It has been awhile since I stepped into any controversial topics, so maybe it is time that I stir things up a bit. My thoughts for the day center around the topic of government involvement in our health care system. I am having some trouble understanding why so many people, especially conservatives, are inclined to think that this is such a bad idea. After all, we as a nation seem to have very little concern over the fact that our gov't is involved in other public domains of society. For instance, the gov't seems to do an okay job of running our national parks. We don't seem to be too worried about their role in our public schools or demand that they allow us to manage our own road systems. For some reason, many people in our nation seem to get all bent out of shape when it comes to mentioning that the government wants to intervene in our current system.
In case you haven't noticed, our current system is in shambles. Many people don't have access to health care and the ones who do are struggling more and more to afford it. Costs are climbing rapidly and drug companies have many consumers at their mercy. It is sad to walk into a convenience store or a local pharmacy and see the images of sick Americans on cans or jars, many of whom have a terminal illness, asking for a donation to help them pay their medical bills.
Many people say they don't want to see our government get involved in another aspect of our lives because they will misuse their power and take advantage of Americans. The last time I checked it was the lack of government controls, and checks and balances that allowed corporate greed to take root in our country. Without regulation, corporate America led us astray and many big companies scammed hardworking Americans and cleaned out their pockets in the process. Banks lent money in an irresponsible manner, CEO pay skyrocketed, and many traders and hedge fund managers deceived the investing public and ran away with their money. The part I find ironic is that many of the same people who don't want government involvement are the first ones who demand that Congress act when things are falling apart and companies need bailed out. Also, many individuals don't seem to have a problem accepting assistance from the government in the form of food stamps, housing assistance, or even disaster relief when a tornado or hurricane hits our nation. Nobody seems bothered that the government offers protection from creditors when an individual is overwhelmed by debt and decides to file for bankruptcy. I have had a chance to receive health care from a country that offers socialized coverage and I believe that we should explore this as an OPTION for America. I paid more for the parking than the actual care during one emergency visit this past summer in Finland. Taxes are higher in these countries to cover this care, but I am all for raising taxes. It is time that we start realizing that this attitude of having our cake and eating it too just isn't realistic any longer in this country. There is something wrong with a nation where people can lose everything they worked for just because they are sick or are involved in an accident. I do realize that much of my argument on this matter is based on personal experience. I currently pay 1,000 a month out of my own pocket for family health coverage and this doesn't cover anything like eye care, dental visits, etc... I pay this much because I am on a cobra based plan from my previous employer. I have been refused coverage from the large companies because I was involved in an accident about 20 months ago. I tore my achilles tendon playing church league basketball and then developed some life threatening blood clots, which led to a series of surgeries and follow-up care. I was cleared by my doctors to be free of the blood clots last April, but I can't get insurance because of the medical costs the insurance company had to pay during treatment from the accident. Even though I supposedly had really good insurance, I still had to pay close to 4,000 dollars out of my pocket during this time. I am not naive enough to think that a new system is the answer to all our problems when it comes to medical coverage. However, I do think it is time for some real change. In my opinion, the current system is broken and needs to be overhauled. If no changes are made, health care costs are sure to keep skyrocketing and drug companies will keep preying on those who are in need of treatment.
Lights out.
28 comments:
Great post, Eric. I agree 100% - but then I am a damned, dirty liberal, aren't I? lol!
Michael...
Your absolutely a dirty liberal!... damned... well... there might be hope yet! I hear TBC has open enrollment for the fall... and a big scholarship with your name on it!
I've only gotten to read about 3/4 of your post thus far (I'll finish it tomorrow)... agreed that the current system isn't working and that it needs some work.
My approach (as Michael and I discussed in September) is actually we need to put less responsibility on the Govt and Insurance companies combined. We need to put the responsibility in the hands of the people. That's the first way I would change programs like medicaid/medicare (both are public options).
