When one-off events catch public officials flat-footed, the public often shows some understanding.
The start of the school year, however, and the need to schedule classes for students, are as predictable as August. To have this annual exercise result in chaos and delay for 8,000 high school students in Prince George’s County, Maryland is a scandal and disgrace.
As reported at length by the Washington Post, the year began for 8,000 of the county’s 41,000 high school students without schedules. Five days, later, 1,300 were still in limbo. It really is difficult to comprehend the scale of this ineptitude. As one student explained on a Facebook page devoted to the matter:
We basically are going 2 school 4 no point wut so ever…we are wasting time going 2 are fake teachers and fake classes, doing fake work or nothing at all, for nothing at all.
When 20 percent of the county’s high school students are herded into cafeterias and gymnasiums, with teachers engaged in crowd control because students have no classes to attend, the essential functions of local government have broken down.
The greater scandal here is that this failure has almost certainly had an adverse impact on black students. Prince George’s County may be home to the largest black middle class in the country, but among those high school students who had the start of their high school year ruined by administrative ineptitude, many were minority students who needed those extra few days of instruction and could ill afford thumb twiddling and busy work.
A collapse of governing responsibility, one with civil rights implications, just miles from the nation’s capitol — but will anyone at the federal level propose to do much about it? We know that Democrats won’t cross the teachers’ unions. What about Republicans? Would they use this as an opportunity to promote vouchers for any of these students, betrayed by their school system?
Republicans are supporters of school vouchers as an economic concept. By enhancing parental choice and challenging the unions, they bring competition to the public school monopoly and improve outputs for the parent and child consumers. And Republicans support state reforms and federal reform in the District of Columbia.
But where are the conservative conviction politicians in Washington who will use this situation to loudly demand justice, and promote school vouchers, for the poor kids in P.G. County? As many have noted, the lack of access to a quality education is a civil rights issue, one that calls out for vouchers as an emergency measure for kids stuck in failing schools. For any who doubt this, consider the account of Jessica Pinkney, a Prince George’s County high school junior, who told a Post reporter that two days after the school year began, she was finally moved to the cafeteria from the gym, because the cafeteria had air conditioning. And then she was given an index card with the number 195 on it — her place in line to receive an academic schedule. This should not happen in America, and when it does, the citizens under the thumb of the authorities responsible should be liberated from their dependence.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will take an aggressive stand for these helpless students and against a corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy incapable of executing even the most basic tasks with which it is charged. Republican commitments to federalism and local authority caution against such a full-throttle embrace of federally funded school vouchers. Republican orthodoxy on limited government doubts the legitimacy of involvement by Washington in these essentially local matters. And the Republican understanding of the original Constitution demands a restrictive understanding of fundamental rights.
But as demonstrated in Maryland, vouchers can be an imperative of justice — one consistent with the GOP’s, and the nation’s, historic constitutional commitment to civil rights.
Next week Congress returns from its August recess. We will hear a great deal from legislators on both sides of the aisle about their admiration for their friend Senator Ted Kennedy. While not embracing his politics, Republicans should consider the man’s tactics and take on the Prince George’s debacle. Kennedy spoke loudly and often in the pursuit of justice. He rarely let an opportunity pass to remind Americans of those in danger of being left behind. And over time, his moral arguments won adherents and drove the center of the debate in his direction.
Democrats should be ashamed that in the fights over school choice, they take the side of the unions over the little guy — the minority student in a failing school. And if Republicans spoke on this issue with the frequency and passion that their late colleague devoted to his causes, they might find in a few years that they have achieved some legislative successes on school vouchers, begun to reestablish some trust with the black community, and rebranded the party as one committed to justice and civil rights.
54 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:12 pm
It really is difficult to comprehend the scale of this ineptitude.
It’s really not. The PG school system closed 8 schools this summer, as part of a plan to save about $6 million – or around 5% of the school district budget. And in case all the shuffling of students between schools to balance out the closings wasn’t enough, they also started using a SchoolMax computer system for scheduling for the first time.
So lets see – guidance counselors seeing lots of new students for the first time … probably some significant confusion even on the part of some students as to what school they’d be showing up to on day one (not everyone pays attention to newscasts and bulletins, no matter how diligent a district might be in getting the word out) … and implementation of a brand new computerized scheduling system?
Yeah. Only incompetence would have produced some short term disarray in this situation. And I say “short term” being fixed, apparently.
