but our kids did not learn much their first year here because they'd already had much of the curriculum the year before in Texas.  Some years later, we've learned that public education can be very good here in WA, but the parents need to be involved and ensure their kids make it into the right programs and classes.

[Left Foot]

LA times wrote this? wow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

We have some personal experience with this subject, and I found the column generally consistent with our experience.  Some years ago, we moved the family from California to Central Texas.    Texas had no income taxes, but very high property taxes.   California had state income taxes ~9%, but relatively low property taxes  (Prop 13 legacy).  Sales taxes were pretty much a wash between the two.

In Calif we had the kids in private school  . . .  in Texas we placed them in OUTSTANDING public schools.   We could not have been more pleased with the public schools there.

Out of interest, I did the math   . . .   the difference in property taxes between TX (higher) and CA (lower) was about the same as private school tuition for two elementary school kids.   So,  we "broke even" on the property taxes vs school fees.  However, our public schools in TX were better than the private ones in Calif.    Also,  we saved on no state income tax.

By comparison,,,,   Washington  ---  in our experience  ---  has been between TX and CA.   The property taxes here are less than TX and the public schools (at least in our district) are MUCH better than California, but our kids did not learn much their first year here because they'd already had much of the curriculum the year before in Texas.  Some years later, we've learned that public education can be very good here in WA, but the parents need to be involved and ensure their kids make it into the right programs and classes.

The particular school districts/cities would really be instructive here. Many variables to consider. That is amazing that a private school in CA would not be as good as a public school in TX. Why the move from TX?

[EWSoccer64]

My brother went to Claremont McKenna.  I did not know it was a conservative school.   It seemed rather wild and wooly when I visited him there.

[Left Foot]

My brother went to Claremont McKenna.  I did not know it was a conservative school.   It seemed rather wild and wooly when I visited him there.

The Claremont Institute is a different org than the university. Of course, to some of you folks, the guy might be a commie......

[EWSoccer64]

My brother went to Claremont McKenna.  I did not know it was a conservative school.   It seemed rather wild and wooly when I visited him there.

The Claremont Institute is a different org than the university. Of course, to some of you folks, the guy might be a commie......

Actually, Leftie, if you look at the website, it is part of the school.
That is why I made the comment that I did.

[Tesoro]

LA times wrote this? wow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

We have some personal experience with this subject, and I found the column generally consistent with our experience.  Some years ago, we moved the family from California to Central Texas.    Texas had no income taxes, but very high property taxes.   California had state income taxes ~9%, but relatively low property taxes  (Prop 13 legacy).  Sales taxes were pretty much a wash between the two.

In Calif we had the kids in private school  . . .  in Texas we placed them in OUTSTANDING public schools.   We could not have been more pleased with the public schools there.

Out of interest, I did the math   . . .   the difference in property taxes between TX (higher) and CA (lower) was about the same as private school tuition for two elementary school kids.   So,  we "broke even" on the property taxes vs school fees.  However, our public schools in TX were better than the private ones in Calif.    Also,  we saved on no state income tax.

By comparison,,,,   Washington  ---  in our experience  ---  has been between TX and CA.   The property taxes here are less than TX and the public schools (at least in our district) are MUCH better than California, but our kids did not learn much their first year here because they'd already had much of the curriculum the year before in Texas.  Some years later, we've learned that public education can be very good here in WA, but the parents need to be involved and ensure their kids make it into the right programs and classes.

The particular school districts/cities would really be instructive here. Many variables to consider. That is amazing that a private school in CA would not be as good as a public school in TX. Why the move from TX?

YES, I agree   . . .  just like anywhere else, the districts (and even sometimes the school) are relevant.   It seems to me that when considering Texas, many people outside of Texas do not view it in a favorable light.   When we were there, there were many, many outstanding districts  (called ISDs there) with great schools, and committed teachers.  We happened to live in Austin, but there were very good schools in districts in other parts of the state as well.  Swapping stories with parents from other parts of the state confirmed that.   Of course, there were also some schools in some places that were not performing well.  However, from our experience (and your mileage may vary!), we think the Texas school system(s) better than that in California and perhaps even here in WA.

We came here as part of a corporate move, plus we really wanted to get back to the West Coast.   While we loved the schools and people in Texas, there are a great many other things we prefer about the west coast.

[Left Foot]

My brother went to Claremont McKenna.  I did not know it was a conservative school.   It seemed rather wild and wooly when I visited him there.

