Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Uncle Sam's dangerous drug
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, December 15, 2001 | Ambassador Alan Keyes

Posted on 12/15/2001 2:58:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: tpaine
I didn't say I don't know if you are naiive for expecting character. I think you should expect character. What I question is the means by which you are judging it.
41 posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:37 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Huck
And those 'means' are?
42 posted on 12/15/2001 10:54:52 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The % of the population that sees the Federal government as an alien indoctrinator of children is probably less than 2%. The other 98% voted for more Federal involvement in the education system.

Patently untrue.

Am overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose federal involvement in educating our children. (The proof? The Republican Platform; adopted by the democratic processes of the Party.)

The passage of this legislation is a monumental sellout of the grassroots of the GOP, by elected Republican 'leaders' who are more afraid of the NEA than they are of Republican rank-and-filers.

Time will tell if their cynicism is warranted.

Unfortunately, if their political gamesmanship fails, which it almost surely will, they will then blame their critics for the failure, as usual.

43 posted on 12/15/2001 10:59:32 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: M1991
I was being sarcastic.
44 posted on 12/15/2001 11:00:41 AM PST by Keyes For President
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I am tied up in working sessions for the Declaration Foundation today, so I can't give you a satisfactory answer about Keyes' credentials in education. It is not his specialty, as it is for Chester Finn, for instance, but he does have experience and knows what he speaks of.

More later.

Best to you,

Richard F.

45 posted on 12/15/2001 11:57:28 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Huck
No. Have you? What difference does that make? Every time one of these federal programs begins, and the naysayers start pointing out inevitable progressions down the slippery slope, the proponents of the legislation poo-poo them as paranoid.

I don't need to read the legislation. I know what happens when federal bureaucrats are given authority and money by Congress to regulate,because the same thing happens every time. I cannot even think of a single federal program which hasn't expanded, become more intrusive, costly and meddlesome and has led to a deterioration of the service and choices available to people except those few times when the feds deregulated industries, such as the airline industry, but they are even trying to reregulate that.

When Medicare was implemented, critics said that the federal government would insinuate itself in the physician patient relationship and start dictating care. They were disparaged and ridiculed. Guess what happened. Medicare is 100,000 pages plus of dictating care and intimately regulating the physician patient relationship.

I will tell you exactly how they will fudge data. Some, if not all of the coming standardized "performance" tests will contain high proportions of true false questions. So in these sections, 50% correct answers may sound good, but that's exactly what random chance would give you. They will give extra points for "disadvantaged" children because of race, sex, family status, etc. such that standardized performance tests will be outcome based performance tests.

And home schoolers...just wait, the feds will be back for you in a couple of years.

46 posted on 12/15/2001 12:04:23 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Patently untrue. Am overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose federal involvement in educating our children. (The proof? The Republican Platform; adopted by the democratic processes of the Party.)

The 2000 GOP Platform does not call for no federal involvement. It calls for federal grants with strings attached ("shrinking a multitude of federal programs into five flexible grants in exchange for real, measured progress in student achievement"), which is part of the recently passed bill, it calls for increased parental choice of school using federal dollars ("Assist states in closing the achievement gap and empower needy families to escape persistently failing schools by allowing federal dollars to follow their children to the school of their choice.), which is provided for in the bill, though it does not yet apply to priivate schools, and school safety, which is provided for in the bill.

The platform also says "We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference. ", which is provided for in the bill (I cited that portion in an earlier post.

47 posted on 12/15/2001 12:20:23 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It also says:

We recognize that under the American constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.

By the way, if that page you sent me to was the final text of the GOP platform, and not something directly from the Bush campaign, I stand corrected...the plank in its final form was highjacked by the NEA lovers in control of the process.

Doesn't change the truth of my contention that the vast majority of Republicans agree with the above statement in its entirety...i.e. no federal involvement.

48 posted on 12/15/2001 12:40:06 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Jesse
I got the stuff from the RNC website, I think that's the real thing. Not a federal obligation is not the same thing as no federal involvement. Up to now, isn't it true, folks want the money but no accountability? They will still get the money, but there will (supposedly) be accountability. I see that as a positive move, even if it doesn't get the feds out of it altogether. What ought to be reported is what the specifics will be. Jesse posted some legitimate concerns about the validity of the testing which will measure the results. We deserve details on that. Where is the press on this? But then again, are people calling and asking for the info? I doubt it.
49 posted on 12/15/2001 12:45:15 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I would like to hear the opinions of people who actually work in the field, especially those whose political self-interest is not served by taking one position or the other. It would make the information more reliable to a layman like me.

