Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[GannonFan]

That's a shame. I'm an Eagle Scout. Our troop never did any fundraising. It's possible we may have done it once. But we never sold popcorn or anything like that. I had a lot of fun and the guys that I was in Scouts with are still my friends to this day. Actually, my friend Greg ended up dating a girl he met in Explorers. But we did a lot of outdoors and marine activities like sailing, rock climbing, shooting tournaments, fishing tourneys, capture the flag tourneys, etc... That sort of stuff seemed to be what our Council was geared towards.

Having said that - I still don't know what Girl Scouts do aside from selling cookies and going to Savannah, Ga to the home of the Girl Scout founder.

That's how I remembered it too from my youth but I'm sure some of it depends on the troop and there probably some that still focus on the important ****. But it's also surprisingly expensive for the clothes, badges, books etc despite the fundraising.

A good friend of mine was an Eagle Scout. Quite the achievement.

All depends on the Pack - the Pack my kids are/were in does zero fundraising, you just pay up front. Think it's only like $100 a year. We aren't sticklers for the full uniform either - get the shirt, the neck thing, and a clasp and that's it. Don't even need the book (besides, they revised the book two years ago, got a lot of complaints, and issued an addendum, but still haven't updated the book again, so the book isn't terribly useful). Compared to really any sports (just rec sports, I'm not talking travel) and it's a bargain. With that said, I know of several Packs around us that fundraise a ton, so it varies. My two older boys stopped after Cub Scouts - one crossed over and did Boy Scouts for about 2-3 months before quitting and the other just didn't attempt it. Sports got in the way. Might have my younger one continue - he's the least athletic of my boys and the kids in his den are really nice kids and aren't typical of some of the scarier scouts you come across.

[89Hen]

More from the awesome, tenured educator at Fresno State...

phpBB [video]

[BDKJMU]

[GannonFan]

More from the awesome, tenured educator at Fresno State...

The whackiness aside (e.g. advocating hijacking planes, filling houses of people you don't like with grenades) I despair over the coarsening of the language. Being quite the advocate of "heck" and the like, I don't understand the need to curse repeatedly to make a point. There's a whole cache of wonderful words that will just become extinct because we pursue shock and awe in our debates to try to prove that we really care about something now.

[kalm]

More from the awesome, tenured educator at Fresno State...

phpBB [video]

She’s a professor?

[GannonFan]

More from the awesome, tenured educator at Fresno State...

phpBB [video]

She’s a professor?

Not a lot she said, or how she said it, seemed to differ much differently from the Women's Studies prof I see in my Facebook feed - that's par for the course (ha, a pun!) these days apparently.

[93henfan]

I pray every day that the left rises to violence. The sooner the better.

I need a valid reason to start shooting them legally.

[Ibanez]

That's how I remembered it too from my youth but I'm sure some of it depends on the troop and there probably some that still focus on the important ****. But it's also surprisingly expensive for the clothes, badges, books etc despite the fundraising.

A good friend of mine was an Eagle Scout. Quite the achievement.

All depends on the Pack - the Pack my kids are/were in does zero fundraising, you just pay up front. Think it's only like $100 a year. We aren't sticklers for the full uniform either - get the shirt, the neck thing, and a clasp and that's it. Don't even need the book (besides, they revised the book two years ago, got a lot of complaints, and issued an addendum, but still haven't updated the book again, so the book isn't terribly useful). Compared to really any sports (just rec sports, I'm not talking travel) and it's a bargain. With that said, I know of several Packs around us that fundraise a ton, so it varies. My two older boys stopped after Cub Scouts - one crossed over and did Boy Scouts for about 2-3 months before quitting and the other just didn't attempt it. Sports got in the way. Might have my younger one continue - he's the least athletic of my boys and the kids in his den are really nice kids and aren't typical of some of the scarier scouts you come across.

We had a few kids that played basketball and soccer in school. I'm trying to remember what our troop "required". I think it was just the shirt.

[89Hen]

More from the awesome, tenured educator at Fresno State...

phpBB [video]

She’s a professor?

Why are you saddling it with a gender pronoun?

[CAA Flagship]

She’s a professor?

If you kicked her in the crotch, you might not get your foot back.

[Pwns]

There's your textbook example of a feminist woman that acts obnoxiously and acts like people find her obnoxious because people don't like "strong and independent" women.

[css75]

There's your textbook example of a feminist woman that acts obnoxiously and acts like people find her obnoxious because people don't like "strong and independent" women.

The only thing strong about her is the smell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

She’s a professor?

Why are you saddling it with a gender pronoun?

Because “white, hetero, patriarchal” privilege.

[dbackjon]

Public schools are not public. They are government schools run totally by the government. This is why there was not for a very long time and should not be now a Dept. of Education. They only call it public because it makes it sound like we the public own it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. And private schools that don’t pay taxes are not private schools either.

And in Arizona, the state gives parents vouchers to pay for the private school tuition (and the Senate President just happens to own one of those schools).

[kalm]

Sure. And private schools that don’t pay taxes are not private schools either.

And in Arizona, the state gives parents vouchers to pay for the private school tuition (and the Senate President just happens to own one of those schools).

So they don’t pay taxes and they get paid by the state? Nice!

[CID1990]

This HotAir post about Romney cracked me up

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/04/ ... g-hot-dog/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

This HotAir post about Romney cracked me up

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/04/ ... g-hot-dog/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old Mitt sure has the common touch, don’t he? Reminds me of the elder George Bush’s fascination with bar codes.

