Rand Paul: Abolish the Department of Education

WingnutsOctober 2010 • Views: 6,004

I find it continually amazing to see the Republican candidates in this election openly advocating bizarre and extreme ideas like abolishing Social Security and the Department of Education. It seems to have become an article of faith on the right wing that all the social progress of the last century was a big mistake and needs to be reversed. All at once.

It’s as if the entire right wing is in the grip of a mass hallucination, seeing visions of an ahistorical fantasy America that never existed.

Here’s Rand Paul explaining that he wants to abolish the DOE so that schoolchildren won’t be exposed to “Heather Has Two Mommies.” Yes, really.

Youtube Video

PAUL: I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergardener at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paducah deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington.

(Hat tip: beekiller.)

Jump to bottom

173 comments

Unions = Innovation slash slash Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:47:31am

Washington = Bad
Local school board Kooks = Good
//

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:47:38am

Translation: abolish the Department of Education to advance and ideology (and religion) that promotes a policy of homophobia. Much like the racists of the 1960s called for states rights to prevent Federal intervention regarding segregation the rallying cry of today's bigots is once against, state rights.

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:47:44am

I would rather the local schools decide things... I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington.

This is exactly, like about word for word exactly, what some guy was in here saying in a thread last night. He never would answer questions about what he objected to however. At least Paul acknowledges his bigotry.

darthstar Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:49:22am

Angle said that last night in the debate, and none of the TV commentators said a word.

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:49:34am

re: #3 allegro

At least Paul ~~acknowledges~~ is obvious about his bigotry.

Worded that badly the first time.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:49:36am

re: #2 Gus 802

Translation: abolish the Department of Education to advance and ideology (and religion) that promotes a policy of homophobia. Much like the racists of the 1960s called for states rights to prevent Federal intervention regarding segregation the rallying cry of today's bigots is once against, state rights.

You know, states rights isn't always code word for "bigotry".

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:50:40am

re: #6 pharmmajor

You know, states rights isn't always code word for "bigotry".

Can you share an example where it has not been a dog whistle for bigotry of late?

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:50:52am

re: #6 pharmmajor

You know, states rights isn't always code word for "bigotry".

Stick with the context. No, it's not always related with bigotry. But it is used by bigots and that's a historical fact.

Stanghazi Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:50:53am

re: #4 darthstar

Angle said that last night in the debate, and none of the TV commentators said a word.

As did Chastity Spice in her debate (in regards to evolution)

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:14am

re: #1 rwdflynavy

Washington = Bad
Local school board Kooks = Good
//

I can't say I agree with his reasoning even though I agree the dept of education is a billion dollar waste of money and time. It's also not a new idea, IIRC Reagan tried to dump it 30 years ago.

uncah91 Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:15am

OT:

Fox and Friends - All Terrorists are Muslims

Media Matters Video

APox Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:20am

Yep, because if you live in the back woods of Alabama your children should be taught that blacks should still be slaves and the north is evil and that slavery was not at the heart of the civil war. Let's perpetuate ignorance based on local politics instead of having a national debate on FACT.

This post and the debate on campaign financing donors is just sickening. Also read an article today about montana's glaciers melting on CNN today and noticed the large majority of all comments berated scientists as government money leeches, a complete misunderstanding between climate and weather and a rejection of any man made climate change science.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:29am

re: #7 allegro

Can you share an example where it has not been a dog whistle for bigotry of late?

How about cases where the feds intervened in states where marijuana had been legalized for use? It was legal in the state, but the federal government still wanted to press charges against distributors.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:43am

By Republican standards, this isn't crazy at all, didn't Dole want to kill the DOE?

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:52:44am

re: #9 Stanley Sea

As did Chastity Spice in her debate (in regards to evolution)

OK, an example for states rights not used for bigotry... but stupidity instead.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:54:10am

re: #6 pharmmajor

You know, states rights isn't always code word for "bigotry".

it's often a code word for bigotry when there isn't a specific issue of a state right that is in question, for example, Oregon's assisted suicide law

here's the thing, liberals and health care professionals in Oregon don't go around going STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS! They actually advocate for that specific right, see :)

Michael Orion Powell Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:54:25am

To be fair, this idea has been bouncing around conservative circles for a long, long time. Newt Gingrich was a proponent for quite a while. I imagine the like of Rand just see an opportunity where there wasn't one before.

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:54:26am

re: #13 pharmmajor

How about cases where the feds intervened in states where marijuana had been legalized for use? It was legal in the state, but the federal government still wanted to press charges against distributors.

That is an excellent and valid example. I sit corrected.

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:55:10am

Here come the Tenther revisionists. What the heck do you think Brown v. Board was about?

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:55:42am

re: #16 WindUpBird

Thank you so much for that. 'Splains it so very well. :)

Charles Johnson Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:56:02am

Sure, the idea's been around on the fringes, but I don't think anyone really took it seriously, not even Gingrich.

Now it's a mainstream opinion.

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:56:57am

re: #7 allegro

Can you share an example where it has not been a dog whistle for bigotry of late?

California, marijuana.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:57:30am

re: #18 allegro

That is an excellent and valid example. I sit corrected.

the difference is tha ctual state right itself, when people get specific about A State Right

versus the dog-whistle. The dog whistle is never specific! The dog whistle never actually comes out and says "we're trying to get the attention of confederate revisionists and people who want to kill the civil rights act"

whereas medical marijuana? Oh, people are all too happy to be specific when they advocate for that! :D

big difference between the dog whistle of states rights, and an actual real enumerated conflict between the federal government and a state that doesn't involve, you know, black people being screwed

shutdown Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:57:31am

Here is something you don't see every day. Posting it here to relieve the "crazy".

[Link: www.tagesanzeiger.ch...]

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:57:48am

derail()
{
Tides Foundation CEO to Fox advertisers: Drop Beck or there will be blood.

This is neither a hollow request, nor one rhetorically made. There is an urgency to it born of our own direct experience as the target of a would-be assassin inspired by Fox's Glenn Beck Show.

On July 19th of this year, I arrived at our San Francisco office to learn that a misguided person carrying numerous guns and body armor had been on his way to start a "revolution" by murdering my colleagues and me. The Oakland Police Department called to tell us that, following a 12 minute shootout with the California Highway Patrol, law enforcement officials arrested an assailant who had targeted the Tides Foundation, an organization which I founded and currently serve as CEO, and the ACLU for violence. To say we were "shocked" does not adequately describe our reaction. Imagine, for a moment, that you were us and, had it not been for a sharp eyed highway patrolman, a heavily armed man in full body armor would have made it to your office with the intent to kill you and your colleagues. His motive? Apparently, it was because the charitable, nonpartisan programs we run are deemed part of a conspiracy to undermine America and the capitalist system, which is hogwash.

}

rerail();

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:58:48am

re: #13 pharmmajor

How about cases where the feds intervened in states where marijuana had been legalized for use? It was legal in the state, but the federal government still wanted to press charges against distributors.

or the drinking age, speed limits, seat belts, education standards, HCR, marriage license, gun laws, etc., etc,.....

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:58:53am

re: #23 WindUpBird

the difference is tha ctual state right itself, when people get specific about A State Right

versus the dog-whistle. The dog whistle is never specific! The dog whistle never actually comes out and says "we're trying to get the attention of confederate revisionists and people who want to kill the civil rights act"

whereas medical marijuana? Oh, people are all too happy to be specific when they advocate for that! :D

big difference between the dog whistle of states rights, and an actual real enumerated conflict between the federal government and a state that doesn't involve, you know, black people being screwed

Let's not forget the context here. We're talking about Rand Paul who thinks that a private enterprise has the right to discriminate.