When we moved out to Wyoming we had the option to go with the traditional plan or do an HSA account. I was fairly unfamiliar with these in December... but now I can say that it has been a GREAT deal for us, even with kids. I have been told that this is one of the first things to go with reform.... I hope not... we enjoy it, as do many of my colleagues.
Again... not saying that the current system isn't flawed... it does need some adjustments... but I wonder if some of the state and federal mandates aren't at least partially to blame?
Concerning education... I have a major problem with Federal involvement. It is not authority given to the federal government but STATES! There was an attempt early on in Reagan's presidency to remove the department of education... that would have been nice!
Anyways... I'm glad you threw out a controversial topic... just thought I could add a little more fuel to the fire!
Brandon,
Will you elaborate on your thoughts on education? I would think it good that the Federal government oversees the states' curriculum and mandates that certain things be taught. In fact, the fact that there is such wide discrepancy between students' test scores based on which state they happen to live in indicates that there are some states that just aren't getting it right and destroying their students' futures in the process. In addition if there are federal guidelines it keeps school boards in whacky districts from teaching whacky things in school. Now of course there are bad federal mandates (No Child Left Behind) that simply do not work and make things worse. But this is an issue of choosing the right people to develop these programs (which is an issue of electing the right people to appoint those right people, but that is another issue). I think the Federal government, as the representative of all states, is the best place to put control of our educational system. Individual states (and state lawmakers) can get away with failing their students for quite a while because the people get used to a certain way of doing things; they get used to voting for certain individuals or parties. This is why most of our country can be defined as either red states and blue states. On the Federal level that is much less likely; indeed, we are capable of making drastic changes when we do not think things are being handled well (think Hoover to Roosevelt or Carter to Reagan). Plus, look at where the issue of states' rights has led us in the past. Wasn't there some big to-do about that in the 19th century? (Now to be competely fair and honest I am not only picking on red states - which happen, generally speaking, to have the worst educational systems. I think California often goes too far with some of their laws and programs.)
Michael
Idk if you can get any more blue than the District of Columbia... and I believe they have worse schools than even Mississippi...
That's why I included the "generally speaking" clause, as in "I know there are exceptions but looking at the overall trend." But we really should find some numbers before we go on making any more assumptions. I'm going on what I've read in the past about the nation's school system; I could be wrong. If so, let me know!
Michael
Response coming... even a little fact and a whole bunch of links! I've got class tonight, but look for something tomorrow evening!
Brandon
Fact? Irrelevant!
I did a little bit of research the other day and compared the ALEC rankings to the red/blue states of the 2008 election, as well as the ALEC rankings of 2004 to the red/blue states of the 2004 election. In 2004 Red state total was 31 states, blue state total was 20 including D.C. The average educational ranking for a red state in 2004 was 28th, while the average ranking for a blue state was 22nd. Not a notable difference at all. Moving on to the 2008 year compared to the latest ALEC rankings (which was 2007). There were 22 Red states in 2008 and 29 Blue states including D.C. again. Oddly enough the Red states in 2008 averaged a rank of 29th while the Blue states averaged a rank of 23rd. Blue and red states kept a very consistent rank average despite the flip flop of positions from election cycle to election cycle. Granted the Blue states did average a better ranking (only by 6 slots both years.) They both kept a very even position in relation to a middle ground ranking. So for anyone to say "generally speaking" that red states educational systems are lower than blue states is a misplaced comment. Esp. since in 2004 half of the top 10 was made of Red states and 4 of 10 in 2008. While in 2004 3 of the bottom 11 were blue states and in 2008 6 of the 11 were blue. These statistics scream a considerable balance between red and blue states and at the very least just make the point that apparently politics do not make a much of a difference with quality of education, good or bad. One other thing I noted was the top 10 states also had some of the lowest Federal dollar involvement... with 90+% funding by state and local governments regardless of red/blue.
So I would definitely have to say that the less the federal government is involved the better, because the success and failure of a student hangs more in the hands of the community around them then some bum in Washington.