But perhaps Mr. Clay is in favor of the DC s0lution – having the Federal Government pump millions into vouchers so that the finances of the local school district aren’t gutted by issuing vouchers?
2 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Its seems to me that you are more concerned about the local school district than the local school children, balconesfault. Which is the fundamental error of statists.
Now that we have nationalized GM illegally and split ownership with teh UAWorkers…..should we institute barriers to competition so that GM can benefit from a monopoly….and the UAW gets to keep their nice wages and bennies. But to hell with consumers and private businesses that offer higher quality products at lower cost.
Brilliant!
3 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Democrats should be ashamed that in the fights over school choice, they take the side of the unions over the little guy — the minority student in a failing school. And if Republicans spoke on this issue with the frequency and passion that their late colleague devoted to his causes, they might find in a few years that they have achieved some legislative successes on school vouchers, begun to reestablish some trust with the black community, and rebranded the party as one committed to justice and civil rights. — Henry Clay
Yes the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing their utopian statist socialist visions and pandering to unions, instead of helping children. But that is what the New Left does….they would rather use the monopoly to indoctrinate children, while dumbing them down and creating identity political resentment, manufacturing dependents and supporters for their socialist welfare state.
But the New Left is a vile ideology that unfortunately is now the Establisment in this country.
But if you think that promoting school choice (while certainly an honorable thing to do) is going to gain lauds from the media and the Left, rather than villifications and insinuations of cheating the poor, and racism, then you must have just fallen off the turnip truck.
4 DFL // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm
As someone who graduated out of the PG County schools thirty years ago, I can attest to the incompetence even then. The school busing that began in January, 1973 didn’t help and instead propelled the PG school system to an educational abyss. School bureaucracies everywhere tend to attract unambitious, mediocre people and the PG County school system assuredly is filled with emptyheaded drones who want nice pay checks the easy way. In the end, however, a school system is only as good as its people. The PG County school system reflects the merits of the people who live in Prince George’s County.
Senator Clay means well, I am sure, but the PG county school system is a responsibility of the PG county government and not the federal government. Even the original Senator Clay of the National system would have agreed that local school systems should be run by the localities themselves.
PG County, believe it or not, does have a problem with illegal immigration, especially in towns within the Beltway like Riverdale, Bladensburg, Edmonston and Langley Park, towns that more resemble Latin America than Anglo America. I wonder if many of the 8000 high schoolers without schedules are children of illegal aliens. This may explain part of the problem in PG County.
5 Chekote // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Absolutely spot on! The way the GOP will attract minority voters is by providing policies that will help them. Relying on social issues like gay marriage is a mistake.
6 sinz54 // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Henry Clay:
Then there’s no profit for the GOP in backing measures to help black students. Not right now anyway.
Because as long as Barack Obama is in the White House, blacks will never vote for the opposition party.
Did you see the latest Gallup Poll? Even after months of decline of Barack Obama’s approval ratings (now below 46% nationally according to Rasmussen), Obama still enjoys an amazing 94% approval rating among blacks. For one simple reason: He’s black and they’re black.
Obama has locked up over 90% of the black vote for the Dems. Write them off as unreachable, as long as he’s President–and concentrate on more profitable opportunities.
If the next POTUS is non-black, things may be different.
7 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm
sinz, that is really shallow.
School Choice helps all students. The shame here is that the secularists and Leftwingers are more interested in preventing children from going to Catholic School, than children getting an good education.
8 liv&win // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Do you think education can be reformed in 4 years? In 8? The world is the mess it is because of 40 years of liberal education indoctrination. Republicans would be wise to have a longer time horizon of one or two generations, not one or two elections.
This is a civil rights issue, no doubt. But the ramifications of not treating it as a civil rights issue are astronomous. Wasted education tax dollars are only a small fraction of the cost. Lower tax receipts, higher crime, deeper strain on welfare, permanent under class, on and on. All these track back to education.
9 midcon // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Aside from it’s contribution to the objective of gaining and wielding power, are vouchers important component of our educational system? In my opinion it does have value in that it provides a choice to those who are ill served by the public school system and need to be given a choice and a chance to escape.
Does it matter if it attracts minority voters? Can’t we advocate it because it is the right thing to do?
10 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm
The shame here is that the secularists and Leftwingers are more interested in preventing children from going to Catholic School, than children getting an good education.
Cough … bullshit.