Romantic Heretic Fri, Oct 15, 2010 11:59:40am

To believers knowledge is the enemy, so it's not the least bit surprising to me that they want to abolish the DOE.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:00:16pm

re: #27 Gus 802

Let's not forget the context here. We're talking about Rand Paul who thinks that a private enterprise has the right to discriminate.

oh exactly

you got a creep who disagrees with civil rights saying that? We know EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS

Michael Orion Powell Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:00:18pm

re: #16 WindUpBird

Touche. While the factor of federal intervention against local decision making may be technically a case of "state's rights," anyone who looks well into American political history will see that "state's rights" was usually used by segregationists. Go watch Mississippi Burning and cut to the scene where a local deputy disparigingly calls the FBI "the Federal Bureau of Integration."

Mark Pennington Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:00:40pm

Thanks for the hat tip, Charles. I was talking to some of my wingnutty relatives last night. None of them agree with the idea of abolishing the Dept. of Education(also privatizing SS etc) but said they would vote for a candidate despite that. They hate Obama and the dems enough to over look such.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:00:44pm

re: #27 Gus 802

Let's not forget the context here. We're talking about Rand Paul who thinks that a private enterprise ~~has~~ should have the right to discriminate.

Minor correction.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:01:16pm

re: #26 RogueOne

or the drinking age, speed limits, seat belts, education standards, HCR, marriage license, gun laws, etc., etc,...

Excellent points. Thank you, I forgot to bring those up.

And yes, I know in some cases a state will make a boneheaded move regarding these issues. Unfortunately, that happens in a democracy and you have to let them suffer for their idiocy (people moving out of the state, less income from tourists, ect.) until it's rectified.

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:01:24pm

re: #31 beekiller

Thanks for the hat tip, Charles. I was talking to some of my wingnutty relatives last night. None of them agree with the idea of abolishing the Dept. of Education(also privatizing SS etc) but said they would vote for a candidate despite that. They hate Obama and the dems enough to over look such.

Yeah! Beekiller!! :>

Michael Orion Powell Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:01:33pm

Marijuana legalization is an individual right, not a state's right.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:01:50pm

re: #31 beekiller

Thanks for the hat tip, Charles. I was talking to some of my wingnutty relatives last night. None of them agree with the idea of abolishing the Dept. of Education(also privatizing SS etc) but said they would vote for a candidate despite that. They hate Obama and the dems enough to over look such.

Oh yeah, of course!

because they don't care. They want to win, because that's what this is, tribalist football, not about issues, it's about hating that guy

APox Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:02:17pm

re: #6 pharmmajor

You know, states rights isn't always code word for "bigotry".

Really... Because almost always states rights are being espoused by people in states that would love to forget about civil rights and the recognition of minority groups in the state.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:02:32pm

re: #30 OrionXP

Touche. While the factor of federal intervention against local decision making may be technically a case of "state's rights," anyone who looks well into American political history will see that "state's rights" was usually used by segregationists. Go watch Mississippi Burning and cut to the scene where a local deputy disparigingly calls the FBI "the Federal Bureau of Integration."

Again, just because bigots adopted this to their retarded cause doesn't mean everyone who believes in states rights has the same views. Don't turn this into HuffPo lite by making sweeping generalizations.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:03:00pm

re: #35 OrionXP

Marijuana legalization is an individual right, not a state's right.

well yeah, but marijuana dispensaries and whether there's a culture for medical marijuana, whether there's an ibfrastructure that the state will leave alone, that's up to a state

Let me tell you, California feels a lot different when it comes to access to weed than even Washington or Oregon does!

Killgore Trout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:03:12pm

Book learnin' iz 4 Liburul Eleetes!

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:04:04pm

re: #38 pharmmajor

Again, just because bigots adopted this to their retarded cause doesn't mean everyone who believes in states rights has the same views. Don't turn this into HuffPo lite by making sweeping generalizations.

Again, we're talking about

DOG WHISTLES

and we're also talking about

INDIVIDUAL STATE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE LOBBY FOR

really, you're not going to try and tell me that "states rights" as a dog whistle for racists hasn't been around for decades?

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:04:07pm

re: #40 Killgore Trout

Book learnin' iz 4 Liburul Eleetes!

I'm a libertarian and very well read, so allow me to say in the words of the great Douglas Adams, "Nobody likes a smartass."

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:04:08pm

[Link: www.cato.org...]

President Reagan made a campaign pledge to eliminate it, and renewed his promise in his first State of the Union address in January 1982: "The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education."

Youtube Video

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:05:25pm

re: #33 pharmmajor

Excellent points. Thank you, I forgot to bring those up.

And yes, I know in some cases a state will make a boneheaded move regarding these issues. Unfortunately, that happens in a democracy and you have to let them suffer for their idiocy (people moving out of the state, less income from tourists, ect.) until it's rectified.

Why do we have to let states violate the constitution, exactly?

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:06:11pm

re: #38 pharmmajor

Again, just because bigots adopted this to their retarded cause doesn't mean everyone who believes in states rights has the same views. Don't turn this into HuffPo lite by making sweeping generalizations.

What the heck do you think Rand Paul is arguing? He's arguing for local control -- i.e. states rights. He then goes on to support his argument of local control by exposing his ignorance and bigotry -- r.e. "Susie has two mommies". He wants to eliminate the Ed so he can have local education department define protections for GLBTs thus not allowing the citizens of the USA to seek redress from the Federal government.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:06:22pm

re: #41 WindUpBird

Again, we're talking about

DOG WHISTLES

and we're also talking about

INDIVIDUAL STATE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE LOBBY FOR

really, you're not going to try and tell me that "states rights" as a dog whistle for racists hasn't been around for decades?

I already said that racists had used the meme, I'm just trying to keep people from making a false generalization.

And I will say that you're right; rational people who do think the state has the right to make the final decision regarding an issue need to phrase their arguments better to get their points across.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:07:08pm

re: #46 pharmmajor

Why the state? Why the arbitrary level of the state instead of the nation?

What is your actual argument?

Charles Johnson Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:08:33pm

re: #43 RogueOne

And that's one reason why I never joined in the idolization of Reagan.

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:09:04pm

But Rand Paul would would say. "Well, if you can't find protection for your gay son or daughter then move out of that state." Rand Paul, Ron Paul, it's all the same. In that case people would have to flee whatever state they didn't find themselves falling under the umbrella of Constitutional protections which are overridden (allegedly) by the 10th Amendment. Long story short? According to the Tenthers states can discriminate as they see fit.

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:09:23pm

re: #44 Obdicut

Why do we have to let states violate the constitution, exactly?

We don't.

Most of the people who shriek loudest about states' rights are not constitutional scholars; they're willfully ignorant of how often the 14th Amendment specifically allows -- nay, *requires* -- the Federal Government to intervene in some matters.

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:09:31pm

re: #45 Gus 802

What the heck do you think Rand Paul is arguing? He's arguing for local control -- i.e. states rights. He then goes on to support his argument of local control by exposing his ignorance and bigotry -- r.e. "Susie has two mommies". He wants to eliminate the Ed so he can have local education department define protections for GLBTs thus not allowing the citizens of the USA to seek redress from the Federal government.

