Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, friend, but Decatur is NOT a bedroom community!
I was attempting to convey that Decatur and its fine BBQ establishments were easily accessible to a Huntsvillian.
I was not attempting to diminish or disparage your city. But the truth is that Decatur is both bedroom community to Huntsville (the eastern side) -- I know people who make that commute -- as well as its own self-sustaining hamlet. You must realize that I was speaking to the uninitiated (i.e. California transplants to H'ville). Trying to paint a picture. But as usual, the literalness of the simple-minded has ruled the day, derailed the thread, and dumbed-down the conversation.
I'm just going to say it, finally -- about the elephant in the room that no one but me, until now, has acknowledged -- That there exists a Bigger Question pertaining to this thread, to all threads!:
Why are so many posters insistent upon the parsing of minutiae and cannot cultivate an interest in the discussion of more elevated thematic issues -- more sophisticated, nuanced issues? There is a wealth of perspectives and experiences available via the miracle of connectness that is the internet! -- so why can't we pool our ideas, have a banter, make dialectic? Raise our levels?! Try to raise the level of discourse from mere facts and figures and sterile tripe!
Why can't we transcend the provincialities and myopia that has imprisoned us for centuries?! -- Why must the local yokels never fail to insert themselves with Whocares factoids -- harping on insignificant trivialities in a national - international forum of greater urban awareness? If it's because they themselves have yet to elevate to the point of relevance within the Marketplace of Ideas, well, that's one thing. But more to the point is why those who know better enable and tolerate. (Maybe it's 'manners'...?)
This life is predominantly about IDEAS -- not facts, figures, data, and logistical dilemmas of things and people rat-racing around: A to B to C. The latter is fine and dandy -- even essential to living successfully and fruitfully; but the former is about unlocking elusive, mystical, but indeed accessible portals into ourselves and society, about unveiling greater realities, surrealities, dreamworld-and-realworld -- the undeniable merging/ crossing of the two, and the spiritual guiding lights around, surround... Exploring IDEAS are about a glimpse under the hood: a harkening back to the Fall -- reading the signs -- the hintings at solutions to our inherited chaos. Remedy to our congenital disease. Through these portals there are keys for opening further portals; each leads in forward-fashion into a brighter future. Each chamber, a new frontier, a new challenge. requiring greater aptitude and willingness of spirit. Walking through them is more enthralling when braced and prepared to embrace the positive and newness of change (it's more like adaptation) within society, within in ourselves. It's about the propogation of life; but not for the exercise therof; no, it's for the self-actualization with the life experience which lends that all-elusive, universally-coveted MEANING.
*That's* why we're all here, even if we don't conscuiously know it! -- to make connection, to take the best of yours and integrate into mine, to narrow the gaps in human strata of all types -- intelligence, class systems, ethnicites, races, and geographical divides. But first we must clear our lenses that we might actually see the portals in front of us -- that we once thought were plaster cracks in the plastered walls.
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is -- infinite." -- William Blake
To the Californians-seeking-sanctuary in Huntsville: get ready for the provincialism and simpleton-ness you're just getting a mere glimpse of here. Harsh? Perhaps. The spirit of this missive is one of genuineness, not necessarily mean-. But I'm sure that I will be summarily reprimanded by the throngs and the powers-that-be that typically abhor a voice booming from the wilderness. Someone must swing the sledgehammer of truth from time to time. Humanity demands more EFFORT than we have given! -- the ennui, the blase-ness, the mediocrity...
Does anybody out there know you're alive??!!!
I sincerely hope my comments will be taken in the best spirit which they were intended: that I love mankind and am pained to see it suffer so -- and willingly!
To each, we are our own man (or woman); together, we must strive to connect, but only by laying grids of highwire -- not subterranean copper-wire. Individual strength and growth --> Merge at point of greatest elevation --> Arrive, Greaterman (collective future).
SP
Last edited by san phlegmatico; 08-20-2007 at 01:38 AM..
Who talks THAT way? I appreciate where you're going, San Phleg, and I really do understand that you just want to bring some sophistication and abstract thinking to this forum...but are you serious? Do you talk that way every day? Are you familiar with Dwight Shrute from "The Office?" I think your readers, even the super forward-thinking and smary-pant ones, actually DO want it dumbed-down a bit. Great writer, though -- I enjoy reading your stuff!
Okay, a little about California schools vs. Alabama schools -- my kids had a morning recess, lunch recess, and afternoon recess in California AND the school day was one hour shorter. Here in Alabama, there's just one 15 minute recess prior to lunch (but P.E. everyday). I'm not complaining...just trying to figure it all out. Does anyone know if that's-the-way-it-goes for the whole state? Or is it a "city school" thing, not a county school thing? State requirements? From my little neck of the woods right outside Birmingham, my children's school is more "gooder" (ha ha!) than their So Cal school in many ways. So far, I think their education will be taken more seriously HERE.