I've been a teacher for 28 years, an accreditation officer, a member of the Board of the California Association of Scholars, and Higher Education reporter for the California Political Review. For full disclosure, I should add that I am a personal and professional friend of Dr. Keyes.

I can tell you that what he writes is well grounded; extra funding, whether state or federal, correlates poorly to student achievement, and federal funds have always been connected to pressure, whether explicit or implicit, to conform to federal wishes. The "School-to-Work" program is a major case in point.

On your question of whether Keyes has expertise, I can tell you this: he was made interim President of a public university in Alabama for a year, to clean up fiscal and other scandals, and all reports are that he did a good job. He has a Ph.D in American Government from Harvard, and is a voracious reader. Dr. Keyes also did extensive research on the education of Southern Blacks in the post-bellum period for his book, Masters of the Dream.

During the 2000 primary campaign, I kept him up to date on research and press reports on American Education as a voluntary contribution from me to the Keyes 2000 electoral effort. I have also had numerous private talks with him on the issue. He is well informed.

I hope that is responsive ...

Cheers, and for Lincoln and Liberty!

Richard F.

50 posted on 12/15/2001 2:05:12 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan; HeavyD; MarkWar; OWK; TKEman
Did I ever tell you that I expect Lib'ralism to be banned--internationally--by '07?! But MaryHoochie will be De-Criminalized by '05!!

So Sayeth the PrescientOne...MUD

51 posted on 12/15/2001 2:19:03 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck
In that regard, we have two separate debates. One short term debate is how do we make the current system better. Dr. Keyes chooses to opt out of that discussion, arguing pessimistically that improvement is impossible.

I think this a bit unfair to Dr. Keyes. He has spoken and written much on this issue, and you are responding to just one column.

Here is a link to an old piece of Keyes on the issue.

Keyes on Education

Cheers

Richard F.

52 posted on 12/15/2001 2:25:09 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Not a federal obligation is not the same thing as no federal involvement.

Well, I disagree. BTW, I doubt that 10% of the people who voted for this legislation read the bill in its entirety.

53 posted on 12/15/2001 2:28:23 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

To: D Joyce
I will be glad to stand for the "Education expert." I do have credentials and experience, and I have advised Keyes on the issue for years.
55 posted on 12/15/2001 3:40:36 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
You are soooo funny...thanks for the laugh out loud you just delivered my way... ;-)

You are proof, as usual, that we 'have fun doing it', as the home page claims!!

56 posted on 12/15/2001 3:41:50 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I don't have any problem with harsh criticism of the Bush education plan, but it would carrry a lot more weight with me if it came from someone whose profession is education, whose background and training is education, who could reference real data or studies, rather than just hearing rhetoric from someone who clearly has a political agenda.

Many of today's education professionals are the problem, not the solution.

Teaching isn't rocket science, and when teaching curriculua have entire semseter classes on grading papers, you know that someone is simply stretching material in order to create credits for next-to-worthless degrees.

If 'professionalism' in the field made a difference, you wouldn't see homeschool parents able to compete in any way, but they do.

57 posted on 12/15/2001 3:49:25 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"we 'have fun doing it'..."

Don't we, though?!

Utmost FReegards...MUD

58 posted on 12/15/2001 3:56:43 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Many of today's education professionals are the problem, not the solution.

Many politicians are the problem too. But we still seek the ones with valuable contributions to make, right? Unless you are ready to say 100% of the people who are now or have ever been in the business of education, then there is probably someone worth listening to. On the conservative side, Bill Bennet comes ot mind as someone with REAL credentials. But I would like to hear from less political fish also. Including teachers. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but I know there are many, many teachers out there who are good at their job, who understand many of the challenges we face, and have valuable information to share.

59 posted on 12/15/2001 4:46:42 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rdf
Your manners are always welcome. Nice to "see" you. It's been a while. I appreciate your responses to my queries.
60 posted on 12/15/2001 5:08:42 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson