I am very disappointed in Gov. Pritzger because of the blatant immorality of spending public money (diverted from public schools) to send children to be indoctrinated in approved religions (no Druids or Pastafarians need apply) with discriminatory, anti-social, and anti-science teachings. I do hope he does a double reverse. The answer for deprived communities is to provide them with good, safe schools not to turn their children over to wizards.
so, i take it you can live with minority children from low-income families trapped in miserably underperforming public schools, while the upper middle & upper classes have school choice for their children to their hearts' content. even the parents of unknown economic class, who know/learn how to work the CPS system, with higher achieving kids [lie the Zorns] can have the choice of some the finest public schools in the state - outside their own neighborhood.
and wouldn't it be nice to provide all of those minority children from low-income families with good, safe schools in their own neighborhoods - how are you proposing to accomplish that? if you say 'more $$', you're just not credible. increased spending on public education in major cities, even adjusted for inflation, has not and is not producing better results. tell us about your reform proposals to significantly improve inner city public education and academic achievement.
the best is the enemy of the good. Zorn's warning that 9,000 current recipients can become 90,000 can become 900,000 is a canard. show us the proof that any significant # of student beneficiaries of the Invest in Kids program are being indoctrinated in some significant way.
Putting aside the pros and cons of the program........EZ is right that Pritzker is a squish and he put his finger to the wind and decided that if he ever gets to run for national office, denying a small group of underserved minority children the chance to get out of their troubled neighborhood schools is a net vote loss by a long shot!
BobE is right that the existing parameters of this program safeguard that the schools are accredited and should eliminate any with "discriminatory, anti-social and anti-science teachings" or that it will grow exponentially is a canard. My guess is most of the funds go to mainstream Catholic Schools and, as a non-church attending agnostic, I have no problem with that. If these poor minority parents want their children exposed to some moral and religious teaching that they do not receive in their current surroundings how can that be such a bad thing?
How do you know those children are not already receiving moral teaching? If you are OK with Catholic schools, do you feel the same about Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc., schools? Religious indoctrination on public money is wrong and unConstitutional.
I don't know, but I assume that the parents of these children do know and they also know how troubled their local school options are. If any of these religious schools can keep these kids out of gangs and academically engaged I am fine with that too. Bottom line is that because this program is funded with private funds (making it constitutional) it will remain small and actually a good compromise. It has been totally blown out of proportion because the far right loves it and the far left teacher's unions hate it.
"far left teachers' unions" is indicative of your stance. Demonising those unions and defunding public education is all part of the right-wing agenda, as is supporting "faith" schools, providing they are run by religions that agree with the rightwing aims--antigay, antiscience, and the rest. Giving tax breaks to these "private funds" going to "faith" schools is the state subsidising religious indoctrination and is thus unConstitutional. If these "donors" really wanted to improve schools in deprived areas, they would give money to aid those schools (also-tax-deductible in most cases).
I didn't mean to demonize anyone and certainly not all teacher's unions are as far left as the CTU. But it is an objective fact that the CTU has taken far left positions on things that have nothing to do directly with teacher's contracts and it is also a fact that we have a far right element in this state and this country. Both sides seem to make outsized issues out of relatively small things to rile up their bases. The right preaches school choice constantly and it just seems to me that by the left making such a big issue over this one rather small program it just feeds into the narrative that they don't really care about poor black children. Pritzker understands this and that is why he backed away from his support.
And about it being unconstitutional.......if the law wasn't crafted in a way that is truly unconstitutional this would be fought in the courts vs. the legislature.
I agree with BobE’s post. I sent my son to a Catholic High School. A primary reason was safety. Some of his classmates were not Catholic. Because the school required active participation in school affairs, I got to talk and work with these parents. One of their primary goals was also to provide safety for their kids.
You can have your high flying principle of no public money for private schools. But it does not provide a solution to a parent with kids in a dangerous public school. They need to protect their kids NOW and have an obligation to always look out for the child’s safety.
If a public school cannot offer a safe environment to their students, then the safety of a student trumps the no public money for private schools.
The answer to safer public schools is NOT to take away their money. - Have you talked to your state representative, your alderperson, whoever about how to fund public schools at a level that would allow all the children to succeed?
I believe you to be an idealist, not a realist. Have you seen examples of dangerous schools say with a gang problem becoming safe simply with more money in their budget?
And while my kid is set to go to a dangerous public high school, I am suppose to ask my representatives to fund this school with more money and then what?
He has to be safe and I need a safe alternative NOW.
You think these public servants would turn on a dime and fund the school and that would solve the problem? Not realistic in my immediate circumstance.
I hoped that after paying my taxes that Chicago could offer me a safe public school . No dice, so I paid added money to find a safe alternative - a Catholic High School. The public school still got my tax money and did not have to educate my kid. So they come out ahead.
I think you need more than just money to make a dangerous school safe. And a school has to be safe before kids can get an education.
you can't be serious - more money for CPS? per pupil expenditures in CPS are among the highest in the state of IL. CPS teachers are among the highest paid in the state. if more money were to be spent on CPS, how much? and what would you spend it on? why hasn't all the add'l money spent on CPS in the past 40 yrs produced more safety and higher academic achievement?
and oh, BTW, where would this money come from? you'd just require the 'rich' to pay their 'fair share', right? they'd never leave Chicago or IL if their taxes were increased, right? any chance you voted in favor of Gov Pritker's so-called 'fair tax' referendum? well, ~60% of your fellow citizens voted against it, seeing it for what it was - a naked grab by politicians to spend more of OPM [other people's money], a tax increase which would have eventually reached the middle class [there's never enough tax revenue to suit the liberal politicians], with little/no accountability for how the money is spent.
this issue is not about 'taking away money' from public education - it's about true school choice, academic achievement, and safety for minority children of low-income families. this is equal opportunity in action.
Have you read the statistics on this program so far?!?!? It supports the people who are ALREADY in the religious schools. A link (that I can't find right at this moment) points out that 95% (as I recall) of the kids in the program have NEVER gone to a public school. And that private schools are not required to accept ANY child that they think will make them look bad or require additional resources. So few to none non-native English speakers, few to none intellectually disabled children, few to none physically disabled children, etc.
I do not want $7500 of MY tax money going to those schools who can discriminate without any penalties..
You can look around your neighborhood and if you see a child who you feel will succeed at a private school, go ahead and pay their tuition. But not with my money
Interesting comments, the Catholic High School my son went to had so many Hispanics they offered Spanish classes for native speakers and non native speakers.
The only kids who were thrown out or not accepted were violent thugs, gang bangers, drug dealers or petty criminals. And yes, keeping them out helped avoid the school from looking bad.
Why do all the folks so concerned about not using public money for private schools either have no kids or kids that went to safe public schools?
Are there parents who send their schools to dangerous schools in the hope of making them better out there? Rather than getting them out of the school either by moving or sending them to a private school, they hope their kids can make the school better and get a good education? Do they exist?
And to you last comment, yes that is exactly what I did. I had the means to send my kid to a private school and he went and got a good education. No tax money out of your pocket.
What is you view about the kids who do not have the means? It appears to be take the dangerous school option, they should not get any public funding to move or to find an alternative private school.
And I agree with you that if the parents or guardians have the means, they should NOT get any tax breaks or public funding to move their kids to a private school.
re the UMich cheating scandal aborning - refreshing to hear some humility and perspective from a UMich alum/football fan. rare. hail to the victors - harbaugh's a winner, and he's your guy. as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I think there is an epidemic of STUPID among today’s high paid college coaches.
Some examples:
1.Notre Dame puts out 10 defensive players on fourth down against Ohio State???
2. Miami coach calls for a run play rather than victory formation??
3. Michigan institutes a cheating plan even though they have a really good team and a chance for the National Championship??
These coaches are paid millions of dollars, yet these actions are not the result of a bad call or bad luck. They are just STUPID. If I wrote a fictional story with any one of the above events, critics would say “he is a bad writer with a really implausible premise in his story”.
I commented before but since the issue is heating up I'll repeat and expand a little. I not only use the Invest in Kids for the 75% state tax credit but I make the donation using appreciated stock and thus avoid future taxation on the gains. Donating a few thousand dollars essentially costs me nothing but it does drain revenue for valid public uses, most notably education. The scholarship organizations have been emailing donors asking us to "write to your rep" but I couldn't really put together a letter that would defend the program.
Re: firing, censoring and cancel culture. It is tempting to argue by analogy on this one, but I think that is not helpful. The fact is that what we put in public and especially on social media follows us forever. It is not new information that doing so can impact our job prospects. Also, some organizations have to be careful about their public image. It is reasonable for these organizations to put limitations on what their employees say in public.