Oh see, I don't consider less recess a good thing. No, not at all. I believe it is developmentally important for children to have unstructured playtime each day, in which they learn to have creative play, manage peer relationships, and risk tanking independently. I hope "PE" includes some free play time.
Quote:
I think your readers, even the super forward-thinking and smarty-pant ones, DO want it dumbed-down a bit
*polite smile* - since we're offering San Phlegm some constructive criticism here, I will say it has come to be my belief that the most enlightened people are those that communicate simply, briefly, and with great clarity. I've enjoyed your posts SP, but it's true that the most communicators learn to convey complex ideas with simple words. (This isn't to say I'm not guilty of using words like "minutae" and "nuanced" either!)
Seriously, I agree SP - That was a very well thought out post. Thanks for sharing!
Schools: The elementary school children are allowed a recess and one snack break, plus lunch. However, as a disciplinary measure, the children may be assigned "silent break," wherein they must sit alone and are not allowed to speak.
There are no hard and fast guidelines to "silent break." It could be something obvious, such as acting out in class, or it could be that the student simply forgot his or her pencil - it is purely at the teacher's discretion.
Several years ago, I battled with a teacher who took my child's snack away during silent break because she forgot her pencil two days in a row. That is when I won my reputation as a "trouble-maker."
Someone touched on corporal punishment a few pages back, and it's true here as well - it's part of the school policy to paddle. However, I wrote a letter when we moved here and asked that it be kept in each child's file, which basically stated that any corporal punishment used against my child without my permission would be viewed as child abuse and acted upon.
Come to think of it, that might have been when I earned my reputation as a trouble maker.
Our schools are also consider "gooder" than the surrounding districts, so you can imagine what those schools are like.
In terms of the quality of education, we've been very lucky there. The teachers are all qualified and do a very good job of educating their students. Our test scores are always very high, as a district.
All told, I'm far happier with the education have received in Alabama than I ever was with the schools in Southern California.
Geeze, San Phlegm, what brought THAT on? I know someone who commutes from north of Culman to B'ham, yet I don't consider his town a bedroom community to B'ham. The preponderance of people who live in or near Decatur seem to work there.
From your voluminous posts, it appears that you have a very specific view of AL. I find that interesting when it fits, but a lot of it doesn't. You seem to be especially intent on pointing out how Alabama hasn't played follow the U.S. and is stuck in the past, to its detriment.
Is there a part of Alabama that lives in the past? Of course. Alabama is one of the few remaining refuges from big government, like the one in California that declares that there are poisons in Christmas tree lights, and demands little chinese fortune cookie written warnings be inserted into boxes, stating that we should wash our hands after handling galvanized screws and washers. I opened such a box of washers recently and didn't know whether I should look for a lucky number, or cry because our nation and laws have become so over-reaching. What is it with the state of California? Has it watched too much super-nanny?
A long long time ago, in a country not so far away, there was a rebellion against the empire. Free trade, the right of participation in government, a set of basic rights for the citizens, and a limitation on the rights of government were just some of the reasons why people fought and died. California forgot that (or maybe never knew it), except for a few people like Lucas, who saw it as a way to make money. In Alabama, at least a few of those rights still exist.
Are there some backwards and stupid people in Alabama? Yeah, but if Charlie Manson walked in the door, those same stupid people would blow him away before he walked over the threshold. Are there stupid people in Alabama? Yeah, but they take pride in defending your right to walk into Starbucks without having to worry about suicide bombers. Are there stupid people in Alabama? Yeah, but if I had to choose who to get lost in a wilderness with, it would be one of them instead of an apologist for gun control. Oh yeah, there is something else that a lot of those stupid people have - honor and trustworthiness.
You don't seem to care for Alabama, and you have a rhetoritician's gift for verbosity. I feel similarly about some stuff going on in California. To quote one of your better phrases:
"I sincerely hope my comments will be taken in the best spirit which they were intended: that I love mankind and am pained to see it suffer so -- and willingly! "
Speaking of schools and Alabamian's "pride in defending your rights" -- I have a question.
My daughter just started High School and is on the Advanced with Honors program. One of the requirements for this program is fifteen hours worth of community service per year. Okay, I'm good with that - I don't see how it has anything to do with academia, but community service is always a good thing.
However, they've broken down how that community service has to be served, and four hours of it is in church. Well, we don't practice organized religion, so I feel rather pressured here.
My question: is it legal for a public school to insist that a child serve community service in a church? Doesn't this infringe upon her freedom of religion? I want to talk to the teacher about it, but want to get my ducks in a row first. Does this sound unusual to anyone else, or have I lost all perspective?
My question: is it legal for a public school to insist that a child serve community service in a church? Doesn't this infringe upon her freedom of religion?