Yea. Hmm.... get rid of Dept of Ed and what else gets into the public school system (if such a thing would even exist anymore). Can you say Evolution, boys and girls? No, you can't. Because it would no longer exist either.

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:09:36pm

re: #48 Charles

And that's one reason why I never joined in the idolization of Reagan.

And one reason why I haven't voted for a Republican since as well.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:11:32pm

re: #48 Charles

And that's one reason why I never joined in the idolization of Reagan.

It's an idea they've been kicking around for awhile and I happen to agree it's one are where we could save a ton of money. That said, the reasoning behind pauls logic is pretty low. Reagan wanted to do it to save money not to hide little johnny from people he didn't like.

jaunte Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:11:57pm

The 2011 budget request for the Department of Education was 77.8 billion.
[Link: www2.ed.gov...]

Johnathan Chait:

If you're old enough to remember the 1995 Republican Revolution, one key aspect of the revolution's downfall was education. Republicans proposed to abolish the Department of Education, and Democrats used this issue to pummel the GOP. Eventually, wiser heads within the party reasoned that it wasn't worth absorbing so much political pain over a department that accounts for just a tiny fraction of the federal budget. They quickly backed off the issue, and by 2000 nominated a candidate who talking about education all the time, dramatically narrowing the opinion gap on the issue between the parties.
Now, on the cusp of another Republican Revolution, the party is nominating a bunch of candidates who don't remember 1995 and are promising to abolish the department again: [Link: webcache.googleusercontent.com...]

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:02pm

re: #47 Obdicut

Why the state? Why the arbitrary level of the state instead of the nation?

What is your actual argument?

My argument is that in certain issues, rather than the federal government making a ruling, it should be up to a smaller branch (state, or even local in many cases) to have the say on the decisions that affect the people who live there. Or hell, give the people the direct say through a vote. And yes, there will be times when the decision is boneheaded, but unfortunately that is the price of a democracy. When that happens you just have to keep fighting to make things right (after all, Proposition 8 didn't last forever).

HappyWarrior Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:04pm

This is why he objects to the DoE because kids will be taught that homosexual parents aren't immoral perverts? Seriously, if he had phrased it perhaps in the idea that education is best left up to localities than I'd think his viewpoint was logical. Would disagree with some of it but it wouldn't be a bunch of nonsense. I really can't wait to see how pepole like Paul will actually govern if elected. It's one thing to act like Washington is evil on the campaign trail but quite another when you become part of Washington and the establishment.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:33pm

re: #49 Gus 802

It's like these people don't know any actual humans living in the real world.

My wife got into school here in New York. I moved her with her, because that's what had to happen.

People have to move places, or stay places, to care for sick parents, because of work, because of health issues, in order to pursue education, and for any number of other hugely important reasons. To pretend that everyone has the freedom at any moment to just pick up and move out of state is ridiculous.

And yet Tenthers routinely pretend that it is. They ignore that gay people didn't start flocking out of California after prop 8. They ignore history and the present in order to make a purely theoretical argument.

It's ridiculous.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:40pm

re: #53 RogueOne

It's an idea they've been kicking around for awhile and I happen to agree it's one area.....

PIMF

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:46pm

re: #51 marjoriemoon

Yea. Hmm... get rid of Dept of Ed and what else gets into the public school system (if such a thing would even exist anymore). Can you say Evolution, boys and girls? No, you can't. Because it would no longer exist either.

Which begs the question. Does Rand Paul and his ilk desire to have local education department ignore the Establishment Clause?

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:12:49pm

re: #33 pharmmajor

Excellent points. Thank you, I forgot to bring those up.

And yes, I know in some cases a state will make a boneheaded move regarding these issues. Unfortunately, that happens in a democracy and you have to let them suffer for their idiocy (people moving out of the state, less income from tourists, ect.) until it's rectified.

Sometimes when countries do things like this folk get all hot under the collar and start crying about "ethnic cleansing"...

Killgore Trout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:13:01pm

Beck's libertarianism: Parents have the right to blind their own children...
Beck: If government tried to take his kids after refusing mandatory flu vaccine, he'd say, "Meet Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson"

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:14:08pm

re: #61 Killgore Trout

Beck's libertarianism: Parents have the right to blind their own children...
Beck: If government tried to take his kids after refusing mandatory flu vaccine, he'd say, "Meet Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson"

Are you saying parents shouldn't have the right to decide if their kids get a flu shot or not?

Killgore Trout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:15:13pm

re: #62 RogueOne

Are you saying parents shouldn't have the right to decide if their kids get a flu shot or not?

No, I'm not saying that.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:15:16pm

re: #55 pharmmajor

My argument is that in certain issues, rather than the federal government making a ruling, it should be up to a smaller branch (state, or even local in many cases) to have the say on the decisions that affect the people who live there.

Oh god. Another person who thinks an assertion is an argument.

What is your argument for this? What you have stated is your assertion. Now make an argument for it.

And yes, there will be times when the decision is boneheaded, but unfortunately that is the price of a democracy.

That would be the price of an unrestrained democracy; luckily, we don't have one. We have one with constitutional protection of the minority.

When that happens you just have to keep fighting to make things right (after all, Proposition 8 didn't last forever).

What happened to Prop 8?

[Link: latimesblogs.latimes.com...]

Oh, right. It was struck down in a Federal Court.

Nice disproof of yourself.

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:15:23pm

The people who want to teach that Susie has an inappropriate family situation with two mommies are going to do harm to Susie. They hate Susie's mommies so much, they don't give a shit about Susie.

Hang in there Susie.

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:15:30pm

re: #57 Obdicut

It's like these people don't know any actual humans living in the real world.

My wife got into school here in New York. I moved her with her, because that's what had to happen.

People have to move places, or stay places, to care for sick parents, because of work, because of health issues, in order to pursue education, and for any number of other hugely important reasons. To pretend that everyone has the freedom at any moment to just pick up and move out of state is ridiculous.

And yet Tenthers routinely pretend that it is. They ignore that gay people didn't start flocking out of California after prop 8. They ignore history and the present in order to make a purely theoretical argument.

It's ridiculous.

It's like a "Free Market Citizenry". In this case it almost become a laissez faire application of Constitutional protections enforced by the Federal government. At worst it will lead to the further Balkanization of this nation.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:15:40pm

re: #53 RogueOne

It's an idea they've been kicking around for awhile and I happen to agree it's one are where we could save a ton of money. That said, the reasoning behind pauls logic is pretty low. Reagan wanted to do it to save money not to hide little johnny from people he didn't like.

But Reagan ended up expanding the federal government and spending a buttload of money instead.

And I'll say that elimination of the DOE is too drastic a step to take, it should be limited in how it interferes in certain school areas (i.e. excessive focus on standardized testing rather than other educational benchmarks) and to stop funneling money into repeatedly failing schools.

Killgore Trout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:16:23pm

re: #62 RogueOne

Beck thinks parents have the right to blind their own children. In this case Beck thinks it's ok because it only one eye.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:16:30pm

It is a specific state right Rand is referring to, namely the right to tell gays that they are dirty degenerates who deserve no place at the table.

Lets not get lost in the abstract hinterlands of "state's rights" as a concept. He is advocating for dismantling an institution that is preventing your local school board from driving out "the other".