Sometimes one is confronted with just how out of step one is with others and this is one of those times. While calling it a “holiday gift” is obviously meant to be inclusive I have to say neither I nor any of the Jews I know ever received any sort of “holiday” gift special enough to possibly write an essay about it. It’s just not part of the culture I grew up in with the reminders that Hanukkah is a minor holiday and the only gifts we got were some Kennedy half dollars. I did know some who got more tangible gifts but it still was nothing like the ‘magic of the holidays’ thing I saw from those who celebrated Christmas. I want to emphasize that I’m not being critical of the contest at all, it was just one of those wake-up call moments when I’m reminded: “ you really are a teeny tine minority in this country even though your bubble of a suburb and workplace make you forget that on a daily basis.”
Oh also my initial assumption about the “ for goodness sakes your a grownup” sentiment of one of the tweets as likely to get 100 percent of the votes, was quickly shattered when I saw the results so far and remembered “ no most people aren’t as unfun as you and don’t think this is one of the most perfect things that’s ever been said”
I agree that cancel culture is real and those going after the students who signed that letter shouldn’t be doing that. I did have some disagreement with the idea that choosing to leave a board or stop donating is “cancel culture”. Doesn’t one have a right to no longer support or be a part of an organization when one vehemently disagrees with that organization’s statements or actions? Though demanding that a person at that organization be fired IS cancel culture.
Eric, I’m wondering though your view of the firing of the attorney who worked for Susana Mendoza who made unquestionably antisemitic statements. Was that unfair or wrong?
I think people call something cancel culture only if they disagree with the cancelling.
If you refuse to watch movies where Harvey Weinstein is an executive producer because the thought of it is so troubling to you, is that cancelling? What if you boycotted Chick-fil-a 10 years ago to register your dissatisfaction with some of the political groups they supported? Which, by the way, cause Chick-fil-a to change its practices.
"I take it you can live with minority children from low-income families trapped in miserably underperforming public schools." Don't judge other people or imply that what I wrote says anything like that.. I take it for granted that you want the best for low-income children and their families, as do I. Turning a minority of those children over to "faith" schools is not a way of achieving that, especially as it is diverting public money from public schools. It betrays a lack of belief that the state can solve those problems to say that more money for schools in deprived areas does not work. Lots of money being lavished on schools in well-off areas certainly "works." It's a question of organization, priorities, and will.
you are 100% correct that i believe that the state - whether it be literally a state, as in 1 of the 50 United States; or 'state', as in any level of govt - has been and will continue to be incapable of solving the endemic problem of academic underachievement of minority children from low-income families. your comment that 'Lots of money being lavished on schools in well-off areas certainly "works." ' is illogical, or at least shallow. there are so many factors, other than public funding, that contribute to high academic achievement in communities well-off economically. incrementally larger funding to CPS - while housing, healthcare, safety/security. etc, are underperforming &/or dysfunctional - will not improve academic achievement in the neighborhood schools serving minority children from low-income families. i have volunteered at a charter high school in Chgo for many years - their model works, for far less per-pupil $ than CPS receives. and their student population is chosen by lottery, all from CPS neighborhood elementary schools.
It's a pretty easy calculation, but he wants the voters who prefer Invest in Kids Scholarships, but he also wants the voters who oppose that. He should just kill it because that's really what his inclination is. No big deal, right? He wins however many times he wants to be governor. But wait, maybe, just maybe he wants to run nationwide? Welp, that's a bit of a different calculation and like any politician, he'll say whatever he has to say to get elected. He's not unlike most politicians that way.
from this AM's The Athletic - More trouble at Michigan
We now (allegedly) know how the Michigan scandal became exposed: According to a Washington Post report, a third-party investigative firm submitted evidence, including documents and videos, to the NCAA. Among the documents were detailed travel budgets for the sign-stealing operation. Adding those details to The Athletic’s previous reporting on the matter paints a weirdly grim picture for arguably the best team in college football. Again, feels like Jim Harbaugh’s odds of a Pete Carroll-like escape into the NFL are extremely high
Thanks for the pointer to Name Grapher. We have three (grown) boys. The middle boy has a recognizable, non-peculiar, but hitherto not very common name. At vacation tchotchke shops, his was the only name (among our three boys) that didn’t appear on the “personalized” keychains, bottle openers, etc. But in the last few years, exponential doesn’t begin to describe the growth in the popularity of his name. We hope soon to be able to catch him up on a lifetime of cheesy personalized souvenirs.