Mikey,
I appreciate the time you put into this but there are a few problems with your research.
1. You have used a biased source (ALEC).
2. Averaging the rankings of all red states and all blue states is misleading. The real numbers are much more informative (as in x number of red states in top 10, x number of blue, etc.)
3. Given that, I'd like to see the source study that determines where each state ranks. SAT scores alone are unreliable. What criteria has ALEC (or whoever they got the data from) used? Can you provide a link? Additionally, why have you listed the red/blue breakdown for the top 10 but the bottom 11? Was it to squeeze one more blue state in there?
4. Even the source and methods you used show that blue states outperform red states (so, "generally speaking").
5. Limiting the voting pattern to only the last 2 elections reduces the value of the comparisons. Obama won in an electoral landslide picking up many predominantly red states. That they swung for Obama does not make them blue states. An example from where I live: Arizona voted for Clintion in 1996. Would it be logical to therefore call Arizona a blue state from 1996 to 2000, then change it to a red state depending on how it suits one's agenda? "Oh," could say a pundit in 1997, "look at the horrible job those blue-staters like Arizona are doing preventing teen pregnancy! They have one of the highest rates in the country!" I am not saying you did this intentionally or otherwise, but I hope you see how these methods can be misleading. Now, the 6 2008 blue states in the bottom that you mentioned: I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have called these red states in 2004. They are not reliable blue states that have somehow slipped into this lamentable position in only four years. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Indeed, correct me on all points if you are able or willing. I love a healthy discussion. Let me just state now though that I never said red-staters are stupid or any such nonsense. I chose the phrase "generally speaking" intentionally and I don't think you are taking it as broadly as I meant it.
Oh, I did not address one of your points, regarding school funding. I know nothing of this and made no claims about it. I simply think that having Federal guidelines and oversight is in the best interest of our nation's educational system. But... the best-performing states probably receive the least amount of Federal funding because they can afford to sustain their systems through state tax dollars. So if the success of a student hangs on the community he'd better hope it's one progressive enough to not raise holy hell every time lawmakers suggest raising taxes a fraction of a percent to buy new textbooks.
Correction:
When I wrote "Now, the 6 2008 blue states in the bottom that you mentioned: I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have called these red states in 2004. They are not reliable blue states that have somehow slipped into this lamentable position in only four years" I meant the three states added since the 2004 numbers. One assumes that three of them are them same between the 2004 and 2008 numbers. Is this accurate?
Hey guys, I am enjoying the discussions on the education topic. It is interesting how it stemmed from the posting on healthcare. In that posting, I had alluded to the fact that people aren't all up in arms because the government is largely responsible for our school policy. I just observe that people have a choice to home school, utilize public schools, or send their child to a private school if they are displeased with the current condition of the public system. Likewise, I don't see the harm of giving people another option when it comes to healthcare. The private sector makes a mess of just as many things as the Federal govt. As I said before, the government is then expected by many Americans to just come in and bail people and businesses out when they go under. People want control of their own lives until something bad happens to them or they make stupid decisions that they don't want to accept responsibility for. That is just the mindset in this country right now, and I don't know if I see it changing. As I said before, people don't want the govt. involved in their business until they go bankrupt and need protection from creditors. You even see it in the sports world. The individual owners and high level executives in baseball just wanted to ignore and close their eyes to the steroid problems in baseball. Actually doing something about it might have a negative impact on the bottom line financially, so it is easier to pretend the problems don't exist. So what ends up happening. They get the govt. involved to start going after these big name players who everybody knows are taking steroids to improve their performance. It is like the individual who smokes their whole life and then decides that the tobacco companies are really the ones responsible for their lung cancer. This is how lawsuits are born and we are a world leader when it comes to litigation. Once again, I go back to individual choices. If I were to run for president, my platform would be "Personal Responsibility" A New Choice For America.
