40 replies to this topic

[ghdi]

If it's inconsequential (and it is), then why should it be in schools for even 10 minutes? It deserves nothing. My son definitely knows about it now.

Kwanzaa is usually mentioned (if at all) in a curriculum when discussing holidays in general with children. Not everyone in this country celebrate Christmas. What is the problem with explaining to a child that other people may celebrate something else? Do you feel threatened by it? I see absolutely nothing wrong with a child being taught that there are differences in holidays, not only in this country, but around the world as well. Your stance seems to say that you'd rather children (or anyone) be ignorant of things than at least know wtf it is.

[DevsMan84]

Pepperkorn, a couple of years ago, I discovered that I knew very little about the Constitution. Whatever I learned in high school didn't stick, and it was not a topic covered in any college courses I took.

As a person who was getting ready to give a kiss goodbye to a lifetime of liberal ideology (much to the chagrin of parents and close friends!), I turned to conservative radio host Mark Levin to educate me about the Bill of Rights. As you might know, he is an originalist, a person who believes in interpreting the Constitution according to the intent of those who drafted it. For me, it's the way to go, not the "living, breathing document" philosophy that modern liberals have used to make a mockery of the document that is the bedrock of the USA.

I too wish I could be a bit of an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, but that is impossible and even the Founding Fathers knew that. In the actual Constitution body itself and not just the Amendments section, there is the "Elastic Clause." Basically it gives the laws written in the Consitution flexibility given the time-period. The Founding Fathers knew that laws created in 1789 may not apply or mean the same thing in 1889, so they threw that in there saying the Consitution should be subject to change given the time.

While I am no liberal by any means, they do have a point where the document is in a way a leaving breathing document.

Edited by DevsMan84, 14 March 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[DevsMan84]

Kwanzaa is usually mentioned (if at all) in a curriculum when discussing holidays in general with children. Not everyone in this country celebrate Christmas. What is the problem with explaining to a child that other people may celebrate something else? Do you feel threatened by it? I see absolutely nothing wrong with a child being taught that there are differences in holidays, not only in this country, but around the world as well. Your stance seems to say that you'd rather children (or anyone) be ignorant of things than at least know wtf it is.

I do remember back in elementary school having to learn Kwanzaa quite a bit and even include it in all the decorations in the classroom. We also read the lyrics of a song about it but never actually sang it.

They also failed to mention the dubious past of the person who created it as well that it is really a recent invention. The teachers made it seem like it was an old traditional African holiday that all African Americans celebrated.

[Jerrydevil]

I too wish I could be a bit of an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, but that is impossible and even the Founding Fathers knew that. In the actual Constitution body itself and not just the Amendments section, there is the "Elastic Clause." Basically it gives the laws written in the Consitution flexibility given the time-period. The Founding Fathers knew that laws created in 1789 may not apply or mean the same thing in 1889, so they threw that in there saying the Consitution should be subject to change given the time.

While I am no liberal by any means, they do have a point where the document is in a way a leaving breathing document.

Let me be more specific. Liberals have interpreted the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) as a green light to pile on more "rights" that aren't really rights, just big government and radical wealth redistribution with a big liberal bow tied around them. The founders believed in a limited federal government, it's undeniable. And they wouldn't like what they see today.

Edited by Jerrydevil, 14 March 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Jerrydevil]

The teachers made it seem like it was an old traditional African holiday that all African Americans celebrated.

That's because the teachers probably don't even know the truth!

[DevsMan84]

Let me be more specific. Liberals have interpreted the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) as a green light to pile on more "rights" that aren't really rights, just big government and radical wealth redistribution with a big liberal bow tied around them. The founders believed in a limited federal government, it's undeniable. And they wouldn't like what they see today.

That's not exactly true. The two main political parties at the time were the Federalists (who wanted a powerful, centralized government) and the Democratic-Republicans (who believed in states rights and more home rule). It is not accurate to say all the Founding fathers wanted a limited federal government when at the time that was the big question. Remember, people like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington (though not really a card-carrying member) were Federalists.

[Jerrydevil]

That's not exactly true. The two main political parties at the time were the Federalists (who wanted a powerful, centralized government) and the Democratic-Republicans (who believed in states rights and more home rule). It is not accurate to say all the Founding fathers wanted a limited federal government when at the time that was the big question. Remember, people like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington (though not really a card-carrying member) were Federalists.

This is, of course, true. But as economist Milton Friedman (not a founder! LOL) said, "There is a very important role for government to play, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. And government has been growing beyond bounds."

In other words, I think Federalists would be shocked at the role our federal government plays in citizens' lives today. They may have believed in a stronger central government as compared with the individual states, but I don't believe they would nod their heads in agreement with the welfare state, and the nation's enormous debt, that has been created.