I'm sure many have already developed spur of the minute opinions on the tax issue. I won't add to the debate. I have something different in mind. Not too long ago Pritzker's name was mentioned as a potential candidate if the Democrats were interested in bypassing Biden. Do we need yet another sway in the breeze candidate? It's bad enough on the GOP side where we encounter moral absolutists who will use any fib to sway unknowing constituents. On the Democratic side we seem to get either swayers or socialists- excuse me- progressives- who seem to believe government and taxes cures all. I've been told many times that a third party vote is a wasted vote. But I too often feel the same way about voting for candidates from the two major parties, so what difference does it make?
Thank you for calling for some urgency on the migrant issue. From Johnson's firing of Dr. Arwardy with no idea of a replacement, to his vague budget, and his flip flop on the police contract, his lack of executive and financial experience is glaring. But his inability to execute plans to safely house the migrants is going to result in an even bigger humanitarian crisis than we have now. Seeing these small children and their mothers sleeping outside the police stations is heartbreaking and we may be a month away from snow on the ground! That said, why isn't the press calling out Tony Preckwinkle to step up and help find locations to house the migrants throughout the county? Yes, it is a national problem and the Biden administration should be doing so much more than it is, but the county and state should be offering more leadership and assistance too. Democrats, on a national, state and local level have seemingly welcomed these people and declared that they be treated humanely but their lack of execution and planning is resulting in the opposite of humane treatment.
I think the Invest in Kids argument is hypocrisy at its best. So partial state school funding goes with the child to a state certified school and the child receives all the state requirements. That they might receive moral guidance shouldn’t be an issue. Most would consider it a benefice.
Look at it pragmatically. Which graduates do better, CPS or private/charter/religious schools? Which type of school does the head of CPS send her child to? Where do many CPS principals and teachers send their kids.
If the child isn’t attending CPS shouldn’t CPS budget be reduced by a per capita account and its a financial wash?
It really boils down to political prejudices, not to excellence, opportunity, or diversity.
The decision to erect tent camps for migrants to get them through a brutal winter is a bad idea on its own, let alone where these comps may be located. This is not a compassionate solution. Pritzker had suggested they be housed in unused buildings instead several weeks ago. I don't understand why the mayor's office is not searching for alternative solutions.
C Pittman, you write, “If these poor minority parents want their children exposed to some moral and religious teaching that they do not receive in their current surroundings how can that be such a bad thing?” It can be a bad thing if the child is gay, lesbian, or transgender, and the religious teaching they are getting from mainstream Catholic Schools includes the Catholic Church’s position on the “sinfulness” of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Notwithstanding Pope Francis’s recent pastoral and non-doctrinal statements such as “Who are we to judge,” the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that LGBTQ+ people are bad, sinful, and lesser. The Catholic Church’s official position, for example, is that transgender people cannot be Godparents. Sending an LGBTQ+ kid to a school where he or she receives that kind of “moral and religious teaching” would be a disaster. Teaching kids to hate themselves is something that creates problems for a lifetime.
I certainly agree. I would assume that any parent who is attuned to their children's needs enough to apply for these grants would research the school and not choose to put their children in an environment that demonizes them.
Do you have a solution for what your parents should have done? Were they acting out of anger at you or were they parents that loved you but were misguided?
Parents can mean well but make mistakes. Were you able to reconcile with them?
I loved my parents. My Dad was a wonderful, and generous man, but he was extremely homophobic, and fairly sexist in his personal life. Not unusual for a man born in 1928. As a result of my relationship with him (kids want their Dads to love them), as I grew up I thoroughly repressed my cross-gender feelings, became what I thought he wanted me to be, and lived in sort of a self-hating denial of who I was until I came out to myself in 2006 and to my family in 2007, and transitioned from male to female in 2008. I went through a lot of emotional trauma growing up as my Dad pressured me to be and act as a boy. It’s not healthy for a child to grow up, pressured to be someone they are not. It caused me to develop dysfunctional relationship skills, and a repressed and actually negative self-esteem. I have been working with a therapist to understand more deeply what happened and to develop more healthy relationship skills and a more healthy sense of self. But that’s what parents do to transgender kids, and to a lesser extent to gay kids, when the parents don’t let their kids be themselves. My Dad died in 2016, and my Mom died in 2018. I guess the solution, if there is one, is to create a society in which every child can be who they are. I’m sure my Dad thought my life would be a lot better for me if I acted like a macho man, instead of acting like a woman. What he didn’t think about was the price I would have to pay to try to change such a fundamental aspect of who I was--to live a lie for decades.