Ok… I lied… but I am responding!
First let me address “test” scores. Currently there is not a Nationalized mandatory test for ALL students. Therefore, is there validity to test scores and state to state comparisons?
With that said, there are tests that are administered Nationally, for example there is NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) which test’s (I didn’t even realize all of these areas) Arts, Civics, Econ, Geography, Math, Reading, Science, US History, Writing, and Bible (nah… not Bible… just threw that in there for Michael sake!) I believe that reading and math are two of the most important subjects… as do they. Anyways, I believe students are tested at 4, 8 and 11 (which I take objection to, but someone more intelligent than I said it was the best thing for us!) However even the NAEP is a sampling of students, not the school/s as a whole. So again I guess I question the validity of the test. I mean I am all for random sampling… I just doubt the randomness. In reality as a principal if I have to test 3% of 1000 students I’m looking at grades! So just to reiterate… there is not yet a national test for us to properly compare students! If you want, check out NAEP’s website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ Lot’s of data! At this point I’m really only capable of analyzing about 40% of it at best!
I do have a snapshot of Wyoming’s data in Math, grade 8 from 2009. As a State Wyoming score lower than 5 states (ND, SD, MT, MN, and MA… amazing the scores in the Midwest) and equivalent to 22 states… a bulk of which represent the corn belt and the other states in the Midwest up and a smattering of states into the North East. Scores were significantly higher than 22 states (mainly the southeast and southwest and a few in the northeast… dang… I guess the south just stinks!) To me the biggest difference is the rural scores in comparison to the towns and cities. Rural average is 284 compared to 279 and 276 in towns and cities respectively. That’s a big difference for people that are in “whacky districts” that teach “whacky things in school.”
Now mark my words… in three years there will be some type of Nationalized Standards and regardless of the ruling party in three years we will have some type of national standardized test. What a shame.
Ok let me address NCLB.
Background… NCLB just replaced the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act. It was revolutionary in design and intent, and so far fairly unsuccessful as National Education Policy… primarily due to funding (which can sometimes be the killer arrow in Conservative policy) and in certain expectations. However, did you know that NCLB was successful in its State form in Texas? The state funded it properly! Texas does do education fairly well, although I’m not saying great! What it did is help provide uniformity to the system there, which is mainly what were dealing with when we discuss differences in education between the States. So remember… as State policy it was very effective and as National Policy, ineffective! There is the decision by some States to reject NCLB (like Utah… which has now given in) however they received reduction in other funding, including highway and Title funds. To do so is a big risk for States.
Michael, I couldn’t agree more about the fact that policy starts with people electing the right people. I know the types of things I would like for my kids to learn henceforth that is why me and my community elect a school board officials, it’s why we elect State Education Superintendents, and it’s why we elect State Congressional Leaders that fund education. In every sect or social group there are items that are important. Some topics are more important than others. My local school board has more of a pulse on local education than the State of Wyoming and likewise the State of Wyoming has a better pulse on Local or Statewide Education than someone in D.C. ever can or will. Remember nearly 95% of school funding comes from the State. Actually in Wyoming it’s nearly 98%. That’s big beans a State is shelling out.
Not to give you a lesson in Civics but there are very distinct powers granted to the Federal Government. Here are the most important ones…
A. Coin money
B. Conduct foreign relations
C. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states
D. Provide an army and a navy
E. Declare war
F. Establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court
G. Establish post offices
H. Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the foregoing powers
Now the 10th Amendment, which is a part of the Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Education would then fall as a responsibility of the State not of the Federal Government. Therefore, I, along with many others feel that a National Department of Education that mandates or set’s policy is in fact unconstitutional. So regardless of them being the starting point for educational reform, they should in fact be unable to do anything unless we add another power to their role. If that were done then I think our debate would be a little different!