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:18:05pm

re: #59 Gus 802

Which begs the question. Does Rand Paul and his ilk desire to have local education department ignore the Establishment Clause?

I have to say, the first time I heard of the idea of getting rid of the DoE was in the Lizard Lounge way back when by some of the long gone wingnuts. Around the same time I heard the evils of Abe Lincoln and JFK. Takes some time to process that mess.

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:19:24pm

re: #69 Fozzie Bear

It is a specific state right Rand is referring to, namely the right to tell gays that they are dirty degenerates who deserve no place at the table.

Lets not get lost in the abstract hinterlands of "state's rights" as a concept. He is advocating for dismantling an institution that is preventing your local school board from driving out "the other".

Exactly. Gay, lesbians, evolution, school prayer (Christian only), hate crimes, minority education, gender equality, etc. Basically anything that was handed down through the courts over the years. Definitely anything that was brought to court by way of the ACLU.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:19:28pm

Someone fill me in, since, as a professional educator, I often miss what's going on. I've been informed here, for example, that the education system teaches 'moral and cultural relativism', which I have never done, nor met any teacher who does. This fever fantasy about liberal schools is never backed up with actual standards or curriculum. Sometimes they drag out some crap article about a single dumbass teacher who did something stupid and is now being made to apologize for it.

So maybe I don't know. Has the DOE EVER enforced a specific curriculum, much less one about mommies, on local school boards?

elizajane Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:22:17pm

Those schools in Kentucky must be following this mysterious Federal Diktatoriat much more closely than the crazy schools in Berkeley. My kids never heard "Heather has Two Mommies" in kindergarten there. No wonder they have had so much trouble dealing with having two mommies. We should have moved to Kentucky.

shutdown Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:22:27pm

re: #69 Fozzie Bear

It is a specific state right Rand is referring to, namely the right to tell gays that they are dirty degenerates who deserve no place at the table.

Lets not get lost in the abstract hinterlands of "state's rights" as a concept. He is advocating for dismantling an institution that is preventing your local school board from driving out "the other".

As discussed yesterday, "States' Rights" is nothing but code for anti-federalistic attempts to allow individual states to unravel civil rights laws, cherry pick constitutional protections, and generally spool the nation backward to just before Reconstruction.

reine.de.tout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:22:45pm

re: #28 Romantic Heretic

To believers knowledge is the enemy, so it's not the least bit surprising to me that they want to abolish the DOE.

Actually . . .
As far as I know, local school boards are still in charge of local schools.

The Department of Education seems to keep statistics, and provide research, information and grants for a lot of different things, that individual states might not be able to afford to do on their own, but the US Department of Ed can do and make available to all.

Now, there are plenty of times when I wonder about the efficacy of certain programs administered by the US Dept of Education. But I'm nowhere near convinced it should be completely abolished.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:24:04pm

re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist

I believe that was a rhetorical question but they do push a curriculum through testing. I don't think "how many mommies should jenny have" is part of the SAT's though.

reine.de.tout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:24:14pm

re: #75 reine.de.tout

Actually . . .
As far as I know, local school boards are still in charge of local schools.

The Department of Education seems to keep statistics, and provide research, information and grants for a lot of different things, that individual states might not be able to afford to do on their own, but the US Department of Ed can do and make available to all.

Now, there are plenty of times when I wonder about the efficacy of certain programs administered by the US Dept of Education. But I'm nowhere near convinced it should be completely abolished.

And none of that is an assertion about or an argument for (or agin) anything, it's simply my .02.

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:24:17pm

re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist

We need to have a Lizard "Education Watch" page. I nominate you. This isn't about fiscal policy or effectiveness. It's about destroying public education, and our guy the President is stumbling into it. (The first thing he did to tick me off was to put the girls in Sidwell. They should have been in a DC public scdhool if it took the whole 82nd to secure it.)

shutdown Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:24:23pm

re: #73 elizajane

Those schools in Kentucky must be following this mysterious Federal Diktatoriat much more closely than the crazy schools in Berkeley. My kids never heard "Heather has Two Mommies" in kindergarten there. No wonder they have had so much trouble dealing with having two mommies. We should have moved to Kentucky.

...and elizajane, her spouse and the kiddies moved to Kentucky and were never heard from again....
//

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:24:42pm

re: #70 marjoriemoon

I have to say, the first time I heard of the idea of getting rid of the DoE was in the Lizard Lounge way back when by some of the long gone wingnuts. Around the same time I heard the evils of Abe Lincoln and JFK. Takes some time to process that mess.

The Lounge sure had a cast of characters, didn't it? They're over at Comment is free right now!

lawhawk Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:25:06pm

re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist

Not as far as I can tell.. if anything, the furor over school curriculum is locally based - where some group complains about a specific local school board's decision or a state board ruling that trumps a local school board. The fed Education Department is there primarily to disburse monies to the states via any number of grant programs, as well as to individuals via Pell Grants.

It also collects education data and enforces federal law on privacy and civil rights.

NCLB is the exception, not the rule in what is ordinarily a highly decentralized education system in the US.

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:25:09pm

re: #80 wrenchwench

The Lounge sure had a cast of characters, didn't it? They're over at Comment is free right now!

I don't want to look!

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:26:20pm

re: #74 imp_62

As discussed yesterday, "States' Rights" is nothing but code for anti-federalistic attempts to allow individual states to unravel civil rights laws, cherry pick constitutional protections, and generally spool the nation backward to just before Reconstruction.

No it isn't. This is the generalization I was talking about. Just because a bunch of bigoted retards chant "states rights" as a feeble attempt to justify their hatred doesn't mean that everyone who believes in states rights has the same mentality as those morons.

shutdown Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:26:20pm

have to run yet again. bringing the boy to crew practice, and since it is raining, wouldn't you know that I am the "land parent" today (sit around and be responsible for nothing at all).

reine.de.tout Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:26:27pm

re: #80 wrenchwench

The Lounge sure had a cast of characters, didn't it? They're over at Comment is free right now!

watchit.
I put in my .02 over there, as well.

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:26:54pm

re: #65 wrenchwench

The people who want to teach that Susie has an inappropriate family situation with two mommies are going to do harm to Susie. They hate Susie's mommies so much, they don't give a shit about Susie.

Hang in there Susie.

LOL Love it.

The gay cat is already out of the bag. Or closet. Shove as they might, it's not going back in.

We've recently hired new folks at the job and two of them are gay, a man and woman. They openly talk about their partners and both wear rings. The lesbian couple has an adopted child. Cute little girl. We've always had gay employees, but they were never quite "out there". It's a good thing they don't have to hide any longer.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:27:03pm

Just to help you make up your own mind regarding education spending:

Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1961-62 through 2006-07

[Link: nces.ed.gov...]

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:27:39pm

Okay since the term states rights is now irrevocable stained, what phrase shall we coin for a state to hold off something from the Fed we would generally agree was quite odious?

What shall we call it when the Feds want 55 mph again and a couple states with endless miles of straight divided highways want 65?

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:28:05pm

re: #85 reine.de.tout

watchit.
I put in my .02 over there, as well.

Good for you!

Some of the characters were OK, of course. You & Marjorie being about the tops.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:28:27pm

More fun graphs:

The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress in Reading and Mathematics 2008
[Link: nces.ed.gov...]

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:28:38pm

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

Okay since the term states rights is now irrevocable stained, what phrase shall we coin for a state to hold off something from the Fed we would generally agree was quite odious?

