Democracies and Mutual Respect

I am sure you will be. Many liberals eat that stuff right up.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The Federal Office of Education was first formed in 1867. (It has changed names and positions in the executive branch since then.) Rather a hard sell to tell us that education has gotten worse since 1867.

The current form of the Department of Education was started in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states. Since the department was formed, the federal government has increasingly sought to exercise more control and mandates over the schools. Parados, a link is provided for your information.

P. S. Whats this about ethics and morality anyway?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am sure you will be. Many liberals eat that stuff right up.

No, it's the rigthwingnuts who eat up that sh!t about liberal plots and secular humanist plots . . . especially the religious nuts and the self-professed "caucasians" . . .

0 Replies

Sorry Fox,
Should have been addressed to okie.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

The Federal Office of Education was first formed in 1867. (It has changed names and positions in the executive branch since then.) Rather a hard sell to tell us that education has gotten worse since 1867.

The current form of the Department of Education was started in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states. Since the department was formed, the federal government has increasingly sought to exercise more control and mandates over the schools. Parados, a link is provided for your information.

P. S. Whats this about ethics and morality anyway?

Where is that link?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states.

And the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare was what, chopped liver?

0 Replies

Sorry, heres the link I failed to post:

http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/briefs/Brief%20History%20of%20US%20DOE.pdf

Setanta, can you knock off calling people rightwingnuts, religious nuts, and the rest of of your vocabulary, and instead present a civil conversation here?

0 Replies

You found something incivil about pointing out the erstwhile existence of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?

0 Replies

No, I didn't. It has been all the other innuendos here and extracurricular name calling. I don't think you would appreciate it if we all start resorting to it here. Actually, thats what I thought this thread is about. We don't have to agree with each other, but we each are entitled to some respect for our opinions.

0 Replies

I could not agree less. No one's opinion is entitled to respect--if it is your opinion that all the Jews should be rounded up and baked in ovens, you have very good reason to expect that you will not get universal respect for that opinion.

Some opinions are reasonable, others are odious.

As for extracurricular name calling, don't holler until you're hurt. My remark was a response to McWhitey (before you holler about that, he told me to call him that), and not to you.

0 Replies

By the way, Okie, can i get a response from you on this?

Quote:

okie wrote:
Before that, there was no full fledged Department of Education in its current independant form and virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states.

And the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare was what, chopped liver?

0 Replies

It wasn't chopped liver, but obviously the advent of the modern version of the Department of Education signaled a different attitude and increased involvement of the federal government into local school systems.

0 Replies

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was primarily an agency ferreting out and compiling statistics regarding various social circumstances and services throughout the United States and providing some educational resources. It had little influence on local schools and most of its funding was to support its own growing bureaucracy. There was no agency focusing specifically on education and the federal Government did not take a seriously active role in general education at the local leve until the formation of the Department of Education in the 1970's.

In my opinion, that was a bad move and has been detrimental to education in the United States. I have applauded all elected officials who have proposed doing away with it.

There is room for mutual respect, however, between those who want federalized education and those who oppose a one-size-fits-all approach and think education fare better left to more localized efforts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I could not agree less. No one's opinion is entitled to respect--if it is your opinion that all the Jews should be rounded up and baked in ovens, you have very good reason to expect that you will not get universal respect for that opinion.

Some opinions are reasonable, others are odious.

As for extracurricular name calling, don't holler until you're hurt. My remark was a response to McWhitey (before you holler about that, he told me to call him that), and not to you.

Unfortunately, Setanta, or fortunately, you are demonstrating my point. You continue to label my opinions as nutcase, ridiculous, and so on, and all we are talking about here is the Department of Education for crying out loud. What do you find so odious about that? I think you need to cool your heels a bit and relax, maybe get away from this forum so you don't work yourself up so much? We are not talking about baking Jews in the ovens, which is insulting to even equate the arguments here to things like that.

And I might add, what is so blasted sacred about the Department of Education?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

It wasn't chopped liver, but obviously the advent of the modern version of the Department of Education signaled a different attitude and increased involvement of the federal government into local school systems.

Your claim was that schools were only funded locally or by the states--specifcially, you wrote: ". . . virtually everything in regard to schools was run and funded by the local districts and the states."

I submit that you were makin' it up as you went along, and got busted for it. Much like the fairy tale which Fox has attempted to construct after your response, when she makes up a story about what HEW was and what it did. With regard to that . . .