Am I in disagreement that there should be a group that helps to ensure a quality Education to students. However that group can sway influence in other manners, like the manner in which a State funds its education. Michael lives in a State that’s in turmoil over education for a variety of reasons and needs. I believe that you could make the argument that Education isn’t high enough on the list of priorities of many states, which is a result of lowered educational standards in certain States. Remember, American education is education for the masses not education for the select like many other Countries (including many Asian countries, which is partially the reason that comparing scores is difficult to many of them).
I completely disagree that State’s can get away due to people. In reality people can make changes its State law’s that prohibit real change. For example, Colorado Education just won a big battle. They now have the right to file suit against the State Legislation, now CO has the opportunity to force their legislative body into properly funding education. Wyoming went this route in the 90’s and now ranks fairly high in State funding (around 5 or 6). On top of that, Wyoming per pupil expenditures don’t include transportation and Special Education as many of the other States do. Check this out comparing us to other countries. Ultimately funding is the issue, not Federal mandates on what needs to be taught.
Ultimately I judge Education success currently on the percentage of students that are prepared for and then enter post secondary education. In a RED State like North Dakota the number hovered between 85-90%. Ouch… not sure if you’ll find a “blue” state with that kind of success!
I completely agree with Michael’s thought’s on Cali. The country is done with them! Really when you think of new and creative education it’s done because what was done didn’t work for you! California has been through more transformations than King Henry VIII had wives. Guess what… none of it has worked!
I guess for me you have to look past Red and Blue and focus on the picture of funding. I’m all for Federal take over of education IF laws change and they properly fund education. Although we won’t see many “great” changes if that happens.
I’ve made clear through this, and Mikey also said, the community can have the BIGGEST impact on the education of the child. For certain communities some things are important and other’s are not. It is as important to respect that as it is to respect issues of race! Parent’s are a defining factor in helping shape a child’s future by how they raise the child at home and who they put into office that best reflects their own morals and ideas!
Just read all of Slivo’s response. You are correct in that the law’s of the land do provide certain freedoms (although State law’s do impact education in terms of home school, charter, private!!!!) Again, I believe in reform of our current system and getting tougher on drug companies, insurance companies, and expanding the types of policies that can be offered!
I like the platform… I’d vote for you! However I don’t know that all people believe it is the government’s job to bail out the private sector. As I said last night on the phone, I wonder the extent of the Government’s involvement that led to the failures! Although people do still have a choice!
One final think MKR… and this is substantiated by a GREAT deal of research and is ALWAYS true… Born Again Christian folk should NOW and ALWAYS be put in charge of education because of their unbiased open mindedness! Man just think… we could have two hours a day were we could talk about creation!
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html
that is for the link "this" in the blog. Thanks!
Brandon,
Great post (or rather, series of posts). I withdraw my comment that blue states out-perform red states regarding education: you have convinced me and did so clearly. Granted, it was an off-hand remark initially and I could still argue that it is technically true (if you take into account Mikey's percentages, which support it - but again, I'm not sure of his source, so...), but I'll leave it at that.
Now, regarding the powers of the state vs. the Federal government... I am a little wary of arguments that we should interpret the Constitution literally as the Founders intended. They were smart. They knew that everything they came up with was subject to change if it turns out things didn't work. Hence, Amendments.
Some interesting amendments that changed the intent of the Founders: XIII, XV, XIX, XXII.
When you write "I completely disagree that State’s can get away due to people" you seem to be forgetting Brown v. Board of Education. I realize it was a different time but people are people, something like it could happen again. If I were living in a state where I found myself denied the right to an education equal to the education another group was receiving, I'd want the Federal government to step in.
A question: do you think it was the Federal government's business to get involved in desegration of schools in the South? Did Brown violate Kansas' Tenth Amendment rights? Was the Supreme Court's ruling unconstitutional, strictly speaking?