[BDKJMU]

And in Arizona, the state gives parents vouchers to pay for the private school tuition (and the Senate President just happens to own one of those schools).

So they don’t pay taxes and they get paid by the state? Nice!

Yeah they don't pay income taxes, like every other non profit.

The state gives the parents (who have paid taxes that go towards public schools) that are sending their kids to the private school a voucher that is probably far less than what the school's per pupil expenditure is in local & state funding, thereby saving the taxpayers $$ while the kid gets a better education. Win win!

[BlueHen86]

So they don’t pay taxes and they get paid by the state? Nice!

Yeah they don't pay income taxes, like every other non profit.

The state gives the parents (who have paid taxes that go towards public schools) that are sending their kids to the private school a voucher that is probably far less than what the school's per pupil expenditure is in local & state funding, thereby saving the taxpayers $$ while the kid gets a better education. Win win!

If it was really a 'win win' there wouldn't be any controversy with this.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah they don't pay income taxes, like every other non profit.

The state gives the parents (who have paid taxes that go towards public schools) that are sending their kids to the private school a voucher that is probably far less than what the school's per pupil expenditure is in local & state funding, thereby saving the taxpayers $$ while the kid gets a better education. Win win!

If it was really a 'win win' there wouldn't be any controversy with this.

If it was costing the taxpayers $$ then I would get the controversy.
2015 data:
"Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,392 is spent on public education per student"
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/educa ... -data.html
So 2018 that figure is probably around $12,500 (historically it has risen faster than inflation). Local & state govt has historically provided over 90% of the funding , with less than 10% coming from the fed. So if a local & state govt that was spending the national average of 11k+ per student, gave vouchers for say 1/2 that that amount for local students who instead went to private schools, how is that not saving the taxpayers $$ at the local & state level?

If it is saving the taxpayers $$, then what is the controversy?

[BlueHen86]

If it was really a 'win win' there wouldn't be any controversy with this.

If it was costing the taxpayers $$ then I would get the controversy.
2015 data:
"Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,392 is spent on public education per student"
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/educa ... -data.html
So 2018 that figure is probably around $12,500 (historically it has risen faster than inflation). Local & state govt has historically provided over 90% of the funding , with less than 10% coming from the fed. So if a local & state govt that was spending the national average of 11k+ per student, gave vouchers for say 1/2 that that amount for local students who instead went to private schools, how is that not saving the taxpayers $$ at the local & state level?

If it is saving the taxpayers $$, then what is the controversy?

If it was that easy, why isn't everybody doing it? Why is it news? Clearly somebody is losing out. Poor, non-white people perhaps? Just wondering.

[UNI88]

If it was costing the taxpayers $$ then I would get the controversy.
2015 data:
"Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,392 is spent on public education per student"
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/educa ... -data.html
So 2018 that figure is probably around $12,500 (historically it has risen faster than inflation). Local & state govt has historically provided over 90% of the funding , with less than 10% coming from the fed. So if a local & state govt that was spending the national average of 11k+ per student, gave vouchers for say 1/2 that that amount for local students who instead went to private schools, how is that not saving the taxpayers $$ at the local & state level?

If it is saving the taxpayers $$, then what is the controversy?

If it was that easy, why isn't everybody doing it? Why is it news? Clearly somebody is losing out. Poor, non-white people perhaps? Just wondering.

It's sold as a solution that allows parents with kids in poor performing schools who can't afford private schools the ability to send their kids to private schools. My guess is that the majority of the families who take advantage of it can already afford private schools and were going to send their kids to them anyway. If my assumption is true then it does actually cost schools money. Hopefully it has an income threshold to prevent this.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Climate change scolds are less likely to take individual action than climate change skeptics:

https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Climate change scolds are less likely to take individual action than climate change skeptics:

https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's interesting and I want to learn more about the study. Had one of my pet peeves realized just now as I clicked on the link to the study, was taken to the journal, and saw an abstract. Then you have the option to buy the full paper. I've always thought that if people are going to do studies then publicize the results it ought to be easy to access the full paper and accessing it ought to be free.

The biggest thing I want to know is how the subjects were selected. If it was a "scientific" sample of the US population then we can infer something about the larger population. If it wasn't we can't. Also kind of bugs me that the authors didn't mention something about the selection in the abstract since it's really important. Like they could say, "A probability sample of 600 adults from the US population..." One sentence would have done it.

[Pwns]

That's interesting and I want to learn more about the study. Had one of my pet peeves realized just now as I clicked on the link to the study, was taken to the journal, and saw an abstract. Then you have the option to buy the full paper. I've always thought that if people are going to do studies then publicize the results it ought to be easy to access the full paper and accessing it ought to be free.

The biggest thing I want to know is how the subjects were selected. If it was a "scientific" sample of the US population then we can infer something about the larger population. If it wasn't we can't. Also kind of bugs me that the authors didn't mention something about the selection in the abstract since it's really important. Like they could say, "A probability sample of 600 adults from the US population..." One sentence would have done it.

The authors of the papers have no control over whether or not their papers are available to the public. Actually, I guess they do, but the only way for them to be available for free is to publish in open-access journals which are generally less prestigious and don't do as much for your career.

It's especially ridiculous and criminal that research funded by the NIH and and NSF aren't available for free, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure why they chose the specific behaviors they did (public transportation, reusable bags, recycling, etc.). I think it would've been more informative to find out how many kilowatt hours of power people are using per individual in their household, but I have a feeling they already know their greenie test subjects aren't going to come away from that study looking good.