ללא מחבר No Author

The *BIG* Difference Between Public School and Government Jail Is… (em, let me get back to you on that)

The Story of Two Buses

By 

May 28, 2004

Your son asks you a question. “What are those two buses, Daddy?” You tell him that they are two very different kinds of buses. “How are they different?” he asks. You explain that on the first bus are prisoners who are being taken to jail. On the second bus are students who are being taken to school. “But how is that different?” your son asks. That’s what I’m asking, too.

You tell your son that the men on the first bus are required to get on that bus. Then your son asks you if the students on the yellow bus have a choice in the matter. You think about it. Neither group has any choice in the matter. Somebody tells the members of both groups that they must get on that bus and stay on that bus until the bus comes to its destination.

Your son says he doesn’t understand. So, you try to make it clear to him. You tell hm that the people on the white bus have committed crimes. They are bad people. They are being taken to jail. The people on the yellow bus are good people. They are being taken to school. Your son asks: “Why do they make the good people go on the bus?” That’s what I’m asking, too.

Remember, you’re talking to a nine-year-old. Nine-year-olds are not very sophisticated. They need clear answers. So, you had better be prepared to provide clear answers.

You tell your son that the good people on the yellow bus are being taken to school for their own good. Your son asks if the people on the white bus are being taken to jail, but not for their own good. No, you tell him. They are being taken to jail for their own good, too. Your son asks, “Then what’s the difference?”

The difference is, you explain to your son, that the people on the white bus are very bad and society intends to make them better. Your son asks: “Is society taking the people on the yellow bus to school in order to make them worse?” No, you tell him. Society is taking them to school in order to make them better people, too. “Then what’s the difference?”

The difference is, you explain to your son, the people on the white bus are dangerous people. In order to make society safer, society puts them in jail. The people on the yellow bus are not dangerous. “Then why are they forced to go to a place where they don’t want to go?” your son asks. “Because it’s good for them,” you answer. “But isn’t that why the people on the white bus are being taken to jail?” he asks.

You are getting frustrated. You tell your son that they’re required to get on the bus because when they are young they don’t know that it is a good thing for them to go to school. They don’t want to go to school. But they’re supposed to go to school. Your son replies that this sounds just like the people in the white bus. But they’re supposed to go to jail, you tell him. It’s for their own good. They’re going to be better people if they go to jail.

Isn’t that right? Isn’t the whole idea of sending people to jail to rehabilitate them? Aren’t they supposed to become better people in jail? I mean, if they aren’t going to become better people, why not just sell them into slavery and use the money to pay restitution to their victims? Why build jails? Why paint buses white?

You tell your son that the bad people have to go to jail in order to keep them off the streets. The problem is, this is one of the reasons why society requires students to go to school. People want to keep the kids off the streets. They want to make certain that somebody in authority is in a position to tell the children what to do. They don’t trust the children to make their own decisions. They also don’t trust the criminals to make their own decisions.

This is more complicated than you thought. But you keep trying. You explain to your son that bad people must be kept from doing more bad things. Your son asks: “What are the bad things that kids do?” The light comes on. You tell your son that the children are dangerous to themselves, but the prisoners are dangerous to everybody else. The children may hurt themselves, but the prisoners may hurt other people. But your son wants to know why it is that the children must be taken to a school in order to keep them from hurting themselves, when they can stay home and not hurt themselves.

You tell your son that it’s because people are not able to stay home with their children. Your son wants to know why not. You explain that both parents have to work to make enough money to live a good life. This means that somebody has to take care of their children. Your son wants to know why parents don’t hire somebody to come into their home and take care of the children. Why don’t they hire a teacher to take care of them? You explain that it is cheaper to hire one teacher to look after lots of students. Your son wants to know why it’s cheaper to send children to school when it costs money to build schools, buy buses, hire drivers, and pay for gasoline.

This is a smart kid.

You explain that the people who have children force people who do not have children to pay for the schools. Your son asks if this is the same thing is stealing. “Isn’t that what the people on the white bus did?” No, you explain, it’s not stealing. Your son asks, “How is it different?” Now you have a problem. You have to explain the difference between taking money from someone to benefit yourself as a private citizen, which is what a criminal does, and taking money from someone to benefit yourself as a voter. This is not so easy to explain.