Another question: Say a school board decides to teach that the god Atum arose from the primordial waters and spat (there's another verison of the myth, which I'll leave you to discover) the world into existence. Should the courts rule this a violation of the separation of church and state as they did with the Kansas issue in 1999? Suppose a school board decided to make the teaching of the theory of gravity optional. Would that be legally acceptable? Should the Federal government mandate that the theory of gravity be taught in American schools?
Discuss.
Again, sorry for my delay! Let’s get down to it…
There are technically two definitions to the word amendment…
One is a CHANGE… the other would be ADDITION.
In reality the US Constitution did not address the issue of Slavery… and so we brought out the 13th Amendment to address, or add to, the Constitution! We don’t actually physically go back and rewrite the seven articles of our Constitutions, we add additional amendments that protect individuals under our Constitution.
Also… I do believe for the sake of our Nation we do need to take the document fairly literally… as it was intended. Think about it, everything about our Nation was founded on that document. We don’t rewrite it every fifty years or so, it defines and lays out who we are. Every manner in which our Government was formed is laid out in the document. We even created a litmus test in the Supreme Court to compare our laws and actions to the document. I’m not saying there aren’t shades of gray. Perhaps that’s the beauty of the document in that it doesn’t attempt to define all aspects of our life.
Brown v. was actually preceded by a similar case in Delaware in which the State Supreme Court came to the same ruling (I believe that this was Sweatt v. Painter but I may be incorrect). This, as in so many cases, set up the ground work for Brown v. Topeka although we often tend to overlook the fact. Not to say that other State Supreme Courts did not reach the same conclusion as Kansas, however you have to remember that the argument was against equality between schools. Evidence was needed to show that they were indeed not equal. Equality of schools was the issue. Brown did so overwhelmingly and in fact is a definite “nod of the cap” to our Constitution and the way our government was set up!
The Supreme Court in my humble opinion is a part of the Federal Government however it doesn’t create law (or at least that’s not the intent) so it is significantly different than that of Legislative branch of our Government creating policy on something reserved for the States!
You asked: “A question: do you think it was the Federal government's business to get involved in desegration of schools in the South? Did Brown violate Kansas' Tenth Amendment rights? Was the Supreme Court's ruling unconstitutional, strictly speaking?” I want to be as direct as possible here… Again the although the Supreme Court is a part of the Federal Government it is indeed not a branch that writes laws, but merely a branch that upholds the Constitution. Ultimately the Constitution, in this specific case, did not violate the 10th Amendment due to it’s nature. To me it’s almost comparing apples and oranges! The rest of the constitution protects items of equal rights and thirteen clarifies that ALL are free.
You will find in other cases of School Law were the Supreme Court expressly states that education is a function of the State and has declined decision. I do feel that if several educational issues where to go to the Supreme Court then the Fed’s would get a few slaps on the back of the hand!
“Another question: Say a school board decides to teach that the god Atum arose from the primordial waters and spat (there's another verison of the myth, which I'll leave you to discover) the world into existence. Should the courts rule this a violation of the separation of church and state as they did with the Kansas issue in 1999?” I believe your referring to this: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Kansas+Science+Policy+Came+From+Religious+Group,+Critics+Charge-a059585406 here’s another interesting article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_199910/ai_n8857966/
I’m completely fine with laws of Separation they need to be equal across the board, and sometimes we get a little carried away on all sides of the aisle but ultimately the intent wasn’t a terrible thing! I don’t want my kid to have to hear constant prayers to Allah but likewise a Muslim shouldn’t have to hear prayers to Jesus either. So I guess we’re better off if we leave it off the agenda as a people group… have a little personal responsibility and just respect one another! But to answer your question, yes violation on Atum (isn’t this a part of Greek mythology?). However, I am unaware of the Courts involvement and I couldn’t find any references that it went to the Kansas Supreme Court get me the case name… sounds like an interesting read!
“Suppose a school board decided to make the teaching of the theory of gravity optional. Would that be legally acceptable? Should the Federal government mandate that the theory of gravity be taught in American schools?”