[DevsMan84]

This is, of course, true. But as economist Milton Friedman (not a founder! LOL) said, "There is a very important role for government to play, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. And government has been growing beyond bounds."

In other words, I think Federalists would be shocked at the role our federal government plays in citizens' lives today. They may have believed in a stronger central government as compared with the individual states, but I don't believe they would nod their heads in agreement with the welfare state, and the nation's enormous debt, that has been created.

True, the Founding Fathers might be shocked as to how much the Federal government has grown. Since 1789, the Federal government stayed fairly steady in terms of size until FDR and the New Deal. The Federal Government that FDR put into place is a weird one indeed and we still use it today. Not quite a pure capitalistic and republic but not quite socialist, kinda in between.

[Pepperkorn]

See I really believe that we know so LITTLE about the Constitution and The Bill of Rights that we can't even classify ourselves as originalist or not. I dont think anyone KNOWS what an originalist IS.

My point is We CANNOT have debate about interpretation in this thread. We need to discuss the NEED TO LEARN the charters upon which this government was founded.

I'm not saying we all need to be scholars of our charters - we just need to have knowledge - REAL knowledge of what they say. SOMETHING real upon which we can then bicker about interpretation. I honestly feel all debate in society at large is based upon not the actual documents but rather upon what some lawyer, scholar, jackass politician windbag and/blogger have TOLD us. We are arguing the interpretations of others without know in fact what the documents say to US.

I don't even attempt to discuss this stuff because I know about as much as DM84. It's more than a lot of people out there admittedly but it's not enough to actually have productive honest discourse.

I started out writing Jefferson was for States Rights and limited Federal Government -- AND he was for trashing the Constitution every 20 years. But I'm not certain of that. it's just whispers and echos of lessons skimmed long ago in an elementary school class and then a Jr High class.

An originalist is nonsense. It's a word coined by one of the aforementioned windbags we base our opinions on NOT SOMEONE WHO'S OPINION WE SHARE BASED ON THE SAME SHARED KNOWLEDGE. THAT is what annoys me about political discussions today. The Tea Baggers are full of so much bluster. You CANNOT support them until you know The Constitution and the Bill of RIghts yourself through and through. Until you understand what they are really talking about -- what they are REALLY advocating.

The Tea Party makes it very clear to me how desperately we need to educate our citizens about our Charters. Not because I think they're schmucks, but because people who have never set eyes on the Bill of Rights are ... I dont have time to be more eloquent -- they're talking out of their uneducated ass! 1+1 = 2 The Constitution says specific WORDS. SAY the WORDS FIRST then tell me how you interpret that. Sarah Palin gets her ass in trouble so often because she DOESN'T KNOW THE WORDS! She is CLEARLY spouting interpretation. I'm not invalidating her belief -- I am saying she has to know what it's based upon or LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION OUT OF IT! Just say that's what you believe, don't misquote the Constitution if you don't know what you're talking about.

I say better yet LEARN what you are talking about. It can only make you a better person.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 15 March 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Jerrydevil]

Tea Baggers, huh? Just more obfuscation from you, Pepperkorn. You want your supposedly erudite discussion and your name calling, too.

I say the Tea Party is the group making the most sense in America. You say they talk out of their ass. OK, let's duke it out.

We're right and you're wrong.

[Pepperkorn]

Tea Baggers, huh? Just more obfuscation from you, Pepperkorn. You want your supposedly erudite discussion and your name calling, too.

I say the Tea Party is the group making the most sense in America. You say they talk out of their ass. OK, let's duke it out.

We're right and you're wrong.

Now THERE he is!!



I hadn't realized I wrote Tea Baggers. My sister calls them that. She's our staunchest Republican too, you should know. And to be clear - Your latching on to the title (I'll even grant you: misnomer) is the obfuscation.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 15 March 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[Jerrydevil]

Now THERE he is!!



I hadn't realized I wrote Tea Baggers. My sister calls them that. She's our staunchest Republican too, you should know. And to be clear - Your latching on to the title (I'll even grant you: misnomer) is the obfuscation.

Set me on fire, I'm the Strawman.

OK, why don't we start with the preamble. Here's what it says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Some of my liberal friends like the word "welfare" in there. They consider it a license for food stamps, forced Social Security participation and government-run healthcare.


So what does "welfare" mean? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure the founders weren't talking about unsustainable wealth distribution and socialist programs.

Is this the kind of thing you want to talk about? If it's not, why don't you give an example and get the ball rolling in the thread you started?

Edited by Jerrydevil, 15 March 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[squishyx]

Let me be more specific. Liberals have interpreted the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) as a green light to pile on more "rights" that aren't really rights, just big government and radical wealth redistribution with a big liberal bow tied around them. The founders believed in a limited federal government, it's undeniable. And they wouldn't like what they see today.