What shall we call it when the Feds want 55 mph again and a couple states with endless miles of straight divided highways want 65?

How about "state's authority" or "local authority" if dealing with a smaller branch of government.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:29:38pm

re: #86 marjoriemoon

LOL Love it.

The gay cat is already out of the bag. Or closet. Shove as they might, it's not going back in.

We've recently hired new folks at the job and two of them are gay, a man and woman. They openly talk about their partners and both wear rings. The lesbian couple has an adopted child. Cute little girl. We've always had gay employees, but they were never quite "out there". It's a good thing they don't have to hide any longer.

Definitely. Yet another reason why I hope the DADT repeal will not be appealed. Gays should not be forced to hide who they are because of pointless bigotry.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:29:41pm

re: #76 RogueOne

I believe that was a rhetorical question but they do push a curriculum through testing. I don't think "how many mommies should jenny have" is part of the SAT's though.

It sure as hell is not. These people are liars. Self-dramatizing, self-pitying malicious liars.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:29:50pm

re: #91 pharmmajor

How about "state's authority" or "local authority" if dealing with a smaller branch of government.

How about actually explaining what your argument is, and dealing with the fact that you cited Prop 8's overturn as somehow a vindication for states' rights, when it was overturned in federal court?

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:30:32pm

re: #90 RogueOne

Quit trying to bring information into the argument.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:30:33pm

re: #93 SanFranciscoZionist

It sure as hell is not. These people are liars. Self-dramatizing, self-pitying malicious liars.

I was being sarcastic! the question is about heather not jenny.//

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:32:17pm

re: #90 RogueOne

More fun graphs:

The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress in Reading and Mathematics 2008
[Link: nces.ed.gov...]

Well, there you go. They went up if even ever so slightly. That basically debunks the notion that we are in decline.

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:33:19pm

re: #94 Obdicut

How about actually explaining what your argument is, and dealing with the fact that you cited Prop 8's overturn as somehow a vindication for states' rights, when it was overturned in federal court?

Okay, I confess, I am not the best at argumentative speaking, and I apologize for the flaws I make.

As for the overturn of Prop 8, yes, that was an erroneous example on my part. I was using it as an example because it's decision affected only one state.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:33:38pm

Slimy effing a**hole! Right, you think you have the right to substitute your own variety of "morality/religion" for everyone elses?

Because surely the world will be a much better place if we simply deny that Gays even exist, right? Good God these reality denying wannabe-anarchists just make me want to puke.

100

iossarian Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:33:44pm

re: #53 RogueOne

It's an idea they've been kicking around for awhile and I happen to agree it's one are where we could save a ton of money. That said, the reasoning behind pauls logic is pretty low. Reagan wanted to do it to save money not to hide little johnny from people he didn't like.

How exactly would eliminating the Department of Education save money (by which I mean, how would you eliminate its cost without lowering education quality across the US)?

101

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:33:52pm

re: #73 elizajane

Those schools in Kentucky must be following this mysterious Federal Diktatoriat much more closely than the crazy schools in Berkeley. My kids never heard "Heather has Two Mommies" in kindergarten there. No wonder they have had so much trouble dealing with having two mommies. We should have moved to Kentucky.

My mom taught Head Start in the late 60's, early 70s. Head Start is pre-school for underprivileged families.

Over the years, she had Christian Scientist parent who didn't want their children to learn about doctors and nurses. They asked my mother if she could remove their kids from story reading about these subjects. My mother gladly agreed and they went off to the side and played games while the other children heard the stories.

If you really want to include the largest scope of individuals, whether you agree with them or not, you'll find a way to tolerate other beliefs.

102

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:34:18pm

re: #97 Gus 802

Well, there you go. They went up if even ever so slightly. That basically debunks the notion that we are in decline.

Adjusted for inflation, spending tripled while the test numbers and number of students barely budged. I wouldn't call it a rousing success.

103

goddamnedfrank Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:34:18pm

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

Okay since the term states rights is now irrevocable stained, what phrase shall we coin for a state to hold off something from the Fed we would generally agree was quite odious?

What shall we call it when the Feds want 55 mph again and a couple states with endless miles of straight divided highways want 65?

I call it a really bad example. The 55 mph speed limit was only ever a prerequisite for receiving federal highway dollars, nothing more. If a state didn't want the money they never had to comply with the limit.

104

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:34:41pm

re: #97 Gus 802

Well, there you go. They went up if even ever so slightly. That basically debunks the notion that we are in decline.

And they went up in the face of supposed increases in registration of kids who wouldn't have been in the system in previous eras.

105

What, me worry? Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:35:36pm

re: #78 Decatur Deb

We need to have a Lizard "Education Watch" page. I nominate you. This isn't about fiscal policy or effectiveness. It's about destroying public education, and our guy the President is stumbling into it. (The first thing he did to tick me off was to put the girls in Sidwell. They should have been in a DC public scdhool if it took the whole 82nd to secure it.)

I think, tho, it's understandable why he wouldn't want his children in public school. He can still advocate for it and be completely believable, but he has the safety of his children to worry about.

106

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:36:11pm

re: #100 iossarian

How exactly would eliminating the Department of Education save money (by which I mean, how would you eliminate its cost without lowering education quality across the US)?

Personally I think the numbers show continually pouring federal dollars into the system hasn't equated to a better educational system. We could debate the specifics but I wouldn't mind seeing the budget dropped back down to the Clinton era numbers and give the money directly to the states.

107

iossarian Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:37:03pm

re: #105 marjoriemoon

I think, tho, it's understandable why he wouldn't want his children in public school. He can still advocate for it and be completely believable, but he has the safety of his children to worry about.

I disagree with this. People have this whole "public schools are scary" thing going on, and this would have been an ideal opportunity to push back against that. It's not as if there isn't a ton of security surrounding his kids anyway.

108

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:37:31pm

re: #105 marjoriemoon

I think, tho, it's understandable why he wouldn't want his children in public school. He can still advocate for it and be completely believable, but he has the safety of his children to worry about.

That's my wife's argument. He commands the resources to make one school safe pleasant and effective.

109

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:38:39pm

re: #56 HappyWarrior

This is why he objects to the DoE because kids will be taught that homosexual parents aren't immoral perverts? Seriously, if he had phrased it perhaps in the idea that education is best left up to localities than I'd think his viewpoint was logical. Would disagree with some of it but it wouldn't be a bunch of nonsense. I really can't wait to see how pepole like Paul will actually govern if elected. It's one thing to act like Washington is evil on the campaign trail but quite another when you become part of Washington and the establishment.

Education IS left up to the states and the localities, by and large. Even NCLB references state tests and state standards.

People like this never complain that the DOE is pushing extra math or reading standards, they either get upset about having to teach real science and separate church and state, or they make shit up about having to teach gay sex and Practical Sharia. I repeat, they MAKE SHIT UP. They LIE.

110

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:38:40pm

re: #98 pharmmajor

Okay, I confess, I am not the best at argumentative speaking, and I apologize for the flaws I make.

It's fine to make flaws, but you haven't even attempted an argument. If you don't actually have an argument to support your views, why do you hold the views you do?

As for the overturn of Prop 8, yes, that was an erroneous example on my part. I was using it as an example because it's decision affected only one state.

It was a counterexample, given that it was a federal judge who overturned it.

Do you understand the inability of people to simply move to escape repressive state laws?