School Boards do not make “optional” curriculum. Typically Curriculum is derived from State Standards. Honestly we’re way, way passed a school board having a great deal of influence over curriculum! Typically they rubberstamp a text or whatever curriculum was up for renewal that year. So basically you align your curriculum with the Standards of the State you reside in. I think this notion that school boards set curriculum is almost preposterous. I don’t want to set policy on how to perform open heart surgery… why would I want a body of non-educators to get into the nitty gritty of curriculum? Now they’re well informed on the direction, and ultimately have the ability grant approval, however I don’t think there are many School Board members that actually serve on the curriculum committee! Again, there’s not really a point to as the curriculum should always be designed to match the state’s standards!
Back to you!
Ok, my comments. Your comments in quotation marks.
"In reality the US Constitution did not address the issue of Slavery… "
Sure it did. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Therefore, slavery was tacitly approved of in the constitution, or at least tolerated.
"Also… I do believe for the sake of our Nation we do need to take the document fairly literally… as it was intended. Think about it, everything about our Nation was founded on that document. We don’t rewrite it every fifty years or so, it defines and lays out who we are. Every manner in which our Government was formed is laid out in the document."
I agree. There are definitely the big issues that we can all agree on: freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, etc. But to say that the Fed has no business in the educational system, case closed, is a little short-sighted. My point stands: we, as a people, have decided to amend the constitution for the greater good in the past, thus acknowledging that the founders didn't get everything right. Personally, I believe that education is too important to leave to the whims of individual states. We can agree to disagree on this, I still love you. lol!
All the stuff in the middle about organization of the gov't, etc, no argument here.
"I want to be as direct as possible here… Again the although the Supreme Court is a part of the Federal Government it is indeed not a branch that writes laws, but merely a branch that upholds the Constitution. Ultimately the Constitution, in this specific case, did not violate the 10th Amendment due to it’s nature. To me it’s almost comparing apples and oranges! The rest of the constitution protects items of equal rights and thirteen clarifies that ALL are free."
I agree. I was putting that out there as a Devil's Advocate argument.
Regarding the Kansas thing: From what I read, [http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/]
The school board removed the teaching of evolution from its curriculum. So when I said that made it "optional" I meant that it was left up to specific districts whether they wanted to teach it or not. I didn't mean to raise your dander over it. lol! My point with the question about gravity was this: if a school board could eliminate evolution from the curriculum, why couldn't anti-gravity advocates get elected to a school board and eliminate the teaching of that? Or what if a cadre of flat-earthers got onto a school board? Obviously these are comically exagerrated examples but I think you see my point.
Great discussion! I look forward to your response.
Michael
For some reason my link got cut off. Here it is:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/
Michael,
I disagree with the notion that the Constitution specifically allowed slavery! In reality I wonder if the vagueness on the issue didn't actually open the door for Amendment XIII? 1.2.3 Actually helped determine representation. Slaves were at least counted! How unfortunate overall though. To bad the framers didn't take a stand at that point in our history. At the same time however, what do you think would have happened to our country at that stage if some of the founders would have abolished slavery at that point?
You'd have to think that those in the south (and maybe a few northern States would have pulled out sooner and not ratified the Constitution.
Regarding Kansas... this article is somewhat deceiving! the State Board of Education didn't strike down evolution and then mandate creationism! Nothing in their decision actually promotes that Creationism be taught! What Kansas did is remove the State requirements on certain facets of the curriculum. Honestly, I think that if you went into the Classroom you'll find some of the same thing's taught pre-decision. This is also the same reason why you probably won't find this in the court system because they DID NOT mandate creationism! You will find that if a Kansas school were to teach Genesis 1 that they would quickly find their way to court! Again it's deceiving simply because all they did was was remove the mandates on evolution that where in their standards!
You told me when you were up here that evolution was a theory. A theory that indeed has fact that supports it's validity to some degree! All the same I actually think taking away the mandate wasn't a terrible act!