I am very disappointed in Gov. Pritzger because of the blatant immorality of spending public money (diverted from public schools) to send children to be indoctrinated in approved religions (no Druids or Pastafarians need apply) with discriminatory, anti-social, and anti-science teachings. I do hope he does a double reverse. The answer for deprived communities is to provide them with good, safe schools not to turn their children over to wizards.
so, i take it you can live with minority children from low-income families trapped in miserably underperforming public schools, while the upper middle & upper classes have school choice for their children to their hearts' content. even the parents of unknown economic class, who know/learn how to work the CPS system, with higher achieving kids [lie the Zorns] can have the choice of some the finest public schools in the state - outside their own neighborhood.
and wouldn't it be nice to provide all of those minority children from low-income families with good, safe schools in their own neighborhoods - how are you proposing to accomplish that? if you say 'more $$', you're just not credible. increased spending on public education in major cities, even adjusted for inflation, has not and is not producing better results. tell us about your reform proposals to significantly improve inner city public education and academic achievement.
the best is the enemy of the good. Zorn's warning that 9,000 current recipients can become 90,000 can become 900,000 is a canard. show us the proof that any significant # of student beneficiaries of the Invest in Kids program are being indoctrinated in some significant way.
Putting aside the pros and cons of the program........EZ is right that Pritzker is a squish and he put his finger to the wind and decided that if he ever gets to run for national office, denying a small group of underserved minority children the chance to get out of their troubled neighborhood schools is a net vote loss by a long shot!
BobE is right that the existing parameters of this program safeguard that the schools are accredited and should eliminate any with "discriminatory, anti-social and anti-science teachings" or that it will grow exponentially is a canard. My guess is most of the funds go to mainstream Catholic Schools and, as a non-church attending agnostic, I have no problem with that. If these poor minority parents want their children exposed to some moral and religious teaching that they do not receive in their current surroundings how can that be such a bad thing?
How do you know those children are not already receiving moral teaching? If you are OK with Catholic schools, do you feel the same about Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc., schools? Religious indoctrination on public money is wrong and unConstitutional.
Don't forget the evangelical Christian schools.
I don't know, but I assume that the parents of these children do know and they also know how troubled their local school options are. If any of these religious schools can keep these kids out of gangs and academically engaged I am fine with that too. Bottom line is that because this program is funded with private funds (making it constitutional) it will remain small and actually a good compromise. It has been totally blown out of proportion because the far right loves it and the far left teacher's unions hate it.
"far left teachers' unions" is indicative of your stance. Demonising those unions and defunding public education is all part of the right-wing agenda, as is supporting "faith" schools, providing they are run by religions that agree with the rightwing aims--antigay, antiscience, and the rest. Giving tax breaks to these "private funds" going to "faith" schools is the state subsidising religious indoctrination and is thus unConstitutional. If these "donors" really wanted to improve schools in deprived areas, they would give money to aid those schools (also-tax-deductible in most cases).
I didn't mean to demonize anyone and certainly not all teacher's unions are as far left as the CTU. But it is an objective fact that the CTU has taken far left positions on things that have nothing to do directly with teacher's contracts and it is also a fact that we have a far right element in this state and this country. Both sides seem to make outsized issues out of relatively small things to rile up their bases. The right preaches school choice constantly and it just seems to me that by the left making such a big issue over this one rather small program it just feeds into the narrative that they don't really care about poor black children. Pritzker understands this and that is why he backed away from his support.
And about it being unconstitutional.......if the law wasn't crafted in a way that is truly unconstitutional this would be fought in the courts vs. the legislature.
I agree with BobE’s post. I sent my son to a Catholic High School. A primary reason was safety. Some of his classmates were not Catholic. Because the school required active participation in school affairs, I got to talk and work with these parents. One of their primary goals was also to provide safety for their kids.
You can have your high flying principle of no public money for private schools. But it does not provide a solution to a parent with kids in a dangerous public school. They need to protect their kids NOW and have an obligation to always look out for the child’s safety.
If a public school cannot offer a safe environment to their students, then the safety of a student trumps the no public money for private schools.
The answer to safer public schools is NOT to take away their money. - Have you talked to your state representative, your alderperson, whoever about how to fund public schools at a level that would allow all the children to succeed?
I believe you to be an idealist, not a realist. Have you seen examples of dangerous schools say with a gang problem becoming safe simply with more money in their budget?
And while my kid is set to go to a dangerous public high school, I am suppose to ask my representatives to fund this school with more money and then what?
He has to be safe and I need a safe alternative NOW.
You think these public servants would turn on a dime and fund the school and that would solve the problem? Not realistic in my immediate circumstance.