111

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:38:46pm

re: #78 Decatur Deb

We need to have a Lizard "Education Watch" page. I nominate you. This isn't about fiscal policy or effectiveness. It's about destroying public education, and our guy the President is stumbling into it. (The first thing he did to tick me off was to put the girls in Sidwell. They should have been in a DC public scdhool if it took the whole 82nd to secure it.)

Well if Obama thought his girls would do better in a private school, that's his decision to make and he shouldn't be criticized for it.

112

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:39:06pm

re: #59 Gus 802

Which begs the question. Does Rand Paul and his ilk desire to have local education department ignore the Establishment Clause?

Yes.

113

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:39:09pm

re: #106 RogueOne

Personally I think the numbers show continually pouring federal dollars into the system hasn't equated to a better educational system. We could debate the specifics but I wouldn't mind seeing the budget dropped back down to the Clinton era numbers and give the money directly to the states.

Texas could buy comic books with Alley Op and his dinosaur.

114

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:39:19pm

re: #105 marjoriemoon

I think, tho, it's understandable why he wouldn't want his children in public school. He can still advocate for it and be completely believable, but he has the safety of his children to worry about.

I don't believe most public schools are really that bad. I can only go by the numbers in my state but the worst schools are located in urban areas and their numbers are so poor they drag the rest of the state down. I hated my country high school but I have to give them credit, some of my high school classes were harder than my college courses.

115

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:39:43pm

re: #62 RogueOne

Are you saying parents shouldn't have the right to decide if their kids get a flu shot or not?

First, where are flu shots mandatory? They aren't around here.

116

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:40:08pm

re: #102 RogueOne

Adjusted for inflation, spending tripled while the test numbers and number of students barely budged. I wouldn't call it a rousing success.

But adjust it for population growth at the same time.

117

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:40:15pm

re: #115 SanFranciscoZionist

First, where are flu shots mandatory? They aren't around here.

I was confused about the title of the link....He explained it for me.

118

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:40:52pm

re: #111 pharmmajor

Well if Obama thought his girls would do better in a private school, that's his decision to make and he shouldn't be criticized for it.

He should be criticized for leadership failure. (I voted for him, and will do so again.)

119

martinsmithy Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:40:55pm

As I understand it, the federal government didn't get involved in local schools, in terms of funding or standards, until the 1960's. And the standards followed the funding.

I think it is a legitimate question as to whether the federal government's decision to get involved in primary and secondary school education was a good thing or not. Not that I think local educators were (or are) doing a particularly good job - it's very spotty depending upon the locality. It's just that I'm not sure that the federal involvement has added value commensurate to the money spent.

120

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:41:32pm

re: #116 Gus 802

But adjust it for population growth at the same time.

I did. The number of students hasn't increased, class sizes went down, spending went up, and the numbers have remained basically static.

121

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:41:40pm

re: #73 elizajane

Those schools in Kentucky must be following this mysterious Federal Diktatoriat much more closely than the crazy schools in Berkeley. My kids never heard "Heather has Two Mommies" in kindergarten there. No wonder they have had so much trouble dealing with having two mommies. We should have moved to Kentucky.

These guys also flip out when localities do things they don't like. Remember the sound and the fury over the first graders in SF who got taken to their teacher's wedding?

122

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:43:09pm

re: #76 RogueOne

I believe that was a rhetorical question but they do push a curriculum through testing. I don't think "how many mommies should jenny have" is part of the SAT's though.

Also, the SAT is not a DOE production.

123

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:43:21pm

re: #119 martinsmithy

It's just that I'm not sure that the federal involvement has added value commensurate to the money spent.

Without specifics on where the money went and how it was spent, for whom and what, how can a judgement call be made on its value?

124

goddamnedfrank Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:43:43pm

re: #118 Decatur Deb

He should be criticized for leadership failure. (I voted for him, and will do so again.)

His kids aren't pawns to advance an agenda, I applaud him for not treating them as such.

125

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:43:45pm

re: #119 martinsmithy

As I understand it, the federal government didn't get involved in local schools, in terms of funding or standards, until the 1960's. And the standards followed the funding.

I think it is a legitimate question as to whether the federal government's decision to get involved in primary and secondary school education was a good thing or not. Not that I think local educators were (or are) doing a particularly good job - it's very spotty depending upon the locality. It's just that I'm not sure that the federal involvement has added value commensurate to the money spent.

Valid concern. The only way to be sure is credible data, but that is instantly compromised by the howling partisanship.

126

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:44:34pm

re: #118 Decatur Deb

He should be criticized for leadership failure. (I voted for him, and will do so again.)

Failure to reauthorize the DC school voucher program says a lot.

127

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:44:54pm

It's Paducah, not Paduka.

As to "States Rights", the federal government is the good side, and any person or community that objects to anything the federal government wants to do is simply acting out of bigotry.

States have no rights that the federal government is bound to respect. The constitution is no bar to any extension of federal authority, nor should it be.
The Department of Education has done a magnificent job improving education across the country. Local authorities just make a mess of it.

Witness, for instance, the case of Michelle Rhee. In the District of Columbia, the locals just threw her out, scrapping the reforms she'd been heroically working on. Now, the federal government needs to step in, take back control of the schools from the local yokels, and do the job right, as only the dept of education can.

Happily, the rights and wrongs of the situation are plain for all to see, and DC isn't even a state so trumping the so-called "rights'' of local entities should be a cakewalk.

Local authorities don't set speed limits, we have federal laws for that. They don't stick their noses into matters that are none of their business, such as immigration. We have federal officers to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. The federal government decides the level of enforcement and that's that. States now stick their noses into federal matters such as kidnapping, or counterfeiting, and that must stop. No person, other than an ATF agent, should be permitted to declare or voice a suspicion that a bill he's been passed is counterfeit. No one should be allowed to bring such a note to the attention of the ATF. As to kidnapping, local authorities must stand aside. Federal law must prevail.

Now you will be thinking this is ridiculous. The federal government lacks the manpower to do all this without any assistance from states. True, for now. But why not nationalize state budgets and state law officers? That way, the federal government would instantly acquire a force sufficient to do any job it needed, or wanted, to do. The federal government could reassign so-called "state" officers to the places where they were most needed.

So-called "state" and "municipal" courts, judges, jails, and so forth ought also to be nationalized. One federal policy, one law, one people. Any variation from the perfection that is the federal government is abhorrent.

///

Or maybe, nationalizing everything is neither prudent nor practical, and states rights and some degree of local self rule is a legitimate concern. Bigotry there is, but it's not the only motivating factor when it comes to wanting the federal government not just to leave some matters to the states, but to be constrained by law and bound by the constitution to leave some matters to state and local authorities.

Not, of course, the matter of whether evolution is taught in science class. And though I think that Rhee is a hero and that DC's decision to scrap her reforms is a tragedy, I think that DC must be permitted to ruin its own schools and scrap its own future, because freedom includes the right to screw up, royally. We can't live as a nation under a federal government that steps in to forestall every decision that anybody anywhere makes that looks like a mistake to the feds.

128

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:45:50pm

re: #126 RogueOne

Failure to reauthorize the DC school voucher program says a lot.

I know what it says to me. What does it say to you?

129

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:45:55pm

re: #127 lostlakehiker

There must be a sale on false dichotomies today.

130

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:46:06pm

re: #124 goddamnedfrank

His kids aren't pawns to advance an agenda, I applaud him for not treating them as such.