The founding fathers were terrified of anoppressive government, and that's why the constitution was written to restrict their power. The founders arguably couldn't careless if we were a socialist or capitalist state, so long as we had the power to chose for ourselves. The fact that not only are we still standing 200+ years later, the worlds biggest economy, and a free democratic country would be enough for them to consider us a resounding success.

They knew the constitution wasn't perfect, that's why they enabled us to make changes to it, that's why they enabled a supreme court to interpret the ruling years after they were gone. I wish we could stop pretending like the DOI and Constitution are the end all be all documents of how we would run our society. Great framework? yes, 100% infallible and complete? no.

[Jerrydevil]

Squishy, I think the USA has strayed too far from the Constitution, and that we are less free compared with past generations in the U.S., but more free compared with other countries presently. We are still standing, but reeling badly. I fear an economic disaster much worse than the morass we're in now. Am I nuts? wait, don't answer that.


I consider the Constitution to be more of a bedrock than a framework.

[DevsMan84]

Squishy, I think the USA has strayed too far from the Constitution, and that we are less free compared with past generations in the U.S., but more free compared with other countries presently. We are still standing, but reeling badly. I fear an economic disaster much worse than the morass we're in now. Am I nuts? wait, don't answer that.


I consider the Constitution to be more of a bedrock than a framework.

Thing is though the attitudes of the citizens have changed over the years. The idea of rugged individualism ceased to exist long ago. I do personally wish we could go back to more of that, but I know we cannot totally go back to that, it just won't work.

The Constitution was meant to be changed and interpreted thusly given the times. The interpretation part does fall on the Judicial Branch, but their interpretation can change due to the times, the individual beliefs of the judges, and other forces. To think that the Constitution is a static piece of paper, framwork, or idea is just unrealistic.

[Jerrydevil]

I do personally wish we could go back to more of that, but I know we cannot totally go back to that, it just won't work.

I choose not to accept that. I know you can't totally wipe out government dependence. But with good leadership and a good message, you can get the needle moving in the direction toward less government (not no government) and more individualism. It's a huge challenge ... we've got a liberal cabal called teachers' unions to crack in the public school system, plus a mainstream media in major markets that is in the bag for liberals. It's a challenge, but what choice do conservatives have but to fight for what they believe and try to win over people's hearts and minds?

Edited by Jerrydevil, 15 March 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Pepperkorn]

Set me on fire, I'm the Strawman.

OK, why don't we start with the preamble. Here's what it says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Some of my liberal friends like the word "welfare" in there. They consider it a license for food stamps, forced Social Security participation and government-run healthcare.


So what does "welfare" mean? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure the founders weren't talking about unsustainable wealth distribution and socialist programs.

Is this the kind of thing you want to talk about? If it's not, why don't you give an example and get the ball rolling in the thread you started?

My point wasn't to debate various interpretations of The Constitution or Bill of Rights... it was to discuss our need to improve education. Or if people don't think it's really necessary.

It's one thing for us to google the documents and then debate their articles for entertainment purposes - it's another to have it as a significant part of our mandatory curriculum so we can form our own views and agree with bloggers rather than be educated by their biased interpretation - often based upon someone else's interpretation based on someone else's misquoted version of an article etc and so forth.

I'm not saying all voters need to pass a US citizen test akin to a naturalization test in order to earn the right to vote like a drivers test. I am saying our education system should emphasize US Government as much as they do Math and English. It should be more of a priority.


http://www.archives....s/charters.html

[Jerrydevil]

I am saying our education system should emphasize US Government as much as they do Math and English. It should be more of a priority.


http://www.archives....s/charters.html

Agree!

[Pepperkorn]

[DevsMan84]

I choose not to accept that. I know you can't totally wipe out government dependence. But with good leadership and a good message, you can get the needle moving in the direction toward less government (not no government) and more individualism. It's a huge challenge ... we've got a liberal cabal called teachers' unions to crack in the public school system, plus a mainstream media in major markets that is in the bag for liberals. It's a challenge, but what choice do conservatives have but to fight for what they believe and try to win over people's hearts and minds?

I do agree with you we should be less dependent.

Good luck on the mainstream media portion but there is a chance with the teacher's unions because they are funded with property taxes. I feel the quality of education a community has is based on the community, and not how much you pay the teachers and their administration. Therefore I do not think cuts to education spending will overall barely register in terms of student performance, but the teacher's union will always say otherwise as they want more money in the pockets of teachers to help pay their dues. I do still find it odd that if you opt out of the teachers union, you are still required to pay 80% of the cost of dues anyways (at least in the state of NJ). Many times laws have been introduced in the legislature but we all know what happens then.

I have to admit, I do get pretty bummed when I see my property tax statements and 2/3 of it goes to schools I do not even use (since I do not have children nor plan on ever having any).