I hoped that after paying my taxes that Chicago could offer me a safe public school . No dice, so I paid added money to find a safe alternative - a Catholic High School. The public school still got my tax money and did not have to educate my kid. So they come out ahead.
I think you need more than just money to make a dangerous school safe. And a school has to be safe before kids can get an education.
you can't be serious - more money for CPS? per pupil expenditures in CPS are among the highest in the state of IL. CPS teachers are among the highest paid in the state. if more money were to be spent on CPS, how much? and what would you spend it on? why hasn't all the add'l money spent on CPS in the past 40 yrs produced more safety and higher academic achievement?
and oh, BTW, where would this money come from? you'd just require the 'rich' to pay their 'fair share', right? they'd never leave Chicago or IL if their taxes were increased, right? any chance you voted in favor of Gov Pritker's so-called 'fair tax' referendum? well, ~60% of your fellow citizens voted against it, seeing it for what it was - a naked grab by politicians to spend more of OPM [other people's money], a tax increase which would have eventually reached the middle class [there's never enough tax revenue to suit the liberal politicians], with little/no accountability for how the money is spent.
this issue is not about 'taking away money' from public education - it's about true school choice, academic achievement, and safety for minority children of low-income families. this is equal opportunity in action.
Have you read the statistics on this program so far?!?!? It supports the people who are ALREADY in the religious schools. A link (that I can't find right at this moment) points out that 95% (as I recall) of the kids in the program have NEVER gone to a public school. And that private schools are not required to accept ANY child that they think will make them look bad or require additional resources. So few to none non-native English speakers, few to none intellectually disabled children, few to none physically disabled children, etc.
I do not want $7500 of MY tax money going to those schools who can discriminate without any penalties..
You can look around your neighborhood and if you see a child who you feel will succeed at a private school, go ahead and pay their tuition. But not with my money
Interesting comments, the Catholic High School my son went to had so many Hispanics they offered Spanish classes for native speakers and non native speakers.
The only kids who were thrown out or not accepted were violent thugs, gang bangers, drug dealers or petty criminals. And yes, keeping them out helped avoid the school from looking bad.
Why do all the folks so concerned about not using public money for private schools either have no kids or kids that went to safe public schools?
Are there parents who send their schools to dangerous schools in the hope of making them better out there? Rather than getting them out of the school either by moving or sending them to a private school, they hope their kids can make the school better and get a good education? Do they exist?
And to you last comment, yes that is exactly what I did. I had the means to send my kid to a private school and he went and got a good education. No tax money out of your pocket.
What is you view about the kids who do not have the means? It appears to be take the dangerous school option, they should not get any public funding to move or to find an alternative private school.
And I agree with you that if the parents or guardians have the means, they should NOT get any tax breaks or public funding to move their kids to a private school.
re the UMich cheating scandal aborning - refreshing to hear some humility and perspective from a UMich alum/football fan. rare. hail to the victors - harbaugh's a winner, and he's your guy. as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I think there is an epidemic of STUPID among today’s high paid college coaches.
Some examples:
1.Notre Dame puts out 10 defensive players on fourth down against Ohio State???
2. Miami coach calls for a run play rather than victory formation??
3. Michigan institutes a cheating plan even though they have a really good team and a chance for the National Championship??
These coaches are paid millions of dollars, yet these actions are not the result of a bad call or bad luck. They are just STUPID. If I wrote a fictional story with any one of the above events, critics would say “he is a bad writer with a really implausible premise in his story”.
Alas, the truth is stranger than fiction.
I commented before but since the issue is heating up I'll repeat and expand a little. I not only use the Invest in Kids for the 75% state tax credit but I make the donation using appreciated stock and thus avoid future taxation on the gains. Donating a few thousand dollars essentially costs me nothing but it does drain revenue for valid public uses, most notably education. The scholarship organizations have been emailing donors asking us to "write to your rep" but I couldn't really put together a letter that would defend the program.
Re: firing, censoring and cancel culture. It is tempting to argue by analogy on this one, but I think that is not helpful. The fact is that what we put in public and especially on social media follows us forever. It is not new information that doing so can impact our job prospects. Also, some organizations have to be careful about their public image. It is reasonable for these organizations to put limitations on what their employees say in public.
Sometimes one is confronted with just how out of step one is with others and this is one of those times. While calling it a “holiday gift” is obviously meant to be inclusive I have to say neither I nor any of the Jews I know ever received any sort of “holiday” gift special enough to possibly write an essay about it. It’s just not part of the culture I grew up in with the reminders that Hanukkah is a minor holiday and the only gifts we got were some Kennedy half dollars. I did know some who got more tangible gifts but it still was nothing like the ‘magic of the holidays’ thing I saw from those who celebrated Christmas. I want to emphasize that I’m not being critical of the contest at all, it was just one of those wake-up call moments when I’m reminded: “ you really are a teeny tine minority in this country even though your bubble of a suburb and workplace make you forget that on a daily basis.”