There is no interest in preventing children from going to Catholic School.
This is akin to the slander that any conservative who opposes healthcare funding wants to kill poor people.
I like this site, because most posters avoid that kind of “make up crap about the other side” rhetoric.
11 midcon // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:36 pm
balconefault, it is easier to just ignore those posts. But here is my favorite from this same thread “utopian statist socialist visions.” While we are all pretty serious people this one in particular made me laugh.
12 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm
There is no interest in preventing children from going to Catholic School. — balconesfault
This isnt my first day at the rodeo.
Ive heard it out of countless peoples mouths…..mostly on the Left.
Its not slanderous, its the plain truth.
If you dont like crap made up about the other side, then you should stop slandering Christians and rbottoms should get a enima.
13 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Yeah, there are no socialists in the Democrat Party.
And anyone who would claim such a thing is a lunatic.
What a hoot!
14 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Well, Im about done with this place, while I notice one or 2 persons of above average historical and political knowledge.
The ill informed propagandized parochial bigots on this site are a crashing bore.
Im off to Harry’s Place. Later.
15 midcon // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Oooh, here is another one! “propagandized parochial bigots.” That’s right up there with “utopian statist socialist visions.”
Well, let’s see one strings together 4 words. The other 3. Hmmm, but quantity does not equal quality. Propagandized parochial bigots has a certain rhythmic quality to it – kinda rolls off the tongue nicely. I suppose there could be such a thing as a utopian statist socialist vision and I’m not really sure what parochial bigot is. I mean can one be a bigot without being parochial? Well, anyway I like the one that you can walk down the street humming so I would give Propagandized Parochial Bigot the nod. But alas! the author of such wonderful phrases has left us. Hopefully he will return soon with more wonderful ways to string words together!
16 balconesfault // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Midcon, you are certainly right. I hear, to some extent, a similar “riffing” when I listen to Limbaugh. There are certain terms that are used so often, that they become a shorthand, able to be strung together in random combinations on the spur of the moment by an improvisational artist, resonating with the attuned listener with more a pure emotional response, than on some higher intellectual plane. Escapevelocity is our own artist, perhaps never playing the same piece exactly the same way twice, but uniquely identifiable from others more bound to structured argument and clear definitions.
17 agentprovocateur // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“propagandized parochial bigots”
“utopian statist socialist visions”
I thought Spiro Agnew was dead. I guess his spirit haunts this blog.
18 liv&win // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 pm
So, back to the thread sans the escapee, it may not be a political winner, but addressing education as a civil rights issue seems to be the right thing to do. These kids have no voice and no one advocating good to great educational opportunities for them.
19 SFTor1 // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:49 pm
School vouchers is a stopgap that sounds like a civil rights issue, but isn’t. It does not hold together once you look at the bigger picture. Improvement of the school system, school by school, student by student, is the only way forward.
This makes school vouchers a loser in the long run for any national party.
20 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Im glad you like my word smithing.
The key here is that school choice works, for everyone.
stfor assumes that the only way forward for the Soviets was farming the old way, with manual labor, we just need longer hours and more individual laborers working harder.
And that is how stiffled the situation is.
The best thing that can happen to US education is school choice, vouchers funded statewide that follow the child, individual school adminstrative autonomy, with government oversight and regulation.
The second best thing is Union Busting.
21 SFTor1 // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:14 pm
escapevelocity,
that’s not what I had in mind. I am simply observing that school vouchers work for a few, and most often the most resourceful. There is a a greater overall problem that is looking for a solution. This does not mean that I am strongly against school vouchers, as they may solve some problems for some students. They do not however solve any issues at the schools that are in trouble in the first place.
22 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Capitalism works for a whole lot more than the few, but it does work better for the more resourceful.
What wont solve problems of schools that are in trouble in the first place is continuing to throw money at them. They should be allowed to die and other successful schools take there place. That is how capitalism drives variety, innovation, and quality.
23 EscapeVelocity // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Here is one tale of inner city floundering shools and shool system brought back to life, by simply implementing systemic changes.
If the system sucks then all you have left is people. If the people suck and cant be changed or fired then you have crap and no way to change it.
Implement a better system and allow for personell changes and encourage a market to function and boom….you dont have to worry about the details…the schools will worry about attracting money and keeping their jobs.