You explain to your son that when you vote to take money away from someone so that you can educate your child, this is different from sticking a gun into somebody’s stomach and telling him that he has to turn over his money to you. Your son that asks if it would be all right to stick a gun in somebody’s stomach if you intended to use the money to educate your child. No, you explain, it’s not the same. When you tell someone that he has to educate your child in a school run by the government it’s legal. When you tell somebody that he has to educate your child in a private school, where parents pay directly to hire teachers, it’s illegal.

Your son then asks you if it’s all right to take money from other people just so long as you hand over to the government the money to do the things that you want the government to do. You explain that this is correct. “But what if other people don’t think that the government ought to be doing these things?” You explain that people don’t have the right to tell the government not to do these things unless they can get more than half of the voters to tell the government to stop doing them. Your son sees the logic of this. He asks you: “Are the people in the white bus being taken to jail because there were not enough of them to win the election?” You know this can’t be right, but it’s hard to say why it’s wrong.

Here is where you are so far. Society makes the prisoners go to jail. It sees these prisoners as dangerous. It wants to teach them to obey. Society makes children go to school. It sees these children as dangerous to themselves. It wants to teach them to obey. If it can teach both groups how to obey, society expects the world to improve. Society therefore uses tax money to pay for the operation of jails and schools. This includes paying for buses. But there is a difference. Prison buses are white. School buses are yellow.

There must be more to it than this.

So, you keep trying. Schools are run by the government to teach children how to make a living. Jails are run by the government to teach people how to stop stealing. Here is a major difference. “Do they teach prisoners how to make a good living?” your son asks. No, you tell him. The prison teaches them to obey. He asks: “Then why will they stop stealing when they get out of prison, if they don’t know how to make a good living.” Because, you explain, they will be afraid to do bad things any more. Your son asks if people in prison learn how to do bad things in prison. You admit that they do. “So,” he asks, “we send people to prison and school so that they will learn how to make a good living? Only the difference is, the government pays for a place where bad people teach other bad people how to steal without getting caught, but in school, the government pays good people to teach children how to be good citizens and vote. So, the bad people learn how to steal from the good people without voting, and the good people learn how to steal from each other by voting. Is that how it works?”

That’s how it works. Both systems use buses to take the students to school. But the colors are different.

In prison, prisoners sell illegal drugs. Students do the same in school. In prison, the food is terrible. It’s not very good in school — possibly prepared by the same food service company. In prison, there are constant inspections. Guards keep taking roll to make sure everyone is present and accounted for. Teachers do the same in school. In prison, you aren’t allowed to leave without permission. The same is true in school. In prison, bullies run the show. In school, they do, too. But there is a difference. Prison buses are white. School buses are yellow.

This is too extreme. The systems are different. Criminals are convicted in a court of law before they are sent to jail. Students, in contrast, are innocent. Some prisoners can get parole. The average term in prison for murder is under ten years. Students are put into the school system for twelve years. There is no parole.

Be thankful you are not in one of those buses. Either color.

May 28, 2004

From LRC, here.

A Conspiracy Thought: Maybe Corona Was All About Cutting the Number of Beneficiaries?

Mass Murder Has Always Been Politically Acceptable

By 

Barbarous Relic

September 8, 2022

“War is the Health of the State” wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918.  Ever wonder what it means?

Gary North wrote extensively about what he called the Great Default, a time when government could no longer kick the can on financing its wealth-depleting welfare/warfare state.  He cites a 1999 book by former CFR president Peter G. Peterson, Gray Dawn: How the coming age will transform America—and the world, in which Peterson writes:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal civilian and military pensions — will exceed total federal revenues by the year 2030. This would leave zero tax revenue for any other purpose — not even for interest payments not for national defense nor for education nor for child health, nor for the federal payroll. Not a penny available for anything else.

Politicians have long ignored unavoidable doom because cutting benefits or raising taxes are politically toxic.  Yet the problems won’t go away.  What’s a scheming politician to do?

Cut the number of beneficiaries

In 2019 they came up with a plan, Event 201.  To this day most people either don’t know about it or consider it another conspiracy theory.  What if a bug, a virus, wiped out a significant number of old people?  Wouldn’t that ease the stress on the welfare state, at least delay its collapse?