As long as it is the religious institution of her choice, and not a specific religious institution, I do not believe it infringes upon her freedom of religion. (Which constitutionally, only requires the state to neither prohibit any religion nor endorse a specific religion) This requirement also doesn't require *her* to specifically be religious. I do think it is a truly educational experience to be exposed to the community service that religious institutions provide.
For example, when I was in Jr. High, I was in a community service organization at the school, and part of what we did was to visit a homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles. This shelter, like the majority of shelters, was religiously sponsored. There was a giant portrait of Jesus on the wall in the eating hall. As a 13 yr old, this slightly miffed me for all the reasons a self-righteous areligious teenager would be miffed by being exposed to this through school.
However in my adult life, I've realized that its mostly religious people that provide the unglamorous community service to people in need. Sure, secular organizations pick pet issues that they form charities around, but in general? That shelter who is feeding and clothing and giving medical care people who would otherwise be in sleeping in the gutter are religious organizations more often than not.
So in a nutshell, I don't think a requirement for an honor's student - a potential future leader - to spend 4 hours being exposed to the important role religious institutions play in communities and in charity, is remotely out of line.
If old time religion is really that distasteful to her, some alternate options: seek out a Unitarian church, reform synagogue, or the local Baha'i spiritual assembly. These groups do not carry the trappings that most find distasteful about organized religion, but still do much for social service. However as a "reform" but observant Jew myself, I'd have absolutely no problem with my child spending 4 hours exposed to the many admirable things Christians do in the world of social service.
As they were raised in church, their father was a deacon and their mother the Superintendent of Christian education; as their father was a Southern Gospel singer with a group that toured the south, and their mother is a professional Christian writer, I can assure you that my kids have had plenty of experience with the many admirable things -- and many not so admirable things -- that Christians do. Hence, our choice not to be involved in organized religion.
The requirement is specific to church service - we do not belong to a church, nor do we intend to join one. That's our right, as guaranteed by the Constitution. But if we do not belong to a church, and are not, therefore, on their membership roles, how can my daughter volunteer to serve?
My question is not whether or not I find value in "Christian works," my question is whether it is legal for a public school system to insist that a student participate in Christian works at all, much less within the confines of a church. What if we were atheist? It just doesn't sound right to me.
But my question is quickly pulling this thread off topic, and I can see now where it might open me up to judgment, so lets just forget I asked. I'll consult my attorney.
I still say as long as the requirement isn't to a specific church/religion, or they aren't being forced to pray or something - why would that be illegal? Religion is a huge part of culture, so I don't see why it is so far-fetched to have a meager 4 hours experiencing religion. Perhaps your kids have not had that part of their education neglected, but many have.
What if you're an atheist? Again, go to a unitarian church or a reform synagogue. You'll find some atheists there, too, that are active members of the congregation. There are several religious organizations that have many members that think about religion abstractly and with enough critical thought that I can't fathom an atheist having any real serious objection to attending their social service events or even religious services.
But, I'm sure if you feel THAT strongly about it, you can petition the administration to have the requirement replaced by simply spending the 4 hours in another capacity. I just don't think it'd be worth the hassle. For example, my synagogue has an organized "mitzvah day" where groups go out and volunteer at various shelters, hospitals, organizations, etc, doing whatever service work is required. Participating in that would probably qualify for your daughter's requirement. The group I was in repainted and did some heavy lifting/reorganizing for a thrift store that serves as a base for retail job training for disabled adults. Explain to me how participating in something like that would be in any way objectionable to anyone, whether religious or atheist or anything else?
Here's another option: if there is an interfaith council in your county/city, sometimes they do social service projects as well.
"As long as it is the religious institution of her choice, and not a specific religious institution, I do not believe it infringes upon her freedom of religion. (Which constitutionally, only requires the state to neither prohibit any religion nor endorse a specific religion) "
Then the simple solution would be for djknight to start a satan-worshipping religion. The religion requirement is only part of the larger issue.
The sense of perspective that is lacking is that many of these programs are thinly disguised state-enforced unpaid child labor. Is it good for the child? Maybe, maybe not. As an academic program that is not "required" for graduation, there is a clear attempt to skirt the constitutional separation of church and state and child labor laws. The child and family can be ostracized, or co-erced to conform. This is nothing new. The same thing happens with sports and other groups.
If I had a child that was "required" to do such work, I would pull them out of the program, or if the child wanted to participate and could give a clear explanation why it would benefit them, I would at a minimum demand a signed statement from the organizers of the program and the recipients of the child's labor, that they would be personally, jointly and serverally legally responsible for any injury that the child might incur, and that the wages that would have had to be paid to an adult doing the same labor be paid by the organization to a charity of the child's sole choice. Taking away the selfish incentives for such programs would do a lot in educating the children how adults react when their supposedly well-intentioned con games are exposed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