Look up the State Standards for Kansas! You'll see that State's put some fairly strict requirements on schools... and we don't need the Feds to butt in!!!!!
All State's operate in this manner as you'll remember from my previous post! Not to say that some State's don't need to beef up their standards!
Either way don't you agree that Creationism should be the rightful curriculum in ALL schools?!
This has been fun!
Brandon,
I think you need to re-read the article. It makes clear that this did not mandate creationism, just that it removed the teaching of evolution as a requirement. Doesn't seem deceiving at all!
You wrote: "You told me when you were up here that evolution was a theory. A theory that indeed has fact that supports it's validity to some degree! All the same I actually think taking away the mandate wasn't a terrible act!"
I think you should understand the idea behind scientific theories. This should help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Quoting from that article: "Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Now, regarding your comment that evolution has facts that support it to some degree... I challenge you to find facts that contradict it. Also, the point I was trying to get across (imperfectly) when I visited is very nicely made here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Remember the dinosaur fossil we saw? There's a reason creatures like that don't exist anymore: they have changed. There are a handful of animals that have survived unchanged for millions of years: crocodiles, coelacanths. But, almost all of the thousands of species that have been dug up from those other geological eras no longer exist. So why are all those creatures now extinct? Well, there were meteor strikes and other mass-extinction events but obviously life persisted. How? By evolving. By adapting to changing climates, dryer or wetter environments.
Now, I'm going to pre-empt any argument that they weren't taken on the Ark and were obliterated by the flood: First, I want you to go outside and shoot one of those pronghorns that wander around. Next, put it in the ocean for 40 days and nights (not to mention all the time it took for the waters to recede). Third, go and try to find the carcass intact.
I say all this because fossils are found more or less intact, buried in stone. For this to happen, a body must be covered by sediment soon after death to prevent it from being scattered by animals and the elements. I mean, people find nearly complete skeletons! This would not happen to a body floating around in the water (with fish and sharks and everything else feeding on it). So, unless you find fault with this argument, the flood theory for dinosaur extinction is out.
Plus, there would still be aquatic dinosaurs if species truly remained unchanged from the creation. Anyway, I know this is a bit disjointed but hopefully you can follow along. Funny how we've gone from health care to education to evolution. Sorry, Eric! lol!
HAHA! I love this!
Ok give me some time to ride your "million" links! Nah, funny I was talking to slivo a few days ago about our discussion about fossils! I feel very illiterate in this area (and all areas of our thinking world!) but I am excited about a little digging! Send me more links (seriously!) But be warned that it will take me some time!
Completely off topic... what's your take on Davinci Code? I loved the movie yet have been to lazy to buy the book! A coworker borrowed me a few books from the "Christian" perspective which I am engulfed in one currently... no need to respond on here if you want to keep that as a side bar topic!
Man I wish I would have taken a course or two in Anthropology... however there is a good chance I wouldn't have made it through week 2!
Guys I know yall have dearly missed out on my comments, I will jump back in as soon as some things calm down for me this week. Keep up the good posts, I'm enjoying reading them.
Come on Moss... you should jump all over States Rights!
ha You know I am a big states rights person, and I am all for Creation being an option in the public schools. The only thing is I do not have very much time to sit and give a respectable argument at the present. So I will listen for a bit.
Mikey,
Glad to see you back. I thought I had ticked you off or something!
Brandon,
I read The Da Vinci code and found it to be very enjoyable, light reading. The movie is good, too (I'll see anything with Tom Hanks). But it is fiction. Sure, there is no proof either way that Jesus did or didn't have children but to believe Dan Brown or the Holy Blood, Holy Grail crowd on the subject... that's kind of a stretch. lol!
Regarding the evolution discussion: I'll look for some links that seem acceptable to send to you. The rest of that http://www.talkorigins.org page is worth reading. Click on the "Browse the Archive" link on the left.
Post a Comment