Yesterday, I took my two younger kids to the headwater spring of the
Wacissa River in Jefferson county, FL (about 20 miles east of
Tallahassee) to go canoeing and fishing. Years ago when I went there
as a kid a lot, it was beautiful with crystal clear cold spring water,
ideal for a hot summer afternoon.

We got there and it was packed with seemingly every redneck within 50
miles. Fortunately, most of em were well behaved and mostly sober.
What struck me was that most of the girls were overweight and all of
them except one good looking redhead had "Tramp Stamp" tattoos on their
lower backs. Do white trash rednecks really think tattoos look good?
I really can't be too hard on em cuz I am probably related to half of
em in a complicated way (being a local myself). My kids were apalled
and amazed at such redneckism, I think they lead a much more sheltered
life than I did since they go to upper income schools whereas I went to
the worst local schools.

What did **** me off was the airboats, there were about 8 of them. The
Wacissa River is very shallow in places and is covered with hydrilla
(invasive non-native plant) and some floating native plants so is not
easily navigable by most boats. I can understand why some people have
them for getting to fishing holes in shallow water but I wish they'd
avoid being around other people cuz they are so loud they hurt your
ears at 300'. These guys were not doing any fishing but were only
running up and down the river making noise and spoiling it for everyone
else. Every one of these airboats was piloted by a guy with a huge
beer gut, control stick in one hand and beer can in the other.

In spite of the airboats, the kids had a good time. My 15 yr old son
tried to impress his gf but he has no skill in canoeing. My 10 yr old
daughter loved the whole thing. We all watched a smallish gator
stalking a wading bird (it got away). I am trying to get my kids
familiar with the canoe so they will do more outdoors stuff instead of
wimpy computer games but watching my son trying to tie a knot makes me
want to beat my head on a tree. I thought he would just learn these
things like I did without being taught but I s'pose its a different
world.

wrote:
What struck me was that most of the girls were overweight and all of
them except one good looking redhead had "Tramp Stamp" tattoos on their
lower backs. Do white trash rednecks really think tattoos look good?


"Tramp Stamp" tattoo?

LOL! I never heard those ugly "butt billboards" called that before.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
What struck me was that most of the girls were overweight and all of
them except one good looking redhead had "Tramp Stamp" tattoos on their
lower backs. Do white trash rednecks really think tattoos look good?


"Tramp Stamp" tattoo?

LOL! I never heard those ugly "butt billboards" called that before.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


And Ass Antlers.

And "Ass Antlers. "

Now that's a new one on me too!


Bryan wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
What struck me was that most of the girls were overweight and all of
them except one good looking redhead had "Tramp Stamp" tattoos on their
lower backs. Do white trash rednecks really think tattoos look good?


"Tramp Stamp" tattoo?

LOL! I never heard those ugly "butt billboards" called that before.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


And Ass Antlers.

wrote:
My kids were apalled
and amazed at such redneckism, I think they lead a much more sheltered
life than I did since they go to upper income schools whereas I went to
the worst local schools.

Do they really sort who goes to what public school in your area by
income??

Many school attendance zones are based upon proximity to the school. Newer
developed areas often have newer schools and a certain income level is
required to afford to live in those areas. Older, less popular areas often
require less income for housing, eh?

Perhaps this will result in another Supreme Court decision and new busing
requirements to level the playing field? After all, we can't have economic
segregation, can we?

Butch
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
My kids were apalled
and amazed at such redneckism, I think they lead a much more sheltered
life than I did since they go to upper income schools whereas I went to
the worst local schools.

Do they really sort who goes to what public school in your area by
income??

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Many school attendance zones are based upon proximity to the school.
Newer developed areas often have newer schools and a certain income level
is required to afford to live in those areas. Older, less popular areas
often require less income for housing, eh?

Perhaps this will result in another Supreme Court decision and new busing
requirements to level the playing field? After all, we can't have
economic segregation, can we?

Butch
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
My kids were apalled
and amazed at such redneckism, I think they lead a much more sheltered
life than I did since they go to upper income schools whereas I went to
the worst local schools.

Do they really sort who goes to what public school in your area by
income??




Students in San Francisco attend public schools based on a lottery. So a
kid living next to a great school can end up going to a crappy school in
some other neighborhood. This is to level the playing field. Ultimately,
families who can afford to send their kids to private schools do so if they
didn't win the public school lottery. I don't know how widespread this
practice is throughout the state or nationwide. In my town north of San
Francisco we bought our house based on the elementary and middle schools our
kids would attend; our school district places students based on address, not
lottery.

Not terribly surprising that SF would use that system. It has to be the
most PC city in the US.

In our area school enrichment groups have sprung up to provide additional
funds or other enriching items to support the local schools. In higher
income areas this works very well.

I don't understand why we think that throwing more money at schools equals
better education. Better teachers (with teacher testin) and involved
parents equals better education. Here, we seem to have a fixation on
facilities and spend enormous sums on new schools. The buildings are
beautiful brick structures with incredible landscaping and cost an arm and a
leg. Of course the roofs leak at the approach of the first tropical system.
Seems to me we could provide an equal educational opportunity in a well
insulated metal structure for about 35% of the cost??

Butch
"Bryan" wrote in message
.com...

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Many school attendance zones are based upon proximity to the school.
Newer developed areas often have newer schools and a certain income level
is required to afford to live in those areas. Older, less popular areas
often require less income for housing, eh?

Perhaps this will result in another Supreme Court decision and new busing
requirements to level the playing field? After all, we can't have
economic segregation, can we?

Butch
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
My kids were apalled
and amazed at such redneckism, I think they lead a much more sheltered
life than I did since they go to upper income schools whereas I went to
the worst local schools.

Do they really sort who goes to what public school in your area by
income??




Students in San Francisco attend public schools based on a lottery. So a
kid living next to a great school can end up going to a crappy school in
some other neighborhood. This is to level the playing field. Ultimately,
families who can afford to send their kids to private schools do so if
they didn't win the public school lottery. I don't know how widespread
this practice is throughout the state or nationwide. In my town north of
San Francisco we bought our house based on the elementary and middle
schools our kids would attend; our school district places students based
on address, not lottery.