Fox wrote:

. . . those who oppose a one-size-fits-all approach . . .

Perhaps an unfunded "once-size-fits-all approach," such as "No Child Left Behind?"

0 Replies

Informative reading: The Federal Role in Education

0 Replies

There is plenty of room to defend NCLB and plenty of room to criticize it. Those representing either group are not necessarily undeserving of respect.

I personally am not in favor of federal programs like that though I have defended it against unsubstantiated criticisms. I would be content if the Dept of Education was abolished, and a small competent group was charged to gather and publish statistics on school performance, college requirements, etc. and make these available to local schools. I am enough of a capitaliist to believe that no local community would wish to be at the bottom of the competency list and all would adopt policies and procedures most beneficial to avoid that scenario.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Unfortunately, Setanta, or fortunately, you are demonstrating my point.

Nonsense--you claim all opinions deserve respect, and it was the work of an instant to provide a pungent example of an opinion which was not worthy of respect.

Quote:

You continue to label my opinions as nutcase, ridiculous, and so on, . . .

That is a lie--quote me in a single instance in this thread in which i have referred to your opinions as "nutcase" or "ridiculous." It would have been more likely that if i were to see an unsupported, ill-considered opinion on your part, that i would describe it as idiotic. At all events, for as unpleasant as it is to have your drivel described as drivel, it does not constitute a personal attack, and i advise you to learn to get over it.

Quote:

. . . and all we are talking about here is the Department of Education for crying out loud.

Yes, i am aware and have already pointed out that that is the rut into which you would like to divert this thread, which did not have the Department of Education specifically, nor education even generally, as a topic.

Quote:

What do you find so odious about that?

I don't find anything about it odious. My use of the word odious was to point out that some opinions (such as rounding up Jews and baking them) can be considered odious, and therefore unworthy of respect. Don't make things up.

Quote:

I think you need to cool your heels a bit and relax, maybe get away from this forum so you don't work yourself up so much?

I'm doing fine, but you seem to be getting worked up over things you are making up, which i have not written.

Quote:

We are not talking about baking Jews in the ovens, which is insulting to even equate the arguments here to things like that.

I did not equate the silly theses you advance here, which do not refer to the topic of this thread, with baking Jews in ovens. I simply used that example to demonstrate that not all opinions deserve respect. Perhaps if you were to cool your heels a bit, and relax, you could learn to stop making false claims about what i've written, and take a more reasonable tone.

Quote:

And I might add, what is so blasted sacred about the Department of Education?

Given that nothing i've ever written, in this thread or any other, even remotely hints that there is anything sacred about the Department of Education, i am not the person to whom you should address that question. However, since you seem to want to imply that i consider the Department of Education sacred, i can only conclude that you are, once again, making things up.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:
I feel sorry for you if you think "morality is bunk." You apparently don't care if people lie, cheat, and steal? You don't care if people maim and kill each other, trespass and destroy other peoples property? You don't care if people destroy their lives and their family's lives due to illegal drug use. You don't care if people succumb to alcoholism and kill people on the road and abuse friends, family, and neighbors? Do you get the point?

You missed the entire point. If a person refrains solely from lying and cheating and stealing because they were taught it is wrong and if that person never sat down to consider why it wrong -- the answer is not because there is a commandment against it -- then they really are not doing what is right.

Consider the people of Enron or the members of Congress who fail to understand how serious global warming is and think of the harm they are doing.

"Being good" because you fear hell is not being good.

0 Replies

Okie wrote: All of this points out one thing, the Federal Dept of Education was unnecessary.

Well, Okie, many conservatives writing on this forum think that unless a national curriculum is established, there can be no progress in education. I have asked those people if that curriculum is to be developed by bringing all states to the level of Alabama or all states to the level of Massachusetts. Never got a response. However, in order to have a national curriculum, a national Dept of Education is more necessary than it is at the present time.

Your statement is in disagreement with many if not most of the conservatives here on this thread.

That is why I asked what you think a conservative is or a liberal is.

Furthermore, both you and foxfyre agree that no teacher should teach a subject tainted by political philosophy.

Global warming is reality, not politics. The WH is currently censoring scientists. You would politicize global warming by denying while the WH politicizes it by censoring it.

So, where does your belief that no one should panic over global warming fall, particularly since it is in accord with the policy of the WH and therefore political? Any teacher stating that global warming isn't as bad as some make it out to be are teaching conservative doctrine. See?

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know