For better or worse, they're in the game. (And their little dog, too.)

131

pharmmajor Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:47:21pm

re: #127 lostlakehiker

Or maybe, nationalizing everything is neither prudent nor practical, and states rights and some degree of local self rule is a legitimate concern. Bigotry there is, but it's not the only motivating factor when it comes to wanting the federal government not just to leave some matters to the states, but to be constrained by law and bound by the constitution to leave some matters to state and local authorities.

Not, of course, the matter of whether evolution is taught in science class. And though I think that Rhee is a hero and that DC's decision to scrap her reforms is a tragedy, I think that DC must be permitted to ruin its own schools and scrap its own future, because freedom includes the right to screw up, royally. We can't live as a nation under a federal government that steps in to forestall every decision that anybody anywhere makes that looks like a mistake to the feds.

I applaud you for offering a better explanation than I could regarding the issue.

132

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:48:21pm

re: #103 goddamnedfrank

I call it a really bad example. The 55 mph speed limit was only ever a prerequisite for receiving federal highway dollars, nothing more. If a state didn't want the money they never had to comply with the limit.

Feel free to chose of hypothesize a better example.

133

goddamnedfrank Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:49:30pm

re: #130 Decatur Deb

For better or worse, they're in the game. (And their little dog, too.)

They're on the sidelines, he's in the game. He caught enough grief when he said he wouldn't want them punished with a baby, even though privately most people would agree with that sentiment.

134

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:50:23pm

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

Okay since the term states rights is now irrevocable stained, what phrase shall we coin for a state to hold off something from the Fed we would generally agree was quite odious?

What shall we call it when the Feds want 55 mph again and a couple states with endless miles of straight divided highways want 65?

Federalism.

135

goddamnedfrank Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:52:07pm

re: #132 Rightwingconspirator

Feel free to chose of hypothesize a better example.

Assault weapons ban.

136

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:52:47pm

re: #134 sagehen
re: #103 goddamnedfrank

I can turn this another way. Did California not have the right as a state to require better pollution control on cars? Or is the states rights/Federalism argument to revolve around what we dislike only?

137

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:53:19pm

re: #92 pharmmajor

Definitely. Yet another reason why I hope the DADT repeal will not be appealed. Gays should not be forced to hide who they are because of pointless bigotry.

It's a matter of precedent. The executive and the legislature have the legitimate authority to set policy for the military. DADT is a policy mistake, not a constitutional violation of rights. Policy mistakes can be set right. This one is in the process of being fixed.

The military would like some time to write and print up new training manuals, new rules, etc.

Women have been more or less successfully integrated into the active-duty military, but the adjustment was hardly seamless. Getting it right was a lot of work, and it's not been got entirely right, and the benefits of having a wider talent pool to dip into have been to some extent offset by the cost of making those adjustments.

Getting it right with respect to openly gay servicemen will not be trivial either. Again, there will be a price, along with the benefit of having a wider talent pool from which to recruit.

The court arrogates to itself authority it does not have, and presumes to order around not just the 2/3 of the government that's not in its own branch, but the rest of its own branch. Bad precedent, bad policy, bad law. Good ends do not suffice here. The new policy that will emerge from the legislature and the executive will reach the same end, slightly delayed, but much improved in substance and in its provenance.

138

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:53:57pm

re: #135 goddamnedfrank

Much better than 55 mph.

139

Gus Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:54:31pm

re: #120 RogueOne

I did. The number of students hasn't increased, class sizes went down, spending went up, and the numbers have remained basically static.

We'll have an additional 4 million students by 2018. It climbs yearly.

[Link: nces.ed.gov...]

My point being that spending will increase as the overall public school population increases. Perhaps it has been a slow growth over the years but parents are also demanding more such as lower class sizes.

The average IQ hovers around 100. I can't see how we can expect to see an increase in the general population based on education by changing education standards or anything else. There will be limits to our population's abilities. Therefore a slight rise or non-change is to be expected.

140

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:54:56pm

re: #138 Rightwingconspirator

Much better than 55 mph.

Oh and states have the right to stricter standards only, not looser ones for manufacture or purchase of so called "assault" guns.

141

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:55:02pm

re: #137 lostlakehiker

. DADT is a policy mistake, not a constitutional violation of rights.

It's both.

In what way is not not a constitutional violation of rights?

142

iossarian Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:56:00pm

re: #136 Rightwingconspirator

The way I tend to think about is: governments have a duty to ensure that a certain minimum standard of living is met by people under their jurisdiction, a standard which is set by those people.

As long as local laws/regulations/customs don't interfere with that minimum standard, they are essentially OK. If they do, then the next level of government up has the right to intervene.

Of course, a lot of the disagreement comes from questions of whether a given law causes harm to people, or not.

143

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 15, 2010 12:57:53pm

re: #12 APox

Yep, because if you live in the back woods of Alabama your children should be taught that blacks should still be slaves and the north is evil and that slavery was not at the heart of the civil war. Let's perpetuate ignorance based on local politics instead of having a national debate on FACT.

This post and the debate on campaign financing donors is just sickening. Also read an article today about montana's glaciers melting on CNN today and noticed the large majority of all comments berated scientists as government money leeches, a complete misunderstanding between climate and weather and a rejection of any man made climate change science.

And yet, the glaciers are melting. It doesn't even take a scientist to see that. Any old person (literally) can tell you that. Any old photo, likewise. A glance at the rocky wasteland that used to be under ice, and is now so recently exposed that it does not yet have grass or lichen, will tell you that the ice has only recently disappeared.

You don't escape granting the reality of global warming by throwing out all of science. You must also discard all common sense.

144

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:00:19pm

re: #94 Obdicut

How about actually explaining what your argument is, and dealing with the fact that you cited Prop 8's overturn as somehow a vindication for states' rights, when it was overturned in federal court?

Conor Friedersdorf wrote a pretty good argument:

[Link: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...]

145

BishopX Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:00:19pm

re: #127 lostlakehiker

I regards to the education, you are missing the point. The federal government DOES NOT interfere with local schools beyond some very very basic tenets (are they open to students of all races? do they accommodate students with disabilities?). They require state education authorities to do some things (annual testing), and they do provide some money to states to administer their schools, and they are willing to give more to states whose schools meet certain criteria.

You're implying that federal control isn't always the best possible situation. But in regards to education there is no federal control.None. There is a federal government office which provides research and support to local agencies.

146

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:01:50pm

re: #141 Obdicut

. DADT is a policy mistake, not a constitutional violation of rights.

It's both.

In what way is not not a constitutional violation of rights?

In the way the constitution gives the president and the legislative branches sole authority in deciding the rules for members of the military. If you want your constitutional rights, don't join the military.

147

allegro Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:02:46pm

re: #137 lostlakehiker

Getting it right with respect to openly gay servicemen will not be trivial either.

Gay servicemen and women are there now and their fellow service people know who they are. What adjustments are needed?

148

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:03:09pm

BTW, before people freak on me I've been on board here supporting the overturning of DADT. It needs to go away but it needs to go away in the proper way, by the president and congress doing their jobs.

149

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:03:22pm

re: #97 Gus 802

Well, there you go. They went up if even ever so slightly. That basically debunks the notion that we are in decline.

We went up ever so slightly, while lots of other countries went up a *lot* and passed us by.

There was a time not so long ago when the United States had the world's best-educated populace; that time is not today.