Oh also my initial assumption about the “ for goodness sakes your a grownup” sentiment of one of the tweets as likely to get 100 percent of the votes, was quickly shattered when I saw the results so far and remembered “ no most people aren’t as unfun as you and don’t think this is one of the most perfect things that’s ever been said”
I agree that cancel culture is real and those going after the students who signed that letter shouldn’t be doing that. I did have some disagreement with the idea that choosing to leave a board or stop donating is “cancel culture”. Doesn’t one have a right to no longer support or be a part of an organization when one vehemently disagrees with that organization’s statements or actions? Though demanding that a person at that organization be fired IS cancel culture.
Eric, I’m wondering though your view of the firing of the attorney who worked for Susana Mendoza who made unquestionably antisemitic statements. Was that unfair or wrong?
I think people call something cancel culture only if they disagree with the cancelling.
If you refuse to watch movies where Harvey Weinstein is an executive producer because the thought of it is so troubling to you, is that cancelling? What if you boycotted Chick-fil-a 10 years ago to register your dissatisfaction with some of the political groups they supported? Which, by the way, cause Chick-fil-a to change its practices.
"I take it you can live with minority children from low-income families trapped in miserably underperforming public schools." Don't judge other people or imply that what I wrote says anything like that.. I take it for granted that you want the best for low-income children and their families, as do I. Turning a minority of those children over to "faith" schools is not a way of achieving that, especially as it is diverting public money from public schools. It betrays a lack of belief that the state can solve those problems to say that more money for schools in deprived areas does not work. Lots of money being lavished on schools in well-off areas certainly "works." It's a question of organization, priorities, and will.
you are 100% correct that i believe that the state - whether it be literally a state, as in 1 of the 50 United States; or 'state', as in any level of govt - has been and will continue to be incapable of solving the endemic problem of academic underachievement of minority children from low-income families. your comment that 'Lots of money being lavished on schools in well-off areas certainly "works." ' is illogical, or at least shallow. there are so many factors, other than public funding, that contribute to high academic achievement in communities well-off economically. incrementally larger funding to CPS - while housing, healthcare, safety/security. etc, are underperforming &/or dysfunctional - will not improve academic achievement in the neighborhood schools serving minority children from low-income families. i have volunteered at a charter high school in Chgo for many years - their model works, for far less per-pupil $ than CPS receives. and their student population is chosen by lottery, all from CPS neighborhood elementary schools.
It's a pretty easy calculation, but he wants the voters who prefer Invest in Kids Scholarships, but he also wants the voters who oppose that. He should just kill it because that's really what his inclination is. No big deal, right? He wins however many times he wants to be governor. But wait, maybe, just maybe he wants to run nationwide? Welp, that's a bit of a different calculation and like any politician, he'll say whatever he has to say to get elected. He's not unlike most politicians that way.
from this AM's The Athletic - More trouble at Michigan
We now (allegedly) know how the Michigan scandal became exposed: According to a Washington Post report, a third-party investigative firm submitted evidence, including documents and videos, to the NCAA. Among the documents were detailed travel budgets for the sign-stealing operation. Adding those details to The Athletic’s previous reporting on the matter paints a weirdly grim picture for arguably the best team in college football. Again, feels like Jim Harbaugh’s odds of a Pete Carroll-like escape into the NFL are extremely high
Thanks for the pointer to Name Grapher. We have three (grown) boys. The middle boy has a recognizable, non-peculiar, but hitherto not very common name. At vacation tchotchke shops, his was the only name (among our three boys) that didn’t appear on the “personalized” keychains, bottle openers, etc. But in the last few years, exponential doesn’t begin to describe the growth in the popularity of his name. We hope soon to be able to catch him up on a lifetime of cheesy personalized souvenirs.
I'm sure many have already developed spur of the minute opinions on the tax issue. I won't add to the debate. I have something different in mind. Not too long ago Pritzker's name was mentioned as a potential candidate if the Democrats were interested in bypassing Biden. Do we need yet another sway in the breeze candidate? It's bad enough on the GOP side where we encounter moral absolutists who will use any fib to sway unknowing constituents. On the Democratic side we seem to get either swayers or socialists- excuse me- progressives- who seem to believe government and taxes cures all. I've been told many times that a third party vote is a wasted vote. But I too often feel the same way about voting for candidates from the two major parties, so what difference does it make?