Further, what if this bug really wasn’t terribly lethal — let’s not kill the “wrong” people, for God’s sake — but could be promoted as on a par with the Spanish Flu?  Surely that would scare the devil out of those who trust government pronouncements.  And to make it more lethal, what if the health care systems could be incentivized to deliver “solutions” that killed on their own?  (See here, too.). Let the treatments do the killing.

And what if authorities went further by banning or discouraging early treatments that might have precluded the need for a warp speed, poorly-tested vaccine?   Such early treatments to include not just hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but supplements such as vitamins D, C, melatonin, and zinc?  (See here for D.) Further yet, what if major social media companies could be “persuaded” to censor distinguished medical researchers who tried to expose the fraud for what it was?

And what if the politicians got into the act by imposing restrictions on behavior as a means of fighting this terrible virus?  What if the restrictions included not only lockdowns, masks, and social distancing, but the closing of “non-essential” businesses, the determination of which would be left to their corrupt judgment and which would include gyms and churches?

What if, as the deaths and injuries piled up, public health reps and the media ignored or downplayed the incriminating statistics in public databases such as VAERS?

And what if, as the vaccines were rolled out prematurely, those who refused the vaccine were demonized as threats to the established order?  What if only the vaccinated were allowed the freedom to board airplanes or cross borders, or hold government jobs?  What if unvaccinated people, including health care workers who were on the front lines fighting the virus before vaccines were available, were condemned as “anti-vaxers” and fired from their jobs?

What if the vaccinated started to die suddenly, and the deaths from all causes far exceeded previous years?  Would people continue to believe the vaccines were “safe and effective”?  Would they continue to leave those beliefs unexamined and await further orders from the bureaucrats?

Yes, because major institutions they trust and dare not contradict, such as government schools, the FDA, CDC, AMA, even the NFL, et al would still be demanding obedience to the narrative.  Exercise due diligence?  What’s that?

All this and more is unthinkable among people who still regard reason as their means of survival.  But even irrationality sometimes has a decipherable logic, which in the case of the virus is: For each person who dies it is one less body off government’s back.  If enough die government might be fiscally solvent, assuming the survivors continue to pay taxes.  Biden’s new IRS army will help ensure they do.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Copying Straight from the White House Website… (This Won’t Become a Habit!)

Today, I am announcing three steps that I am taking to end this failed approach.

First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana.  I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals.  There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.  My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions.

Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses.  Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.  Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances.  This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.

Finally, even as federal and state regulation of marijuana changes, important limitations on trafficking, marketing, and under-age sales should stay in place.

Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana.  It’s time that we right these wrongs.

From WhiteHouse.Gov, here.

Real Clear Nuclear Lies

Biden’s Fearmongers About a Russian Nuclear Threat That No One Has Made

Moon of Alabama

October 10, 2022

Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins – 0:35 UTC · Oct 7, 2022Wow. Biden at a Dem fundraiser tonight: “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis.” He says Putin is “not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical,” nuclear or biological weapons because his military is underperforming.

Biden continued with the blunt warnings: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” (These 👀 quotes from pooler @tparti)

Biden going MUCH further than his officials have, from the National Security Council to the Pentagon. They have said they take Russia’s threats seriously, but haven’t seen any changes in its nuclear posture. Biden invokes Armageddon and says Putin should be taken seriously.

A copy of the pool report can be seen here. It quotes Biden as saying: “[Putin] is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is you might say is significantly underperforming.”

Fact is that Putin has not talked about the “potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.” Not. At. All.

On September 21 Putin announced a partial mobilization of reservists. In his TV speech he mentioned nuclear weapons only with regards to  ‘Western’ threats of using them:

They have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.

The citizens of Russia can rest assured that the territorial integrity of our Motherland, our independence and freedom will be defended – I repeat – by all the systems available to us. Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.

Note that Putin does not mention Russia’s nuclear weapons. He instead empathizes that Russia has new ‘different’ weapons that are ‘more modern’ than those of the ‘West’. He means hypersonic missiles which can avoid ‘western’ air defenses and hit decision centers in Brussels, London and Washington even without nuclear warheads.

Also for the record: Russia has signed and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological weapons. Russia has also signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. In November 2017 it destroyed its last (Soviet) chemical weapons as mandated by the convention. It is the U.S. that still has not destroyed its chemicial weapons.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Eretz Yisrael Sukka Walls Have Ears

Continue reading…

From Myrtle Rising, here.