Here is San Francisco…
The Agony of American Education
How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33293.html
24 SFTor1 // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:53 pm
escapevelocity:
I live in San Francisco, and I am a fan of how the City handles its public schools program. I am gratified that you like it too. I suppose we must observe that smaller communities may have some difficulty replicating the model, although that is a hunch more than an assumption.
I’m sure we also agree that criss-cross transportation of children is more expensive and to some extend exposes kids to accident risk, something that probably becomes more of an issue in more sparsely populated areas.
Also we should recognize that the SF approach keeps the money in the public school system as a whole.
25 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:33 am
Yes, the SF is limited in scope within the public school system, however any move in that direction as shown can produce fantastic results.
Yes, cities offere more opportunities and better variety, more competition, in just about everything. That is how the market works. However, just because rural students will benefit less from school choice, doesnt mean that it isnt worth pursuing, that is the way the Leftwing thinks….that everyone everywhere should have the exact same opportunities, etc. AKA radical egalitarianism, in fact its a common argument on the left that the public school system is the great equalizer, and that gifted and particularly rich kids should be dragged down by poor and less gifted students. That money should be shifted from the gifted and rich to the less gifted and poor, so as to promote mediocrity. NCLB takes that approach, somewhat. How about lift all boats with the rising tide, instead. Instead of spending inordinate amounts of money to raise the most troublesome and least intelligent children to mediocre levels and neglecting the bright and studious, how about we give them each the best we can offer, for the same price.
This country needs to develop our talent better and not use our public school system as “the great equalizer.”
26 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:12 am
escapevelocity,
the point with the public school system is not for it to be a “great equalizer.” The point is to offer all children—all children—a quality education, and thereby help create equal opportunity. It is the cornerstone of a meritocracy in that respect. It is also how we capture talent to help our economy.
We don’t have to worry so much about rich kids being dragged down by poor kids. The more likely situation, which we see in many cases is that if students have poor parents they will also go to a school with few resources and the usual litany of problems.
It’s back to the old AACP adage: “a mind is a terrible thing to waste,” or “starve for resources” to paraphrase a little.
27 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:24 am
one more thing, escape:
You and I know that when I say “equal” no such condition exists for anyone in this country, nor do I propose it should. People choose inequality. You live in the city, the country, or on the bayou, and it’s all good. For instance the Amish would be quite uneasy with the idea that they should be made equal to anyone else.
I appreciate conservative’s reluctance for social engineering, but to my knowledge the idea of providing at least a decent and effective starting point for kids is generally embraced as a good thing, also by conservatives.
28 greg_barton // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:53 am
The GOP can’t make anything a civil rights issue.
They ARE a civil rights issue.
29 greg_barton // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:57 am
escapevelocity:
Actually, as a secularists I have no problem with kids going to a Catholic school. Does the Catholic church mind giving up it’s tax free status?
30 greg_barton // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:01 am
escapevelocity:
Then why do you think throwing vouchers at them will make a difference?
31 liv&win // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:14 am
sftor1 // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:14 pm escapevelocity, that’s not what I had in mind. I am simply observing that school vouchers work for a few, and most often the most resourceful. There is a a greater overall problem that is looking for a solution. This does not mean that I am strongly against school vouchers, as they may solve some problems for some students. They do not however solve any issues at the schools that are in trouble in the first place.
Really sftor1, I am sure you can pull out theoretical analysis to support your position, but the fact remains, vouchers have not been given a reasonable and fair opportunity to work in a free market.
32 sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:46 am
escapevelocity:
That’s true.
And YOURS is a good argument for School Choice.
The argument being made by Henry Clay–that it might help inner-city black kids–is not. Not right now, anyway.
We conservatives have good ideas as to how to help inner-city black kids. We should return to embracing the ideas of Jack Kemp. But let’s wait to spring those on the black community until Obama is out of office, and they are no longer tied to the POTUS by blood and race.
33 sinz54 // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:51 am
greg_barton:
Because it won’t be the same schools.
Throw money at a failing school and you’ve still got a failing school that’s wasting your money.
Throw vouchers at the parents, and they may take their kids out of that failing school (letting it die), and put their kids in better, more successful schools. And the outflow of kids from the failing school will send a clear message that the school must shape up or fail.
But that assumes that the parents really love their kids and have created a stable, nurturing family environment. Without that, it doesn’t matter what school the kid goes to.
In America, we’ve got too many teen moms, too many welfare families, too many drug-addled and booze-addled parents.