Thank you for calling for some urgency on the migrant issue. From Johnson's firing of Dr. Arwardy with no idea of a replacement, to his vague budget, and his flip flop on the police contract, his lack of executive and financial experience is glaring. But his inability to execute plans to safely house the migrants is going to result in an even bigger humanitarian crisis than we have now. Seeing these small children and their mothers sleeping outside the police stations is heartbreaking and we may be a month away from snow on the ground! That said, why isn't the press calling out Tony Preckwinkle to step up and help find locations to house the migrants throughout the county? Yes, it is a national problem and the Biden administration should be doing so much more than it is, but the county and state should be offering more leadership and assistance too. Democrats, on a national, state and local level have seemingly welcomed these people and declared that they be treated humanely but their lack of execution and planning is resulting in the opposite of humane treatment.
I think the Invest in Kids argument is hypocrisy at its best. So partial state school funding goes with the child to a state certified school and the child receives all the state requirements. That they might receive moral guidance shouldn’t be an issue. Most would consider it a benefice.
Look at it pragmatically. Which graduates do better, CPS or private/charter/religious schools? Which type of school does the head of CPS send her child to? Where do many CPS principals and teachers send their kids.
If the child isn’t attending CPS shouldn’t CPS budget be reduced by a per capita account and its a financial wash?
It really boils down to political prejudices, not to excellence, opportunity, or diversity.
The decision to erect tent camps for migrants to get them through a brutal winter is a bad idea on its own, let alone where these comps may be located. This is not a compassionate solution. Pritzker had suggested they be housed in unused buildings instead several weeks ago. I don't understand why the mayor's office is not searching for alternative solutions.
Thank you so much for the links to the Coats for migrants programs.
C Pittman, you write, “If these poor minority parents want their children exposed to some moral and religious teaching that they do not receive in their current surroundings how can that be such a bad thing?” It can be a bad thing if the child is gay, lesbian, or transgender, and the religious teaching they are getting from mainstream Catholic Schools includes the Catholic Church’s position on the “sinfulness” of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Notwithstanding Pope Francis’s recent pastoral and non-doctrinal statements such as “Who are we to judge,” the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that LGBTQ+ people are bad, sinful, and lesser. The Catholic Church’s official position, for example, is that transgender people cannot be Godparents. Sending an LGBTQ+ kid to a school where he or she receives that kind of “moral and religious teaching” would be a disaster. Teaching kids to hate themselves is something that creates problems for a lifetime.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-transsexuals/transsexuals-cannot-be-godparents-vatican-tells-priest-idUSKCN0R31P420150903
I certainly agree. I would assume that any parent who is attuned to their children's needs enough to apply for these grants would research the school and not choose to put their children in an environment that demonizes them.
The problem is that a lot of parents don’t know if one of their children is LGBTQ+. Mine didn’t.
Do you have a solution for what your parents should have done? Were they acting out of anger at you or were they parents that loved you but were misguided?
Parents can mean well but make mistakes. Were you able to reconcile with them?
I loved my parents. My Dad was a wonderful, and generous man, but he was extremely homophobic, and fairly sexist in his personal life. Not unusual for a man born in 1928. As a result of my relationship with him (kids want their Dads to love them), as I grew up I thoroughly repressed my cross-gender feelings, became what I thought he wanted me to be, and lived in sort of a self-hating denial of who I was until I came out to myself in 2006 and to my family in 2007, and transitioned from male to female in 2008. I went through a lot of emotional trauma growing up as my Dad pressured me to be and act as a boy. It’s not healthy for a child to grow up, pressured to be someone they are not. It caused me to develop dysfunctional relationship skills, and a repressed and actually negative self-esteem. I have been working with a therapist to understand more deeply what happened and to develop more healthy relationship skills and a more healthy sense of self. But that’s what parents do to transgender kids, and to a lesser extent to gay kids, when the parents don’t let their kids be themselves. My Dad died in 2016, and my Mom died in 2018. I guess the solution, if there is one, is to create a society in which every child can be who they are. I’m sure my Dad thought my life would be a lot better for me if I acted like a macho man, instead of acting like a woman. What he didn’t think about was the price I would have to pay to try to change such a fundamental aspect of who I was--to live a lie for decades.
Thank you for your reply. Your honesty and courage are very apparent.
I look forward to your future posts and opinions.