Imagine: this dishonest, repulsive* man really thinks he has a shot at the White House.
Meanwhile, Gov. Pritzker’s remarks neatly remind people to read Ethics Alarms:
1. Democrats want to make sure that parents have no choice but to submit their children’s vulnerable minds to radical, anti-American propaganda. As discussed here…
2. Here, on October 22, we discussed how prominent Democrats routinely demand that the “little people” eschew conduct that they happily engage in while appearing to see no irony or hypocrisy in their doing so. Of course, this is a hallmark of Communism and socialism, which the current leaders of the Democratic Party are currently promoting. As school choice advocate Corey de Anglelis correctly notes, Pritzker sent his children to private school.
3. “They want to punish teachers for telling the truth.” As debated here, “telling the truth” in our educational institutions means suffocating independent thought with Leftist cant, narratives and propaganda.
4. Here EA recently pondered what the Democratic Party calls “supporting” trans individuals. Of course, there are many posts, over many years, holding that our primary schools schools should not be promoting any sexual orientations or conduct whatsoever.
5. Finding himself devoid of valid arguments, Pritzker follows the current fad of his flailing, tantrum-addicted party, and continues the coarsening of public discourse by resorting to “fuck.”
Boy, Democrats have some terrible, unethical governors! Which do you think is the worst of the batch? J.D. Pritzker (Ill.)? Kathy Hochul (NY)? Tim Walz (Minn.)? Gavin Newsom (Cal.)? Gretchen Witmer (Mich.)?
Tough choice.
__________
* I am not using “repulsive” as an ad hominem insult, but simply making a factual observation. Since the arrival of TV, no credible Presidential candidate has ended up on a ballot who was morbidly obese (like Taft) or whose face could stop a clock (like Lincoln). Running in his party, Pritzker is also handicapped by being white, heterosexual, and male. The guy is deluded.
Ethics Alarms 
He is not necessarily a hypocrite if his bashing only public funding of private schools in the name of school choice. He would still be a vulgarian for resorting to mere epitaphs as his argument again taxpayers subsidizing private schools
You lost me there, Rich. He’s in favor of school choice as long as you pay for private school yourself?
Former Arizona governor Fife Symington, of the Symington brood, married a Pritzker as wife number two for obvious reasons.
From his wiki page: He “attended Milton Academy, [as you surely know] a boarding school in Milton, Massachusetts, and graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.” Just your basic public-school education.
Come on, Rich, he’s from one of those families that plaster their kids’ prep schools’, colleges’, and likely even grad schools’ decals on the back windshields of their Volvos. Do people in the northeast drive Volvos anymore? Maybe Teslas are the current auto virtue signal?
Huh? He avoided being a hypocrite by lying about the government creating private schools?
In the video, he criticizes using tax dollars to pay for private schools. The fact that his wealthy family paid out of pocket for him to go to a private school does not make him a hypocrite.
He’d be a hypocrite only if he received a tax dollar voucher to pay for his private school (at least without saying that he personally benefitted from a policy he now believes is not in the public interest and explaining his change in belief).
I have no idea what this means?
Listen to what he says. Private schools aren’t created by or run by the government, and the government doesn’t “pump” taxpayer money into them. What he said was a lie. He used private schools because his wealth gave him options that he wants to withhold from normal citizens. Of course its hypocrisy. If public schools didn’t suck, he wouldn’t have put his kids in private schools. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Maybe it’s better described as estoppel. Anyone who sends their kids to private schools is estopped from arguing people’s whose kids can only go to the local public school should not be allowed to use the money the government would spend on their kids in public schools to enroll them in a private school with that money.
It’s basically a bond issue problem and a union problem. If the real property tax money is diverted from the public-school systems, they’d probably be in violation of the terms of the bonds issued to build and operate the schools. Plus, eventually, those schools would be empty. Secondly, the union teachers would have to be let go because there wouldn’t be any kids in the schools for the teachers to teach. He’s simply throwing raw meat to a room full of union member teachers.
And speaking of estoppel, the teachers will hereafter be estopped from objecting to kids using “fuck” in their classroom. I can just see a kid telling a teacher he or she “can fuck all the way off.”
That is not correct. In Illinois, there was a school voucher program that used tax dollars to provide scholarships for private schools. It expired in January of this year, and was not renewed.
Pritzer’s comments are made in the context of criticizing efforts to revive the voucher program.
Until I found the article below, I had no particular knowledge of school funding in Illinois. However, similar school voucher program are commonly advocated for by conservatives as a way of bypassing the indication and waste of public schools. The argument is that tax dollars that would have paid for a student’s public education should follow him to a private school.
This would be public funding of private school, and one could argue that this is poor public policy, while not opposing private schools in general.
https://www.ilfps.org/sunsetilvouchers
It’s not a private school if the government pays for it. Providing vouchers doesn’t obligate the recipients to use them. It’s still not public funding of private schools. It’s still not “pumping” money into private schools. It’s giving money to citizens to allow them to avoid bad public schools if they choose. Is a food stamps program “pumping” billions into grocery stores?
We are conflating policy and vocabulary, here.
Does Harvard or Yale become a public school if taxpayers provide a scholarship to certain students?
Do grocery stores become public agencies if taxpayers provide supplemental nutrition funding to certain customers?
If a private school’s tuition is paid for by a public voucher, then tax dollars are funding that private school. It does not become a public school.
Tuition vouchers to private schools may or may not be good public policy. That can be debated.
At this stage, I am not even arguing for or against school vouchers. I am simply trying to understand what is going on in Illinois. What is the governor even talking about? What are his critics slamming him for?
Critics are slamming him for opposing vouchers because he went to a private school. The critics are bypassing the policy debate by calling him a hypocrite. This is an ad hominem.
Conceded: He might be a hypocrite if he lacks good reason to oppose tuition vouchers.
Now there could be arguments for or against vouchers. Have vouchers worked to improve student outcomes in other states? Does state meddling in private school cause encrappification such they suffer the same bloat and corruption of public school?
Without discussing underlying policy and real-world applications, it is impossible to tell how (ir)responsible or (un)informed Governor Pritzker comments are.
Calling someone s hypocrite may be undeserved, but it is no more ad hominem than saying a particular statement is a lie.
*His face reminds me of The Bambino’s face! The factor that outweighs all the minuses you mention is he’s rich as hell and can finance his own campaign until the cows, if not the votes, come in. It’s funny how conservative trust fund babies are mocked while Dem trust fund babies get a pass.
No Jabba, YOU can fuck all the way off. All ranting aside, this guy would give Shemp Howard, who once advertised himself as the ugliest man in the world, a run for his money. However, others in recent times who have not exactly been candidates for the presidential photo calendar are Hillary, who was not called “her thighness” for nothing, John Kerry, who was appropriately nicknamed “Lurch,” (you rang?) Bush the elder, whose craggy face was not easy to look at, and Perot, who looked like a Martian. Had Stacy Abrams made it, she’d be the first major candidate in a while who was blubbery.
Gee, Steve, I don’t think Shemp was even the homeliest Stooge! Or the homeliest Howard, for that matter.
Howard Cosell was no beauty queen, that’s for sure.
Steve’s back!
I was just about to say that