To fix those problems will require us conservatives to accept the fact that single parenting is here to stay. No amount of ranting by the social conservatives (“You should have just kept your legs together!”) is going to change that. We need to accept it, and provide solutions to the problems faced by single moms.
34 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Because it won’t be the same schools. — sinz
Bingo!
35 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:32 pm
While I agree that we must address the single mother issue. I dont accept that it is here to stay.
Its like accepting that abortion is here to stay. The single biggest human rights abuse in this country, we should just accept it. If slavery was reintroduced in this country, would you say to yourself….we just need to accept that slavery is here to stay.
There are ways to turn around the single mother problem, but they lie with social conservativism, not in accepting that the Left won the culture war and try to muddle forward with the nuclear family and marriage destroyed. Trying to rebuild socieity on the New Marxist paradigm. The violence, degredation, and statist oppression that that leads to in the future is not a future worth muddling towards.
36 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Abortion is a human rights abuse? In what way? (Am I going to be sorry I asked?)
And escapevelocity, if you would like to be taken seriously it would really help if you stopped using terms like “socialist” and “Marxist” about Democrats and their policies. They are demonstrably neither.
The tendency makes you look like an old crank, and I’m sure that’s not what you had in mind.
37 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm
sinz says: “Because it won’t be the same schools.”
How is this supposed to be interpreted? That if a school has problems, we must disappear it like the Marie Celeste, ship the children off to Brigadoon, let three bad moons rise over the fallow ground, bust the union, and reopen the whole thing in the Celtic New Year under a shiny Republican principal clutching a copy of “Atlas Shrugged”?
What?
38 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm
sftor,
Is murder a human rights abuse or infringement?
Furthermore, Im sorry that you have allowed that Left to define the terms of the debate. It really is sad, that charges of McCarthyism have silenced folks.
Parties in Europe that hold similar positions call themselves…..Socialist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Green…etc. And they are proud to do so. In this country, a party that was demonstrably not these things was yielded to these people(Socialists, New Leftists, Marxists, Social Democrats, Greens, etc) since the 60s. Now are thier some folks that less radical than others, sure. Or the less radical people in control of the Democrat Party, no they are not. The coalition of more radical Socialists, Communists, Greens, etc, have control and leadership of the Democrat Party.
So any historical or comparative analysis of the terms in question as applied to the Democrat Party, would lead one to correctly surmise that I am fully within reason to use these terms. At the end of the day, the prohibition from calling a spade a spade, only serves to confuse people and limit understanding. And while the Left may like to do that, as one of their favorite modus operandi, I shall not yeild language to them. The battle over language is very important, maybe more important that you may know. Because control of language, is control of thought.
Now, you may say to yourself, yes, but there are folks on teh Left that are anti Communist. Well yes there are. And they were attacked virulently by the far Leftists. In fact the favorite modus operandi of the far Left Communists and New Left Radicals and a whole host of others who learned the trick, is to infiltrate other non far Left or indeed far Left organizations and institutions, then promote each other within them and assume leadership of the institutions, and steer the ship of the new institution in directions that they want to go, even at to the detriment of the institutions own interests and goals.
So you see. Its really complicated….but yeilding ground and allowing the Left to control the debate through language taboos and restrictions is just a recipe for failure for those opposed to them, but success for the the Left.
And so, while it is true that many have swallowed the Politically Correct line, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were American Patriots, not traitorous Communists but American Progressives, and see it your way, that I am not to be taken seriously. Well, the Left sure has done a number on America, and the newly Established Leftist zeitgeist is what it is, a false consciousness has creeped into the public sphere, but alas…
the alternative is to conceed defeat, that all we do is slow the eventual slow progress to Socialist tyranny in this country. And while I acknowledge the long difficult road ahead, for all those whose cause has been our concern, the work goes on, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…
39 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm
stfor, perhaps you would understand better, if we use a restaurant analogy.
Its true that their are many more varieties and higher quality restaurants available in big cities. The competition creates this. Now if a restaurant fails, because of lousy service, or tasteless food, or poor sanitation conditions, lousy management, whatever. Should we shed a tear for it, that it closes? Next year a new and perhaps better, probably with a different marketing mix, restaurant will open there, and perhaps it will be successful at attracting customers and keeping them satisfied. Until then you have a multitude of other successful restaurants to serve you.
This is how the market works.
