| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 03:02:05 AM |
| Object: |
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
For 25 of more years the other side has had a monopoly on word games and no
one has called them on it, effectively challenged them on it. They have
managed to turn liberal into a bad word, even moderate has been made
suspicious. Managed to make Democrat a bad word. Managed to turn equal
rights for a minority group into gay rights or special rights. Those are
just a few examples.
Now they are doing the same thing with the courts. They are using words
again to mislead, misrepresent and lie.
Make no mistake about it, judicial activism means any court ruling they do
not like. It has absolutely no other meaning and it appears once more that
no one has the balls to call them on it and keep calling them on it until
that fact finally cancels their dishonest word playing.
Case in point. Last night on Lou Dobbs I heard, either Dobbs or one of his
talking heads use judicial activism in reference to the District Court
pledge ruling. Dobbs also tossed the usual ***** zinger at the 9th
Circuit as he ended that segment of his show by saying the 9th Circuit, the
most liberal Circuit in the country and also the most overturned Circuit
on the country.
I never realized Dobs was a talking head for the right, he should be on Fox
instead of CNN or maybe CNN is in their pocket as well.
Another example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/14cnd-pledge.html
But it had immediate emotional impact. "This is an extraordinary and
blatant display of judicial activism," Kay Daly, president of the Coalition
for a Fair Judiciary, said in a statement issued here.
The American Center for Law and Justice had a similar reaction. "The pledge
clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from
God, not government, and we're hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately
be rejected," said Jay Sekulow, the organization's chief counsel.
The fact of the mater is the original 9th Circuit ruling is the correct
ruling. Absolutely no Judges or ruling handed down since then has honestly
and in detail refuted that ruling, not even the recent 4th Circuit ruling
upholding the pledge in schools
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 05:35:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:28:16 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<6ehui1pu2t4p2uoebm8dt4qhcj2jdavrs0@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:37:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:18 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<03mqi1te89q3b0auu6eh0jsgt6bfi07bpp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<knnoi1tlcoklo06cms0a1ch7bp70vgb5cp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:10:20 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:16:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<4sfoi1906um6jnnnu080657kr2ae3o7h30@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:30:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:31:17 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<o8smi1t9d27bfmgpfe3ej9tspupf3525uh@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:41:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:49 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<scjmi1limv5ucremoauhapjk8f3vt5cu20@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:30:54 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:09:48 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<80fli1lksvv7ln175cks22uq892m2ktcu4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:23:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:24:22 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> in <11ik7e671nfq20f@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:cklji1taeddmtm1rf707s981nbds5eflqu@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:28:52 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in <11ijirmdat4l005@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7skii1hemtckketeuvr4pjqn7d3t38hquq@4ax.com...
And the judge did not rule that "under God" cannot be said in schools.
He said that the pledge including "under God" cannot be "recited" in
schools. "Recitation" in school is a required response to a teacher's
lead or direction.
Not necessarily. The leadership or direction may come from students or
(especially indirectly) from students' families.
Further, the fact that the
Pledge is recited in a classroom does not automatically mean that
children
are required to participate in that recitation. Therefore, prohibiting
recitation of the Pledge goes beyond merely prohibiting government
coercion.
Sorry, but the schools set aside time to recite,
And no one is forced to recite the pledge.
Which is irrelevant. It creates a hostile atmosphere for those who
refuse.
Apparently, the liberals realize that by instilling the
liberal/leftist philosophy into their children, they're also turning
them into little "afraid_to_be_different" cowards who'll go along with
whatever the rest of the class is doing...
So it is ok for a teacher to ask for prayers to Satan.
Ok by me, although I imagine the teacher would be looking for a job
fairly soon
Because the teacher would be fired? Does that mean you support the
notion of government approved and disapproved religions?
Why would you think that?
Start over, why would the teacher need to look for a new job?
Cause she'd likely be fired...
Ok, why?
Somehow you failed to answer this.
What about teaching "god" is acceptable, but not Satan?
Acceptable?? Acceptable to whome?
To the people who would fire the teacher for one thing but not
another.
Hell yes, I believe that an employer should fire any employee who is
pissing off the customers...