150

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:03:26pm

re: #141 Obdicut

. DADT is a policy mistake, not a constitutional violation of rights.

It's both.

In what way is not not a constitutional violation of rights?

The military is a very special situation. Women, right now, are barred from service in combat units in a direct combat role. In no other line of work can such rules be set. If you were right about the constitutional issue, it would follow that this rule, too, must be unconstitutional. But it's not.

Civilian rights do not extend, unabridged, into military settings. In civilian life, nobody can order you to go get killed, or even risk it. For instance.

In the military, there had better be a good reason, but war offers all too many good reasons why some must do dangerous things that may well get them killed, if others are to live.

That's why DADT is not a constitutional violation of rights. Because the military is an exception to those rights.

151

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:05:32pm

re: #146 RogueOne

In the way the constitution gives the president and the legislative branches sole authority in deciding the rules for members of the military. If you want your constitutional rights, don't join the military.

So you think the military could have the right to vote taken away from them?

This is the weirdest argument yet.

152

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:06:41pm

re: #142 iossarian

Plus a couple things really do vary by region-Climate and cultures. I kinda like letting many laws vary along those lines, as voted by the people involved. Not to extremes like our foolish candidate Rand Paul or his dad.

153

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:07:02pm

re: #151 Obdicut

So you think the military could have the right to vote taken away from them?

This is the weirdest argument yet.

No, not "could have" but "do have" them taken away. When you sign your name on that dotted line your rights are only what congress and the president say they are.

154

BishopX Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:07:20pm

re: #150 lostlakehiker

The miltary isn't an exception to basic civil rights. It can get one is it needs it. Why can't women serve in combat units? Because of problems that might arise in POW situations. Why can't blacks serve in combat divisions? There is no good reason. Why can gays serve? Again no good reason.

I agree that the president and congress should be the ones to repeal DADT, but if they don't, the courts should. The federal balance of power means that if for what ever reason two branches of government are not doing their jobs, the third can prod them forward a bit.

155

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:08:22pm

re: #150 lostlakehiker

Oh boy.

I suppose you're basing that off of Goldman v. Weinberger?

156

majorbozon Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:09:08pm

re: #2 Gus 802
The Education Department was a spin off of the Department of Health Education and Welfare that occurred in 1979. That was half of my lifetime ago. I'll bet we got a better education when I was a kid than you can get today. Whatever your political ideology, wouldn't merging it back save some money? What's wrong with that?

157

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:09:27pm

re: #154 BishopX

The courts can't intervene even if this judge wants that ability. She's going to be struck down. The president would love to see DADT go away and all politicians would love to pass the buck on it but they can't. That's why he's forced to go to court to overturn her ruling because he can't let the power given specifically to him and the legislative branch be usurped by the judiciary.

158

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:11:12pm

re: #156 majorbozon

Image: sleeper.jpg

159

BishopX Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:11:26pm

re: #157 RogueOne

Yes, the administration has to fight it, no the supreme court doesn't have to listen to them.

160

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:11:41pm

re: #158 wrenchwench

uh-oh. Did I upding a sleeper?

161

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:11:56pm

re: #153 RogueOne

This may help you understand the actual situation.

[Link: docs.google.com...]

It's, strangely enough, not as black and white as you're painting it:

The CAAF’s rationale for diverging from Supreme Court precedent in Marcum was that constitutional protections “may apply differently to members of the armed forces than they do to civilians.” Thus, although “constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to members of the military,” such rights do not apply when “by text or scope they are plainly inapplicable.”

162

Obdicut Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:12:27pm

re: #156 majorbozon

How would 'merging it back' save some money?

163

BishopX Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:12:52pm

re: #160 RogueOne

1 post since '05? Yup you stepped in it.

164

wrenchwench Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:13:51pm

re: #160 RogueOne

uh-oh. Did I upding a sleeper?

No harm done. A first comment deserves a ding (even if the registration occurred ohhhh--five and a half years ago.)

165

Unsympathetic Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:21:23pm

To be fair, if this bill includes block grants to states so they can decide how to run their own schools.. then go for it. If not, he's a loon.

166

RogueOne Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:24:31pm

It's late, I need to take off before I start dinging incoherently. Have a good weekend people.

167

sagehen Fri, Oct 15, 2010 1:28:25pm

re: #136 Rightwingconspirator

re: #103 goddamnedfrank

I can turn this another way. Did California not have the right as a state to require better pollution control on cars? Or is the states rights/Federalism argument to revolve around what we dislike only?

Lucky for us there was a Californian in the oval office when the EPA was passed -- it contains a specific, overt exception on air quality such that if and when California wants stricter emission standards than the rest of the country they're entitled to their waiver. Every time. All the time. Forever. (the Bush administration had a problem with that, but every court took California's side).

Hey, I'm on the Federalists' side here, coming from the left. If California wants tougher consumer protection/product labeling laws than the rest of the country, they're entitled to have them. If their bankruptcy rules, torts, health care standards differ from what Washington would prefer, they generally have good reason.

The Federal government has a right to set basic minimums, especially as regards things that cross state lines (air and water are subject to the laws of physics, they care not where humans have drawn lines on maps) -- but if States want to take it further, they should be able to.

168

enigma3535 Fri, Oct 15, 2010 8:23:22pm

Rand Paul raises a salient question regarding the Federal Dept of Education … said Dept assesses a bunch of stuff that is material to how this country competes with other countries, how school systems adhere to US judicial and legislative statutes and how said school systems indoctrinate our kids into being persons that are NOT sociopaths [aka … bullies].

Should the federal government influence what is taught in every school system in the US?

A school system in Paul’s district may take umbrage at being required to protect their students that either appear to be, or are, gay, from abuse. Do they all do a good job on that; on their own?

A school system in Paul’s district may take umbrage at being required to teach only peer-reviewed science. How does that position them competing with students in other countries, on a flat earth, that have no Christianist blinders?

Mr Paul: Even with the DOE, the US is lagging the rest of the world in Math and Science. Taking what our DOE is trying to do, away, may help … this one thinks not … asking local school officials to configure their curriculum to compete with all those other countries [that are handsomely funded and managed by PHD holding bureaucrats that are actually out managing our PHD holding bureaucrats, in every measurable way] when we are so far behind?

Possible, but not probable.

The end result if you get your way regarding all the policies you have that I am aware of … [IMHO] a waning super-power whose descent is tipped fwd.

169

Mich-again Fri, Oct 15, 2010 10:43:12pm

I'm no Rand Paul supporter, but I agree with the idea of dumping the Federal Department of Education altogether. There was never a reason to form it in the first place. Its a monumental waste of scarce resources.

170

pokeefe Sat, Oct 16, 2010 5:26:26am

Federal control of education is "social progress" ?

You really have gone over the edge.

171

Charles Johnson Sat, Oct 16, 2010 10:32:22am

re: #170 pokeefe

Federal control of education is "social progress" ?

You really have gone over the edge.

Well then, you won't mind if I take away your account, so you won't be tempted to read my "over the edge" ravings any more.

172

lolohead Sat, Oct 16, 2010 11:20:55am

How much of the billions spent on education is lost by running it through the beauracracy filter?
Abolish Both DOEs Education and Energy. They both accomplish nothing and are terrible wastes of money.

173

Obdicut Sat, Oct 16, 2010 2:30:07pm

re: #172 lolohead

Can you answer your own question?

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Rand Paul: Abolish the Department of Education

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud