vxbush 2/5/2026 6:46:20 AM

1

I've seen this maneuver happen in public education for over 50 years. It never stops. Parents ask for it, schools say they are going to do it, and then it gets pulled. In this case, the gifted and talented program for kindergarten is going away on Mamdani's orders.

Public education has no idea how to educate smart kids. They haven't known for over 50 years. 

vxbush 2/5/2026 6:48:12 AM

2

"During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) went on a tirade, during which he appeared to say that citizens would be justified in shooting ICE agents."

That sounds....insurrectiony. Gotta have that blood of Good and Petti in the news. 

buzzsawmonkey 2/5/2026 7:30:42 AM

3

Reply to vxbush in 1:

The old metaphor of the crab bucket springs to mind, where the crabs who attempt to climb out of the bucket are pulled back down into it by the crabs that don't attempt it.

JCM 2/5/2026 7:40:13 AM

4

Reply to vxbush in 2:

Sharts Nadler, spewing the usual liquid faeces.

I like the British spelling in some cases.

JCM 2/5/2026 7:42:05 AM

5

Reply to vxbush in 1:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Winston Churchill

JCM 2/5/2026 7:54:13 AM

6

Reply to vxbush in 1:

In the Soviet Union it was the "New Soviet Man". Essentially stamp out individualism, every communist regime had similar programs. It starts with transforming the educational system into an indoctrination system. No deviation in thought. Doctrine is all and be all. Not a critical thought in sight. Without critical thinking there is only reaction, lashing out. It's manifested in the ICE protests.

vxbush 2/5/2026 9:50:46 AM

7

In #6 JCM said: Without critical thinking there is only reaction, lashing out. It's manifested in the ICE protests.

What bothers me is that someone I know who is incredibly smart and articulate absolutely thinks ICE and the Republican Party are completely in the wrong and immoral for removing illegal aliens from this country. She has completely wrapped her understanding of Christian charity into keep illegal immigrants here because they are poor downtrodden souls who just need our help. The idea that many of them are also guilty of heinous crimes never gets into her head. 

JCM 2/5/2026 10:29:06 AM

8

In #7 vxbush said: She has completely wrapped her understanding of Christian charity

That's Liberation Theology insinuating itself into various Christian denominations. Nowhere in scripture is charity a governmental concept. Charity is individual, or through at most a local congregation. If you take various verses on tithing and given, it is probably a congregational duty. The individual gives to the congregation, then the needy are cared for without know who gave to the needy. The giver cannot boast about their giving. It has to be at the lowest level possible. This eliminates the fraud because the congregation knows who is needy and who is lazy or looking for a mere handout.

The left misconstrues the story of the Good Samaritan, and hospitality for strangers in the same way. It's individual, one on one. Never for hostile guests. Mary and Joesph fleeing to Egypt is also taken out of context, yes they were refugees from Herod, however the intention was always to return.

JCM 2/5/2026 1:46:00 PM

9

buzzsawmonkey 2/5/2026 2:39:14 PM

10

Reply to JCM in 8:

I agree with you regarding the Biblical concept of charity being a function of the individual; examples include the command to leave the corners of one's field(s) unharvested so that those who are in need can take the unharvested grain for themselves, and the command to permit those who labor in orchards or vineyards to eat of the produce they are working with while they are on the job. 

I must, however, point out that the story of the Good Samaritan is primarily political---both a slap at the priestly hierarchy which ran the observance of Temple worship, and at the rabbinical Jews of the time who were resistant to following Jesus.  The Kohen (priest) and Levites (the non-priests who ministered to the priests and ran the Temple)  had higher requirements of avoiding contamination by contact with the dead or mortally injured; that they are referred to as "passing by on the other side" in the story (thereby avoid such contamination) is meant as a slap at them; that the order of the people who avoid the injured traveler is Kohen, Levi, and Samaritan is a reflection of the order of those called to the Torah when it is read, although in the Samaritan story the order is "Kohen, Levi, and Samaritan" rather than the "Kohen, Levi, and Israel (i.e., an ordinary Jew) which is still in existence today.  The substitution of a Samaritan for an Israelite is a reference to the fact that the Samaritans were---and, I believe, still are---fundamentalists of a sort that rejects rabbinical Judaism. 

The story is thus an allegorical slap at both the then-still-extant Temple observance hierarchy, and at the rabbinical Jews who had not yet accepted the rabbinical teachings held by the followers of Jesus.  In this, the story is itself---somewhat ironically---highly rabbinical/Talmudic, in that rabbinical teachings frequently employ a form of argument which basically says, "If this is true, and this also is true, then how much more so is it true if this is the case?"  In this instance, the "how much more so?" is evident in that a Samaritan, who would at the time have been regarded as akin to an apostate both by those devoted to Temple observance and those who accepted the more-conventionally-accepted rabbinical teachings.  In short, it is a symbolic dig at the two mainstreams of Jewish life at the time, and an attempt at outreach to the Samaritan community.

There is a great deal of such veiled meaning in the Scriptures.