Interesting notion. So the government should fire people for
presenting unpopular religious views (and, I suppose, promote those
who present popular ones) because, well, they are popular with people.
If you want to go back and read what I wrote and then respond to what
I actually wrote instead what those little voices in your head told
you, I might consider making a appropriate response back at you...
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
f promoting Satan is a
firing offense then so is promoting any other religious view.
Sort of a free market style of schooling. Not one that is supported by
the Constitution, for which I am glad, but an interesting view. Did
you think that calling them customers somehow makes the Constitution
irrelevant?
Actually, the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about
schooling,
It says things about the powers of government. Public schools are
government entities. Public school teacher are government agents.
but you know, a free market style of schooling would indeed
be just what this country needs.
Well, it has worked so well elsewhere, why not try it here. Oh, wait,
countries that don't have quality public education do terribly
economically. Gee.
If a parent doesn't like how the
local school operates, they should be free to take a voucher and go to
one that they approve of...
Which is, of course, an entirely different issue. That said, giving a
voucher does not abrogate government responsibility. If the government
is going to say the voucher is for schooling then the government has a
responsibility for that schooling. The government can't promote
religion by hiring someone else to do the job.
I was just responding to your statement about market based schools...
I think it's a grand idea..
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:11:41 PM |
|
|
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:94ovi11bnlg1pbd8hlu778driu18bts2tj@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:28:16 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<6ehui1pu2t4p2uoebm8dt4qhcj2jdavrs0@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:37:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:10:18 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<03mqi1te89q3b0auu6eh0jsgt6bfi07bpp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:22:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<knnoi1tlcoklo06cms0a1ch7bp70vgb5cp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:10:20 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:16:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<4sfoi1906um6jnnnu080657kr2ae3o7h30@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:30:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:31:17 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<o8smi1t9d27bfmgpfe3ej9tspupf3525uh@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:41:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:02:49 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<scjmi1limv5ucremoauhapjk8f3vt5cu20@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:30:54 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:09:48 -0400, in alt.atheism ,
nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<80fli1lksvv7ln175cks22uq892m2ktcu4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:23:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:24:22 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> in <11ik7e671nfq20f@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:cklji1taeddmtm1rf707s981nbds5eflqu@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:28:52 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
"Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in
<11ijirmdat4l005@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7skii1hemtckketeuvr4pjqn7d3t38hquq@4ax.com...
And the judge did not rule that "under God" cannot be
said in schools.
He said that the pledge including "under God" cannot
be "recited" in
schools. "Recitation" in school is a required
response to a teacher's
lead or direction.
Not necessarily. The leadership or direction may come
from students or
(especially indirectly) from students' families.
Further, the fact that the
Pledge is recited in a classroom does not automatically
mean that
children
are required to participate in that recitation.
Therefore, prohibiting
recitation of the Pledge goes beyond merely prohibiting
government
coercion.
Sorry, but the schools set aside time to recite,
And no one is forced to recite the pledge.
Which is irrelevant. It creates a hostile atmosphere for
those who
refuse.
Apparently, the liberals realize that by instilling the
liberal/leftist philosophy into their children, they're also
turning
them into little "afraid_to_be_different" cowards who'll go
along with
whatever the rest of the class is doing...
So it is ok for a teacher to ask for prayers to Satan.
Ok by me, although I imagine the teacher would be looking for
a job
fairly soon
Because the teacher would be fired? Does that mean you support
the
notion of government approved and disapproved religions?
Why would you think that?
Start over, why would the teacher need to look for a new job?
Cause she'd likely be fired...
Ok, why?
Somehow you failed to answer this.
What about teaching "god" is acceptable, but not Satan?
Acceptable?? Acceptable to whome?
To the people who would fire the teacher for one thing but not
another.
Hell yes, I believe that an employer should fire any employee who is
pissing off the customers...
Interesting notion. So the government should fire people for
presenting unpopular religious views (and, I suppose, promote those
who present popular ones) because, well, they are popular with people.
If you want to go back and read what I wrote and then respond to what
I actually wrote instead what those little voices in your head told
you, I might consider making a appropriate response back at you...
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
f promoting Satan is a
firing offense then so is promoting any other religious view.
Sort of a free market style of schooling. Not one that is supported by
the Constitution, for which I am glad, but an interesting view. Did
you think that calling them customers somehow makes the Constitution
irrelevant?
Actually, the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about
schooling,
It says things about the powers of government. Public schools are
government entities. Public school teacher are government agents.
The Constitution addresses the federal government, and the Constitutuion
does not give the feds the power of public school implementation.
Hence there is nothing that the Constitution says in regards to public
education.
but you know, a free market style of schooling would indeed
be just what this country needs.
Well, it has worked so well elsewhere, why not try it here. Oh, wait,
countries that don't have quality public education do terribly
economically. Gee.
If a parent doesn't like how the
local school operates, they should be free to take a voucher and go to
one that they approve of...
Which is, of course, an entirely different issue. That said, giving a
voucher does not abrogate government responsibility. If the government
is going to say the voucher is for schooling then the government has a
responsibility for that schooling. The government can't promote
religion by hiring someone else to do the job.
I was just responding to your statement about market based schools...
I think it's a grand idea..
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:49:38 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
It says things about the powers of government. Public schools are
government entities. Public school teacher are government agents.
The Constitution addresses the federal government,
It also addresses the relationship between the states and the federal
government.
and the Constitutuion
does not give the feds the power of public school implementation.
Hence there is nothing that the Constitution says in regards to public
education.
The constitution, in the form of the 10th, allows all powers not
reserved to the Federal government, or forbidden to the states, to be
exercised by the states. Public education, and innumerable other
things, fall in that category. There is almost no limit on the power
of the states to do whatever the public representatives vote for them
to do.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 09:26:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1se1j1h1iap53bstbrqmgr2fpjt3uj5ka3@4ax.com...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
It says things about the powers of government. Public schools are
government entities. Public school teacher are government agents.
The Constitution addresses the federal government,
It also addresses the relationship between the states and the federal
government.
and the Constitutuion
does not give the feds the power of public school implementation.
Hence there is nothing that the Constitution says in regards to public
education.
The constitution, in the form of the 10th, allows all powers not
reserved to the Federal government, or forbidden to the states, to be
exercised by the states. Public education, and innumerable other
things, fall in that category.
That is correct, it is a state responsibility, not a federal one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 02:45:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:35:01 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<94ovi11bnlg1pbd8hlu778driu18bts2tj@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
You were being so deliberately cryptic it was hard to tell. But I
asked about a teacher teaching Satanism and you said that teacher
would be fired. That said, you have given the best argument I know of
for teacher tenure.
[snip]
I was just responding to your statement about market based schools...
I think it's a grand idea..
I made no such statement. You did.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:17:10 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jjp0j1d84928jlcnt3octbqud5s0v54hm8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:35:01 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<94ovi11bnlg1pbd8hlu778driu18bts2tj@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
You were being so deliberately cryptic it was hard to tell. But I
asked about a teacher teaching Satanism and you said that teacher
would be fired. That said, you have given the best argument I know of
for teacher tenure.
Teacher tenure is what has destroyed the public education system, along with
the NEA and the gay groups.
[snip]
I was just responding to your statement about market based schools...
I think it's a grand idea..
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 10:58:12 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11j1csboso43j12@corp.supernews.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jjp0j1d84928jlcnt3octbqud5s0v54hm8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:35:01 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<94ovi11bnlg1pbd8hlu778driu18bts2tj@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
You were being so deliberately cryptic it was hard to tell. But I
asked about a teacher teaching Satanism and you said that teacher
would be fired. That said, you have given the best argument I know of
for teacher tenure.
Teacher tenure is what has destroyed the public education system, along
with
the NEA and the gay groups.
I know CA still has teacher tenure, but who else does? It doesn't exist in
Texas, and it was dropped in New York a few years back.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 06:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:45:42 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:35:01 -0400, in alt.atheism , nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> in
<94ovi11bnlg1pbd8hlu778driu18bts2tj@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:17:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
You were being so deliberately cryptic it was hard to tell. But I
asked about a teacher teaching Satanism and you said that teacher
would be fired. That said, you have given the best argument I know of
for teacher tenure.
Actually, I said the teacher would probably be fired and I think I
also said that would be a good thing... Oh, and there's no good
argument for teacher tenure...
[snip]
I was just responding to your statement about market based schools...
I think it's a grand idea..
I made no such statement. You did.
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 12:03:42 PM |
|
|
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
More pragmatically speaking, you've presented a formula for teachers
being doormats who give straight A's to all comers, write letters of
recommendation for their flunking students, and exert no discipline
whatsoever.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:12:32 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:00g0j1hmmo314gdjc6vfdmh55gm1dkb17q@4ax.com...
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers.
Yes they are.
You are wrong again bobbie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 01:28:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers.... If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 03:04:48 PM |
|
|
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
< > wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
Beyond that, the conditions under which the teacher can be fired are a
contractual matter. It might be that the district would have to lay
off a different, lower-seniority or lower-qualified or lower-rated
teacher before the one whose kids were "removed".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:14:26 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:viq0j1t8k5bo3lrq0hu0rcu3nkkstpcqub@4ax.com...
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least.
And again bobbie, you are wrong. Take your fascist ways elsewhere.
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state
***** again bob.
You and other petty tyrannts cannot tell parents how to raise their kids, or
how to educate them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 10:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11j1cn7eq72th91@corp.supernews.com...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:viq0j1t8k5bo3lrq0hu0rcu3nkkstpcqub@4ax.com...
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back
won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok,
but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their
class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least.
And again bobbie, you are wrong. Take your fascist ways elsewhere.
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state
***** again bob.
You and other petty tyrannts cannot tell parents how to raise their kids,
or
how to educate them.
Are there any states which have the right to withhold permission (a silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or homeschool? I highly
doubt there are.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 07:28:19 AM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold permission (a silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or homeschool? I highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Washington - you have to get the superintendent to approve, have
proper coursework, or be supervised by a credentialed teacher, you can
only file notice at specific times of year, you have to provide
instruction hours comparable to the public schools, and maintain a
mess of paperwork.
Massachusetts - whatever you do has to be approved in advance
North Dakota - minimum education requirements for the teacher or
supervision by a credentialed teacher. Required testing with required
remediation if the kid doesn't meet standards.
California is a low regulation state with several options, but each
has hoops to be jumped through.
In even the low regulation states, if you don't follow the rules and
jump through the hoops, then indeed the state can "withhold
permission" or more accurately, go after you for truancy violation.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 08:23:20 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold permission (a silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or homeschool? I highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Washington - you have to get the superintendent to approve, have
proper coursework, or be supervised by a credentialed teacher, you can
only file notice at specific times of year, you have to provide
instruction hours comparable to the public schools, and maintain a
mess of paperwork.
Massachusetts - whatever you do has to be approved in advance
North Dakota - minimum education requirements for the teacher or
supervision by a credentialed teacher. Required testing with required
remediation if the kid doesn't meet standards.
California is a low regulation state with several options, but each
has hoops to be jumped through.
In even the low regulation states, if you don't follow the rules and
jump through the hoops, then indeed the state can "withhold
permission" or more accurately, go after you for truancy violation.
But, as you've pointed out, Bob, laws that aren't enforced, or are
unenforceable, are the same as saying "there is no law."
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly reasonable in light of its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Compulsory Attendance ages are 6 through 17. This means that when a child
turns 6 he must be "in school" and, if not enrolled in a traditional school,
the following requirements apply:
1.. The home school must be run in a bona fide manner (not a sham or
subterfuge) [Mike - vague enough as to question why it's even called a
"law"]
2.. A written curriculum (from any source including video or computer)
must be used and must cover the basic subjects of reading, spelling,
grammar, math and a course in good citizenship. The child is considered to
be in a private school. [Mike: Same as (1), but there was a little more
teeth added by the Texas SC - see below]
3.. Parents must reasonably cooperate with any reasonable inquiry from an
attendance officer. [Mike: Basically the "teeth" behind (1) above. :-) It
should be added that there is probably one attendance officer for every half
a million kids.]
a.. The Texas legislature has not defined private or parochial school in the
Education Code . Additionally, the legislature has given the TEA and State
Board of Education authority just over Public schools, not over private or
parochial schools. Under the compulsory attendance laws, there is a
requirement of 170 days of attendance but this only applies to PUBLIC
schools, not to private schools.
a.. There are no current testing requirements nor or you required to
register your home school with the school district under current Texas law.
[Mike: So, the TEA cannot object if I (1) have a curriculum I downloaded off
the net, (2) a few books, and (3) decide to teach it in any way I want over
however many days per year I wish.]
This set of "regulations" (which translate to "if you want to keep you kid
out of school, we can't stop you as long as you have a curriculum you
downloaded off the 'Net) was tested to the Texas Supreme Court level in
1994, when the TEA tried to defend its monopoly:
"... the Texas Supreme Court unanimously upheld the appeal of the Arlington
v. Leeper case, which defined the current home-schooling rights of parents
in the state of Texas. In a 30 page ruling, the court upheld the lower court
rulings which said that students attending legitimate home schools are not
required to attend public schools. The court said that the Texas Education
Agency had no legal basis for prosecution of 150 homeschooling families and
that legitimate home schools are exempt from the state's compulsory
attendance law."
"The Supreme Court agreed with the district court's ruling that a home
school was considered legitimate if parents used some sort of curriculum
consisting of books, workbooks or other written materials and that they met
"basic education goals" by teaching reading, spelling, grammar, mathematics
and good citizenship. Once that standard is met, the state's authority ends,
although the district court said school officials could ask home-school
parents about curricula and standardized tests. The Supreme Court
specifically said Wednesday that the Texas Education Agency could request
evidence of standardized test, even though home-school parents are not
required to give such tests."
"The Court also said that any new rules on home schools written by the State
Board of Education would be subject to judicial review."
"The Supreme Court also lifted, as unnecessary, a permanent injunction
barring school districts from charging parents who educate their children at
home with criminal violations. The court said that Texas law was never
intended to criminalize home schooling and noted that home schools were a
historical practicality for many Texas families in the 20th century."
"And, finally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling that the
state pay $360,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs."
[Mike: I love liberty.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 11:59:02 AM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold permission (a silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or homeschool? I highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly reasonable in light of its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 12:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j743j1h35073i9fliheanvhm975pmhi9j3@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold permission (a
silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or homeschool? I
highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly reasonable in light of
its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
No suprise there.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 12:24:40 PM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yFgYe.857$Ur.563@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j743j1h35073i9fliheanvhm975pmhi9j3@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold
permission (a
silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or
homeschool? I
highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly
reasonable in light of
its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation
state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
No suprise there.
Postmodern Bob is a real curiosity shop,
isn't he?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 01:55:49 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sHgYe.13$m03.3120@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yFgYe.857$Ur.563@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j743j1h35073i9fliheanvhm975pmhi9j3@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold
permission (a
silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or
homeschool? I
highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly
reasonable in light of
its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation
state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
No suprise there.
Postmodern Bob is a real curiosity shop,
isn't he?
It's probably what USENET does to you, given enough time......
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 03:06:06 PM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:V0iYe.1287$OC2.838@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sHgYe.13$m03.3120@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yFgYe.857$Ur.563@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j743j1h35073i9fliheanvhm975pmhi9j3@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in
message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to
withhold
permission (a
silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private
or
homeschool? I
highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly
reasonable in light of
its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation
state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
No suprise there.
Postmodern Bob is a real curiosity shop,
isn't he?
It's probably what USENET does to you, given enough
time......
Well, Usenet can be blamed for a lot of things,
but I don't think Postmodern Bob is one of
them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 11:51:21 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j743j1h35073i9fliheanvhm975pmhi9j3@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:vcj2j1pkc9cf3jt4e2hur0k6jnt7v6vq4h@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Are there any states which have the right to withhold
permission (a silly
concept, that) should a child want to go private or
homeschool? I highly
doubt there are.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp
Look at the high-regulation states.
Here's the Texas statute, which seems perfectly reasonable
in light of its
toothlessness and uneforceability:
Texas is listed on the above site as a no-regulation
state, not a
high-regulation state.
[Mike: I love liberty.]
I loath libertarianism (and other isms as well).
You loathe "isms" in general? As a general
principle?
You mean you're a self-hating solipsist?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 06:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available, including home schooling....
Beyond that, the conditions under which the teacher can be fired are a
contractual matter. It might be that the district would have to lay
off a different, lower-seniority or lower-qualified or lower-rated
teacher before the one whose kids were "removed".
So you'd fire a teacher who has students and retain a teacher who has
no students.. <LOL>
lojbab
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:16:03 PM |
|
|
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:qe11j1h1qun4n1s4emhhuvrrl8v9uttc14@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:42 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
As you have worked hard to avoid answering questions going back won't
help. You said a teacher who promoted god via the pledge was ok, but
one who promoted Satanism would be fired.
I said no such thing.... I said teachers should be fired if their
customers, the childrens' parents, pull their kids out of their class.
The children and their parents are not the customers. "We the people"
are the customers. The kids are the beneficiaries.
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available, including home schooling....
Bob is a statist and petty tyrannt in the making, he thinks that the elite
and the government are the only people who can tell other people what to do
and how to lead thier lives.
So you'd fire a teacher who has students and retain a teacher who has
no students.. <LOL>
That is socialism at its best.
lojbab
"Me, I was born under the altar of man-love. Heh heh
heh. queer as a three dollar bill, that's me. And damn
proud of it, too."
--Zepp/Greywolf Jamieson Nov 29 2000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/85b927a7b7981ae3?hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 08:44:56 PM |
|
|
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
< > wrote:
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
Not their option. But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available,
No there isn't. And most people can't afford it even if they wanted
it.
including home schooling...
You have to meet whatever the state requirements are in order to
homeschool.
Beyond that, the conditions under which the teacher can be fired are a
contractual matter. It might be that the district would have to lay
off a different, lower-seniority or lower-qualified or lower-rated
teacher before the one whose kids were "removed".
So you'd fire a teacher who has students and retain a teacher who has
no students.. <LOL>
Teachers don't have students. The school district has students. You
enroll your kid in a district, or perhaps in some locales, in a
school. Then you get whatever teacher the school decides to give you.
That's generally true in private schools as well. And while parents
are indeed the customers in private schools, they tend not to have
much power there either, because the good private schools have a
waiting list, and the school can always fill a slot left by an unhappy
parent.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 05:38:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:44:56 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Nope, sorry, the kids' p0arents are the customers...
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
Not their option.
The heck it's not... I pulled my kids out of the public schools
once...
But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
You don't know much about teaching, do you
If enough of
them pull their kids out of a teacher's classes, the teacher is no
longer needed....
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available,
No there isn't. And most people can't afford it even if they wanted
it.
The beauty of it is that there will always be enough private schools
to meet the demand... and some day soon we'll all be giving vouchers
to people to take their kids to private schools like they've been
doing in Milwaukee for many years.... Here in Florida the parents
can enroll their kids in the public schools of their choice....
Competition always improves things...
including home schooling...
You have to meet whatever the state requirements are in order to
homeschool.
Beyond that, the conditions under which the teacher can be fired are a
contractual matter. It might be that the district would have to lay
off a different, lower-seniority or lower-qualified or lower-rated
teacher before the one whose kids were "removed".
So you'd fire a teacher who has students and retain a teacher who has
no students.. <LOL>
Teachers don't have students. The school district has students. You
enroll your kid in a district, or perhaps in some locales, in a
school. Then you get whatever teacher the school decides to give you.
That's generally true in private schools as well. And while parents
are indeed the customers in private schools, they tend not to have
much power there either, because the good private schools have a
waiting list, and the school can always fill a slot left by an unhappy
parent.
lojbab
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 07:09:47 AM |
|
|
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
Not their option.
The heck it's not... I pulled my kids out of the public schools
once...
Which implies that you brought them back. Which in turn means that
they couldn't let the teacher go.
But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
You don't know much about teaching, do you
Rather more than you think. I also know what a contract is.
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available,
No there isn't. And most people can't afford it even if they wanted
it.
The beauty of it is that there will always be enough private schools
to meet the demand...
Not necessarily. And certainly not of the quality that is demanded.
and some day soon we'll all be giving vouchers
to people to take their kids to private schools like they've been
doing in Milwaukee for many years...
Not likely. And note that in Milwaukee, all vouchers did was turn the
private schools into schools for voucher kids rather than schools for
the rich. For every voucher kid that left Milwaukee public schools, a
private school kid came back, and another kid was born or moved into
the district. Thus the Milwaukee enrollment has grown while the
private school enrollment is flat. The private schools, instead of
being unregulated and competitive for the students whose parents were
willing to spend tuition money, are competing for the government
handout of a voucher which comes with numerous restrictions. You may
think this is an improvement; I think that the free market has
actually lost ground.
Here in Florida the parents
can enroll their kids in the public schools of their choice...
Only so long as there is room.
Competition always improves things...
Ideological nonsense.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 08:09:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:gsi2j15kv0022j8kmdlhlbm9bv6nisgkip@4ax.com...
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
Not their option.
The heck it's not... I pulled my kids out of the public schools
once...
But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
You don't know much about teaching, do you
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available,
No there isn't. And most people can't afford it even if they wanted
it.
The beauty of it is that there will always be enough private schools
to meet the demand...
Not necessarily. And certainly not of the quality that is demanded.
Wrong on both counts bobbie.
and some day soon we'll all be giving vouchers
to people to take their kids to private schools like they've been
doing in Milwaukee for many years...
Not likely. And note that in Milwaukee, all vouchers did was turn the
private schools into schools for voucher kids rather than schools for
the rich.
So now the poor kids stuck in failing public schools are getting a better
education in the private schools with the help of these vouchers.
For every voucher kid that left Milwaukee public schools, a
private school kid came back,
Nope, now you are just making up lies.
Here in Florida the parents
can enroll their kids in the public schools of their choice...
Only so long as there is room.
Competition always improves things...
Ideological nonsense.
Nope, proven concept.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 07:55:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:09:47 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
Not in the least. They don't pay the bill; "we the people" do.
But if the parents pull their kids you'd be paying the teacher for
nothing....
Not their option.
The heck it's not... I pulled my kids out of the public schools
once...
Which implies that you brought them back. Which in turn means that
they couldn't let the teacher go.
Actually, I was already planning to move and better schools was a big
part of those plans.... After the move I found the new public schools
to be acceptable...
But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
You don't know much about teaching, do you
Rather more than you think. I also know what a contract is.
A teacher's "contract" varies from location to location... Many have
no contract
For one thing, they cannot legally do so without the permission of the
school or district or state (depending on how the law is worded).
Truancy laws apply.
<LOL> *****! There's plenty of non-government schooling
available,
No there isn't. And most people can't afford it even if they wanted
it.
The beauty of it is that there will always be enough private schools
to meet the demand...
Not necessarily. And certainly not of the quality that is demanded.
Almost all private schools outperform public schools, and usually with
less money/student spent.
and some day soon we'll all be giving vouchers
to people to take their kids to private schools like they've been
doing in Milwaukee for many years...
Not likely. And note that in Milwaukee, all vouchers did was turn the
private schools into schools for voucher kids rather than schools for
the rich. For every voucher kid that left Milwaukee public schools, a
private school kid came back, and another kid was born or moved into
the district. Thus the Milwaukee enrollment has grown while the
private school enrollment is flat.
<LOL> that's only because the voucher system has a cap...
The private schools, instead of
being unregulated and competitive for the students whose parents were
willing to spend tuition money, are competing for the government
handout of a voucher which comes with numerous restrictions. You may
think this is an improvement; I think that the free market has
actually lost ground.
The milwaukee system is a fantastic success...
Here in Florida the parents
can enroll their kids in the public schools of their choice...
Only so long as there is room.
DUH!
Competition always improves things...
Ideological nonsense.
Losers always hate competitive things....
lojbab
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 11:57:07 AM |
|
|
nevermore <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:09:47 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
< > wrote:
But in fact we would still have to pay the teacher,
because the teacher has a contract.
You don't know much about teaching, do you
Rather more than you | | | | | | | | | | |
