One of the reasons why rich kids tend to be liberal

Quite recently we started looking for a school for our elder kid. After some hesitation, we dismissed the government schools - since we knew that they were horrible. The only decent option was to go to private schools. Now, I hope you understand that we are not super rich, and it's not easy for us to afford a private school. Moreover, both of us, my wife and I are non-religious Jews, which meant christian schools were out of question. One school that caught our attention was a secular private school, pretty expensive, excellent SAT scores, good statistics for university admissions. One thing among others caught my attention. During the interview we asked the school bureaucrat about the kids who go to that school, and whether the private school prepares them to live in a real world, not in a gated community. The answer was quite amazing - we were told that the teachers understand our concerns, and that they do everything possible to let the kids understand the world and the community. One of the things they do is to send kids regularly to work in the kitchens for the poor folks.

Now, think about it. Say, you are from a very rich family. You are surrounded by rich kids in the kindergarten, school, university. Your neighbors are rich. The only people you see who are out of your circle are the bums, drug addicts and the like. I wonder if this is what pushes rich kids to become liberal and elitist. That - and uber-liberal propaganda in schools and universities.

What about them Supreme Court Judges?

Here is an excellent quote from the Goldberg's article .

Supreme Court justices must “solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

Note the bit about doing right to poor and rich alike. Feeling sorry for the poor guy who violates the Constitution or the law has no role in how a Supreme Court justice is supposed to make a decision. Legislators can write laws based on empathy. They can invoke their pet theories about “how the world works.” They can even, as Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are fond of doing, consult foreign laws and court decisions in their efforts to make a more perfect union. But Supreme Court justices are supposed to decide what the written law requires, not pick winners and losers based upon some sense of noblesse oblige. That’s why all of those statues of Lady Justice show her standing blindfolded, not bent over kissing the boo-boos of the unfortunate and the downtrodden.

Excellent quote from Mark Steyn

As for "gun-totin'," large numbers of Americans tote guns because they're assertive, self-reliant citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. The Second Amendment is philosophically consistent with the First Amendment, for which I've become more grateful since the Canadian Islamic Congress decided to sue me for "hate speech" up north. Both amendments embody the American view that liberty is not the gift of the state, and its defense cannot be outsourced exclusively to the government.

Read the full article here

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (From www.anncoulter.com)

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."

--Thomas Sowell

This is an excellent quote

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted one will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

Lyndon Johnson