This is in part why having banks (or any business) too big to fail is a bad idea, as then the market is not allowed to function properly. The risk reward curve is shifted outwards, and they move into riskier and riskier contracts, because the downside is now that the government will give you billions of dollars, not bankruptcy, joblessness, and the destruction of a highly successful going concern under your watch to put on your resume looking for new employment.
40 EscapeVelocity // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm
In other words, the customers (students) arent shit out of luck, they already left for a better restaurant, one that they chose, because they like the fare.
41 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:31 pm
escapevelocity:
abortion is not murder. Abortion is legal by U.S. law. Why is it not murder? Because murder requires a victim that is a human person. A blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is not a person.
Run after the anti-abortion vote at your own peril. If this is simply based on your own religious beliefs I hope you have the wisdom not to attempt to assume that we are talking about a universal legal principle that ought to be embraced by the country as a whole. I fully understand if you would strongly argue against your own family members having one.
you say: “stfor, perhaps you would understand better, if we use a restaurant analogy.” First let us assume that I understand perfectly well without the use of analogies, although you are welcome to couch your argument any way you wish. At any rate the restaurant analogy fails as restaurants are not essential to the future of our kids’ education.
Education is a fundamental role of government. It is mandatory because it is necessary for a functioning society. It is regulated because it needs to hold a certain standard, hence School Boards and all the rest.
Education is supplemented by private schools, colleges, trade schools, and universities. This is all good. The need for a public education system in no way is negated by the existence of private schools however. In this context it is not practical to let public schools fail and be replaced with a school down the block that offers something “students want.” This may not be how an economy works, but it is how a civilized society works. It is one of the essential functions we cannot trust to “the market,” as little as we would trust our water supply to “the market.”
We simply need a whole different level of scope, control, consistency and accountability from our education system than the private sector can provide.
42 SFTor1 // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:42 pm
escapevelocity:
Socialism and Marxism are well defined terms that denote certain political beliefs and agendas.
The Democratic Party of the United States does not share any of the basic tenets of socialism or Marxism.
The Democratic Party is thoroughly capitalist. This is a fact, and needs no argument. As the Bush Administration undertook the greatest expansion of the Federal Government since FDR you could suggest that the Republicans have been more socialist than the Democrats in recent history.
The Democratic Party does believe in a number of social services and support systems that you do not believe in. It is possible that your greatest problem with this is that those programs go against your sense of individualism and personal liberty. That is fine, but does not make the Democratic Party socialist or Marxist in any way.
43 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:06 am
sanfran,
Education is a fundamental role of government?
I support government supporting education, sf. However its not a fundamental role of the Federal Government, check the US Constitution on that one.
We simply need a whole different level of scope, control, consistency and accountability from our education system than the private sector can provide. —sf
Cant you make this argument for anything that the private sector does? I dont oppose government funding of, or regulating or standards making in education. I support setting up a mixed market system where the private sector can compete for customers, which will drive innovation and quality.
44 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:13 am
As regards abortion, was slavery not immoral and human right abuse, because it was legal at one time? When someone in 1852 said, that the institution of slavery is a gross human rights abuse against the enslaved blacks…..did the retort, “Well, its legal, so that blows your claim right out of the water” clear the matter up….end of story?
The slavers too claimed that blacks were not human or subhuman or less than human, and thus didnt deserve the rights and protections of the Constitution. I think that we can take the DNA of a fetus and pretty clearly determine that it is indeed a human being. And we can even determine that it isnt the DNA of the mother, we can also determine that it is indeed alive. So now we have a live human being.
Yet you say that that individual live human being doesnt deserve human rights. And that extinguishing that individual live human beings life, isnt human rights abuse.
45 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:25 am
I lost a long post on the last issue about Marxism/Socialism and the Democrat Party. I shall reconstruct it later. I think you will enjoy it, and will benefit from it.
46 greg_barton // Sep 4, 2009 at 1:49 am
Not the same schools, eh? Can you guarantee that? Of course not. You rely on mysterious market forces to be rational selectors of quality. I’m sure Lehman Brothers’ and Enron stock holders thought much the same thing at one point.
47 SFTor1 // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:09 am
escape:
save your breath on the socialist/Marxist nature of the Democratic Party. It is preposterous nonsense. It really doesn’t matter what you say.
Slavery was indeed an egregious human rights abuse. Now you wouldn’t argue that the African slaves were fetuses, would you? Otherwise we have underestimated the agricultural abilities of these littlest ones.
You can take DNA from a fetus and determine that it is human. You can do the same with a toenail or saliva. You can call it what you want, but you cannot call it a person. That’s the point. I’m really not interested in an abortion discussion. Any Republican who thinks it’s a good banner cause for their party is welcome to it.
The point with education: the government does a lot of things besides governing. Running schools is one of them. Look to Europe, Asia, or try this place: the United States. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t change the fact that it is the overwhelming mainstream of modern societies.
48 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Not the same schools, eh? Can you guarantee that? Of course not. You rely on mysterious market forces to be rational selectors of quality. I’m sure Lehman Brothers’ and Enron stock holders thought much the same thing at one point — greg
You will see that I advocated a role for government in standards making and as a regulatory body, futhermore as a safety netting where competition may not be sufficient to produce a well functioning market.
Perhaps you would like to buy a Soviet era Russian Car, and compare it to the Japanese Car of the same time period. Then tell me about how the market is a sham.
49 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:17 pm
save your breath on the socialist/Marxist nature of the Democratic Party. It is preposterous nonsense. It really doesn’t matter what you say. — sf
Yes close your ears. You dont want to have your ideas challenged. I hear you loud and clear. Quit rocking the boat. “I want to believe.”
Now your argument is that unborn human beings shouldnt be considered humans because they lack field working skills? Did you actually make that argument? And its me that has credibility problems?
When you scrape the mothers toenail, do you come up with DNA that does not match the mother?
I know it is difficult to think about these things and its much easier just to not think about these unpleasant things, or rather dehumanize those whose rights are being abused. Its classic. Genocide includes a dehumanization phase, so that the murder doesnt seem so bad. To face the reality that humans are being mass murdered is to feel pain. Much better to think of the murdered as not human and not alive, but rather toenail shavings.
sf, do you think that the law matters? Do you think that the Constitution matters? What it says? Or do you think it is an anachronism which should be tossed on the dung heap of bad ideas? If you like the Constitution, but think it should be changed, do you think the proper way to change the Constitution is by having judges “re-interpret” it to whatever suits the fashion of the day? Do you believe that the rule of law is well served by that “re-interpretation.” Why dont we change the Constitution as prescribed by the Constitution? Is the Constitution an impediment to the Leftist agenda, to be subverted and “re-interpreted?” because changing the Constitution would to difficult, and thus impede the Leftwing agenda?
Does any of this matter to you, or is it all just some kind of foolish bull shit. What you want is what you want, and screw the rule of law and the Constitution.
50 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:45 pm
There is a long history of denying people human rights because they are a little different than most others.
Should we deny Down’s Syndrome people human rights because they have DNA that doesnt quite match most other humans?
All you are arguing about is that these humans dont pass the human hurdle for you so that their abuse can be justified. And that puts you in the company of a long list of villians through out history.
51 DFL // Sep 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm
escapevelocity, I very much agree with your attitude on post 49, especially the dehumanization concept. Much of the evil of history has been come about when people dehumanize other people. Witness the various holocausts of the 20th Century from what Nazi Germany perpetrated on the Jews to the abortion holocaust that exists to this very day.
52 sinz54 // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:32 pm
escapevelocity:
Yes.
But at one time, women also had few rights, not even the right to vote. Their place was in the home, to run the household and bear children, and that was it.
Right now, the country is split down the middle between those who see being pro-choice as preserving an essential right of choice for women vs. those who see being pro-life as preserving the right to life of what they consider to be an unborn person. We don’t know as yet which way the nation will end up.
It could turn out that that someday, preserving the right to life of an unborn person will be regarded as equivalent to freeing the slaves–just as good and just as important.
But it could also turn out that someday, preserving the right to choose abortion will be regarded as equivalent to women suffrage–just as good and just as important.
53 EscapeVelocity // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm
So now you are equating mass murder to women’s suffrage? A great expansion of liberty and equality.
While I certainly agree that people will justify human cruelty and see themselves as great humanitarians while doing so. Slavery is the a great example, those savage apes, were cared for and came to know the lord Jesus, under my benevolent care and guidance. That type of thing.
There is a movement that will not be stopped, the voiceless have a voice, and for all those whose cause has been our concern, the work goes on, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…
54 greg_barton // Sep 7, 2009 at 12:53 am
Sure it will. All dreams die.
You must log in to post a comment.