The Claremont Institute is a different org than the university. Of course, to some of you folks, the guy might be a commie......

Actually, Leftie, if you look at the website, it is part of the school.
That is why I made the comment that I did.

Still not convinced it is part of the university, but it is irrelevant anyway. Here is something from the About Us section f their website:
About the Claremont Institute

The mission of the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. These principles are expressed most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." To recover the founding principles in our political life means recovering a limited and accountable government that respects private property, promotes stable family life, and maintains a strong defense.

Founded in 1979, the Claremont Institute publishes the Claremont Review of Books, sponsors Publius and Lincoln Fellowships for rising young conservative leaders, and administers a variety of public policy programs, including Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, our Ballistic Missile Defense Project, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Center for Local Government, and the Salvatori Center for the American Constitution. Our staff regularly provides commentary on current events for national print and broadcast media. Our family of websites includes our homepage, www.claremont.org, our Victory Over Terrorism site, www.avot.org, and our missile defense site, www.missilethreat.com. The Claremont Institute's work is national in scope, but gives special emphasis to the problems of our country's most populous state, California, where the Institute is based.

Like I said, looks kinda' like a right wing think tank. But, perhaps to Handball it is  nest of commies since they don't seem to be running to hills with guns in hand. 

[EWSoccer64]

Right wing?   Nah, it sounds Right Thinking!   It sounds like it wants to promote the interests of America.  Here's to these guys!
>>>>Founded in 1979, the Claremont Institute publishes the Claremont Review of Books, sponsors Publius and Lincoln Fellowships for rising young conservative leaders, and administers a variety of public policy programs, including Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, our Ballistic Missile Defense Project, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Center for Local Government, and the Salvatori Center for the American Constitution. Our staff regularly provides commentary on current events for national print and broadcast media. Our family of websites includes our homepage, www.claremont.org, our Victory Over Terrorism site, www.avot.org, and our missile defense site, www.missilethreat.com. The Claremont Institute's work is national in scope, but gives special emphasis to the problems of our country's most populous state, California, where the Institute is based.
<<<

[Left Foot]

Right wing?   Nah, it sounds Right Thinking!   It sounds like it wants to promote the interests of America.  Here's to these guys!
>>>>Founded in 1979, the Claremont Institute publishes the Claremont Review of Books, sponsors Publius and Lincoln Fellowships for rising young conservative leaders, and administers a variety of public policy programs, including Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, our Ballistic Missile Defense Project, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Center for Local Government, and the Salvatori Center for the American Constitution. Our staff regularly provides commentary on current events for national print and broadcast media. Our family of websites includes our homepage, www.claremont.org, our Victory Over Terrorism site, www.avot.org, and our missile defense site, www.missilethreat.com. The Claremont Institute's work is national in scope, but gives special emphasis to the problems of our country's most populous state, California, where the Institute is based.
<<<

Ha, Ha. I could have written that for you! 

Maybe you can help me out here. The mission statement says "The mission of the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life."

In your opinion, what time period would we have to go back to such that our principles were restored?

[EWSoccer64]

Obviously, it would have to be a combo of Jefferson, Adams, Patrick Henry, Lincoln, Madison, Hamilton, and Teddy Roosevelt.  As interperated by Ronald Reagan, who was the bridge between old, traditional valyues and thought and the modern world.  Obviously not perfect men in every respect, but much more worthy than Dirty Harry Reid, Nancy "I tell 3 lies before breakfast" Pelosi, and the Chicago Political Machine/ Sleepers in from the cold that run the White House.

Anything preached by Wilson, Carter, Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and that entire group should be just lumped into the Obama-Chavez-Chirac-Putin-Achem I Am A Crazy Iranian Mullahhead - crowd is wrong by definition.

[Left Foot]

Obviously, it would have to be a combo of Jefferson, Adams, Patrick Henry, Lincoln, Madison, Hamilton, and Teddy Roosevelt.  As interperated by Ronald Reagan, who was the bridge between old, traditional valyues and thought and the modern world.  Obviously not perfect men in every respect, but much more worthy than Dirty Harry Reid, Nancy "I tell 3 lies before breakfast" Pelosi, and the Chicago Political Machine/ Sleepers in from the cold that run the White House.

Anything preached by Wilson, Carter, Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and that entire group should be just lumped into the Obama-Chavez-Chirac-Putin-Achem I Am A Crazy Iranian Mullahhead - crowd is wrong by definition.

Please identify a specific time period you wish to go back to..........

Added --

And your list is somewhat surprising:

Lincoln who forcibly asserted Federal power over states claiming state's rights under the constitution and fundamentally changing the economic system of the South.

Teddy R the Trust buster and conservationist?   

Madison: What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Jefferson: "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

[EWSoccer64]

I like my list, it is consistent with my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with rational conservationism.  Nothing wrong with having strong, principled moral convictions and still wanting to maintain a seperation of church and government.  (Although the whackos who complain about nativity scenes in parks, Christmas plays in public schools or Easter Egg hunts at the white house can go take a long walk off a short pier.).     Sometimes the federal government, for important issues, has to give states a whack upside the head.  Just like the WSYSA does to clubs who get too big for their britches.

[Left Foot]

I like my list, it is consistent with my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with rational conservationism.  Nothing wrong with having strong, principled moral convictions and still wanting to maintain a seperation of church and government.  (Although the whackos who complain about nativity scenes in parks, Christmas plays in public schools or Easter Egg hunts at the white house can go take a long walk off a short pier.).     Sometimes the federal government, for important issues, has to give states a whack upside the head.  Just like the WSYSA does to clubs who get too big for their britches.

And I suppose your ok with a bit of trust busting every now and then it seems?

Well, I too, miss the old Christmas songs when attending school "Holiday" functions. However, you either have separation of Church and state or you don't and singing Silent Night in a publicly funded school violates that principle under any kind of intellectually consistent logical framework. That sort of thing is a bitc*** when it doesn't fit my own biases though.

 

[goldengoal]

I like my list, it is consistent with my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with rational conservationism.  Nothing wrong with having strong, principled moral convictions and still wanting to maintain a seperation of church and government.  (Although the whackos who complain about nativity scenes in parks, Christmas plays in public schools or Easter Egg hunts at the white house can go take a long walk off a short pier.).     Sometimes the federal government, for important issues, has to give states a whack upside the head.  Just like the WSYSA does to clubs who get too big for their britches.

And I suppose your ok with a bit of trust busting every now and then it seems?

Well, I too, miss the old Christmas songs when attending school "Holiday" functions. However, you either have separation of Church and state or you don't and singing Silent Night in a publicly funded school violates that principle under any kind of intellectually consistent logical framework. That sort of thing is a bitc*** when it doesn't fit my own biases though.

 

why the seperation?

[Left Foot]

I like my list, it is consistent with my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with rational conservationism.  Nothing wrong with having strong, principled moral convictions and still wanting to maintain a seperation of church and government.  (Although the whackos who complain about nativity scenes in parks, Christmas plays in public schools or Easter Egg hunts at the white house can go take a long walk off a short pier.).     Sometimes the federal government, for important issues, has to give states a whack upside the head.  Just like the WSYSA does to clubs who get too big for their britches.

And I suppose your ok with a bit of trust busting every now and then it seems?

Well, I too, miss the old Christmas songs when attending school "Holiday" functions. However, you either have separation of Church and state or you don't and singing Silent Night in a publicly funded school violates that principle under any kind of intellectually consistent logical framework. That sort of thing is a bitc*** when it doesn't fit my own biases though.

 

why the seperation?

Madison: What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]


And I think a general acknowledgment that religious factions, by their nature are not amenable to rational discourse, accord and tolerance of other religious beliefs. Theocracy = bad, bad, bad....

Added -- and a more radical (for the time) fear of the government being run by folks who believed fervently in some fairy tale or other. 

[goldengoal]

I like my list, it is consistent with my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with rational conservationism.  Nothing wrong with having strong, principled moral convictions and still wanting to maintain a seperation of church and government.  (Although the whackos who complain about nativity scenes in parks, Christmas plays in public schools or Easter Egg hunts at the white house can go take a long walk off a short pier.).     Sometimes the federal government, for important issues, has to give states a whack upside the head.  Just like the WSYSA does to clubs who get too big for their britches.

And I suppose your ok with a bit of trust busting every now and then it seems?

Well, I too, miss the old Christmas songs when attending school "Holiday" functions. However, you either have separation of Church and state or you don't and singing Silent Night in a publicly funded school violates that principle under any kind of intellectually consistent logical framework. That sort of thing is a bitc*** when it doesn't fit my own biases though.

 

why the seperation?

Madison: What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]


And I think a general acknowledgment that religious factions, by their nature are not amenable to rational discourse, accord and tolerance of other religious beliefs. Theocracy = bad, bad, bad....

Added -- and a more radical (for the time) fear of the government being run by folks who believed fervently in some fairy tale or other. 

I agree that there should be no laws to force us into a "religion", which is what I think your point was. What I don't agree is that we should make laws or rules that force people into not being a Believer because that in itself is forcing somewhat of a "religion" on people.

For example, teaching our kids that there is only one way to explain our existence and that is Darwinism, when there is more than enough evidence that Intelligent Design is another possibility. Even Richard Dawkins admits the possibility of ID, but we don't hear these things because they don't want this type of information to be made public.
Another good example of this is the recent discovery of IDA, which was announced as the missing link for our evolution. There was news everywhere about this and the non-believers were quick to jump on the Creationist. Now they have confirmet that IDA is not the missing link, but where is the news on that?

[Left Foot]

Sorry. However you parse it, Intelligent Design, Creationism, what have you, it is not a scientific theory and falls to the level of some sect or other trying to insert their particular religious beliefs into science classes supported by Federal dollars which equates to an establishment of religion.

Don't care what the media reports or doesn't report concerning the missing link. That ain't my government trying to push religion (or a particular version of a particular fairy tale) down my kid's throat. And I think you are making Madison and Jefferson's points quite nicely.....

[goldengoal]

Sorry. However you parse it, Intelligent Design, Creationism, what have you, it is not a scientific theory and falls to the level of some sect or other trying to insert their particular religious beliefs into science classes supported by Federal dollars which equates to an establishment of religion.

Don't care what the media reports or doesn't report concerning the missing link. That ain't my government trying to push religion (or a particular version of a particular fairy tale) down my kid's throat. And I think you are making Madison and Jefferson's points quite nicely.....

on the contrary- I think you just dug yourself into a hole - So you think Darwinism is a science? hmm- Madison and Jeffersons points where no laws forcing a religion and to me Darwinism is its own religion, which is being forced down our kids throats using our money. Science is not supposed to limit what can and cannot be researched, yet for some odd reason, Darwinism can not be argued? Hmm

[Left Foot]

Sorry. However you parse it, Intelligent Design, Creationism, what have you, it is not a scientific theory and falls to the level of some sect or other trying to insert their particular religious beliefs into science classes supported by Federal dollars which equates to an establishment of religion.

Don't care what the media reports or doesn't report concerning the missing link. That ain't my government trying to push religion (or a particular version of a particular fairy tale) down my kid's throat. And I think you are making Madison and Jefferson's points quite nicely.....

on the contrary- I think you just dug yourself into a hole - So you think Darwinism is a science? hmm- Madison and Jeffersons points where no laws forcing a religion and to me Darwinism is its own religion, which is being forced down our kids throats using our money. Science is not supposed to limit what can and cannot be researched, yet for some odd reason, Darwinism can not be argued? Hmm

Sorry, Darwin's theories can be, and has been repeatedly debated in a systematic way. The theory makes testable hypothesis open to third party, repeatable verification and that is what makes it science. That's what science is.

It is a good thing that men steeped in the age of enlightenment (where reason and science rather than received wisdom was seen as the primary basis for authority) formed our system rather than a bunch of Pat Robertson's.

[goldengoal]

Sorry. However you parse it, Intelligent Design, Creationism, what have you, it is not a scientific theory and falls to the level of some sect or other trying to insert their particular religious beliefs into science classes supported by Federal dollars which equates to an establishment of religion.

Don't care what the media reports or doesn't report concerning the missing link. That ain't my government trying to push religion (or a particular version of a particular fairy tale) down my kid's throat. And I think you are making Madison and Jefferson's points quite nicely.....

on the contrary- I think you just dug yourself into a hole - So you think Darwinism is a science? hmm- Madison and Jeffersons points where no laws forcing a religion and to me Darwinism is its own religion, which is being forced down our kids throats using our money. Science is not supposed to limit what can and cannot be researched, yet for some odd reason, Darwinism can not be argued? Hmm

Sorry, Darwin's theories can be, and has been repeatedly debated in a systematic way. The theory makes testable hypothesis open to third party, repeatable verification and that is what makes it science. That's what science is.

It is a good thing that men steeped in the age of enlightenment (where reason and science rather than received wisdom was seen as the primary basis for authority) formed our system rather than a bunch of Pat Robertson's.

 you obviously need to do more of your own research- enuff said