My response to the "old chestnut"...

I'm not sure what Jambo is referencing in his last, but I'd have to say his most memorable position on education that I can easily recall was given at great length on F. Ryan's patio very late one night after a case of High Life and a dozen brats on the grill:  the nationalization of the education system.

I'm not going to try and remember all the details, but it was basically a call for the Federalization of all teachers, and thus all curriculums, into one homogeneous body.  No more local school boards, only an education system as far flung and locally focused as any post office, DoAg office, or Federal building.

I personally hope this isn't what Jambo was referring to.  I don't think this is the answer.  Perhaps I have it wrong, and Jambo wasn't talking about this.  It was discussed in person, and not written down (even we weren't taking "minutes" during these gatherings), and alcohol was an ingredient in all these get-togethers.

To answer Jambo's question, I think the demise of the education system in this nation began with the institution of national education standards via Carter's Department of Education. In taking the effort to educate our children out of the hands of local school boards and placing it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, we have simply surrendered the right to educate our kids to a cookie-cutter system that is trying to force ALL kids into the same model.  Those that fit in and comply are successful, and those that do not are labelled as "failures" or "problems" and left behind (regardless of Bush's NCLB Act).

More importantly, we (as parents and educators) see that the responsibility for education has been taken from us, and the consequences for failure are left to society to fix.  "We" are no longer the primary educators of our children, the "state" is.  Those few of us that take the responsibility seriously (home schoolers, charter schoolers, etc) are labelled as "fringe" elements of society and told we are damaging our kids.  We are "non compliers" who actively work to undermine the system, not concerned parents looking to do the best for our kids.

Furthermore, the death of American education is moved further towards its terminus by a nation-wide teacher's union (or unions) that force local school boards to make payroll and benefits the largest expense in any annual budget each and every year.  Last year, in my own local school district, payroll and benefits accounted for 68% of every dollar spent in the district, and that is slated to go up another 2% next year.  When the school board voted to reduce the number of teachers, the unions sued and won... which forced the district to keep 32 teachers on the payroll, with benefits, even though they weren't needed to teach the kids.  This "added" expense will now force the district to consider either closing an actual school (and forcing hundreds of kids to longer bus commutes and far larger class rooms) OR ending very nearly ALL extracurricular activities such as band, theater, robotics club, sports et al.  So, in order to maintain the number of dues-paying teachers within the district, my school board will cut football, band, and the theater classes (among others) to the point that only those kids that can PAY for their equipment upfront will be allowed to participate.  That's an EXTRA $550 a year for a football student, $600 for a band student, and $350 for a drama student.

The long and short of it is simply this (for me):

The Department of Education adds a tax to my income that means I'm putting my money into the education of children that do not live in my area.  I'm paying for schools and teachers on the other side of the country, as well as for schools and teachers in my own district.  I'm not opposed to paying the taxes, but let me take the money that I would be paying the Education Department and let me put it towards my own district.  Let everyone else do the same thing.

I'm running out of time, so I'll end here.  Let me know what you think.

This probably isn't going to make me very popular here...

... but to be totally honest, I'm glad the DOMA is gone.

I agree with F. Ryan that America is becoming more and more hypocritical in its views of moral and ethical limits in individual lives.  The left wants what it wants and will do anything to get it, even if that means changing its tone-view-opinion 180 degrees, as Clinton just did.

However, the right has gone too far, too.  I agree with the premise that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman that is sanctified by God... but it cannot be codified and legislated by government without opening the topic up to hypocrisy and abuse.  At least not in today's world.  Moral and ethical limits are set, understood and followed by the individual... because they are individual in nature, not because they are mandated by the state.

The government should have no Federal authority to regulate, legislate or limit marriage.  Let's face it, it was only regulated to start with to drum up new taxes and fees in the late 19th Century.  The government needs to get out of the marriage business, once and for all.

Here's an old chestnut...

Ryan brought this up in his last post. It reminded me of a premise to a massive plot line in an unpublished work of mine.

What is the greatest flaw in the American education system?

Ryan laments his "classmates" knowing nothing of basic civics, but being nearly Ph.D candidates in their immersion of American "pop" culture. So is this a sign of a failed system? Are horrible teachers to blame? Is it a fault of American society in general? The demise of the nuclear family?

I am not going to post my answer yet. But I have time stamped proof that this answer, my opinion at least, was put to paper in 2005 almost immediately after the book was published. I am interested in what you guys have to say.

The parameters of the question are wide. It encompasses all levels of education, from kindergarten to post graduate. Have at it.

The Demise of DOMA...

First, I have to say Bill Clinton is shameless. He applauded the overturning of DOMA. When a reporter correctly pointed out that he signed DOMA into law he retorted that he only did that to keep the Republicans from passing something much more gay unfriendly. Uh huh. Never mind the countless times he argued in its' favor during its' passage, or his pro DOMA speech at the signing ceremony. The man simply has zero scruples.

What I want to say about this is simple - pro gay marriage people, advocacy groups, and activists you are ALL, each of you, bigots if you do not now take up the cause of plural marriage. Polygamy fits each and every one of your arguments for gay marriage. It's between consenting adults; you can't define "love" for other people; who are you to impose your definition of morality on others?; they deserve the right to hospital visitation and inheritance as a spouse, and on, and on, and on.

The case chosen by the Supreme Court was about two women, legally married in Canada, whom wanted their relationship to have legal standing in the US. That right was affirmed in the majority. Ok, fine. Now if a man moves to the US from Saudi Arabia with his four wives, where those marriages are recognized as perfectly legal, how on earth does anyone who applaudes this ruling oppose his "right" to maintain the legal status of those marriages in the US? Tell me how that works. Yet the pro gay marriage crowd explodes into uncontrollable fits if you attempt to compare the two, or suggest that polygamy is the logical next step.

Now look, I don't subscribe to arguments invoking incest, or beastiality, because the underlying behavior in those instances is itself illegal. One of the pro gay marriage arguments is that homosexuality - the act itself - has long since been made legal, so you can not deny their right to codify legal behavior into law via marriage. These same activists will not tolerate, however, any comparisons to polygamy. Why? For three or more adults to move into a house, have sex with each other, share in the expenses and general upkeep of that home and their life, is legal. Does everyone not agree? If the underlying behavior of the relationship is legal, than than the lawful recognition of their relationship must occur, says the SCOTUS. In fact pro polygamy groups released press statements declaring this ruling a big win for their cause ... I agree.

At this point I'd rather the government divorce itself from the institution marriage all together (and about a thousand other areas). Go to a flat tax and don't involve the government in your relationships at all. But that's not what's going to happen. They'll go in the opposite direction, more intervention. Clergy who deny marrying same sex couples will have their tax exempt status pulled, or have denied their ability to sign off on a marriage license all together (and I mean their literal signature that goes on the license declaring he performed the ceremony). Not to mention, chaplains in the military will be forced to marry gay soldiers, and then of course, as I've stated, polygamy is around the corner. Welcome to it America - your freedom, and that of your church as an institution, to practice your religion as you see fit will give way to the coming interpretations of this ruling... the two simply cannot coexist. To reach any other conclusion is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical captain."

Point taken...

Ryan is right, of course.  I do hope he wasn't too offended by what I wrote in my last post.  I wasn't "poo-pooing" comparisons he might have made between ancient Rome and the US today, since there are many, many to be made.  However, one doesn't have to look too far to see comparisons made by facts (or untruths) taken completely out of context.  And most comparisons ARE made by taking things completely out of context.

Here's one that Ryan's last post did make me think of, though... immediately:

In 212 AD, the very bad emperor named Caracalla delivered the "Edict of Caracalla" which made all free men (meaning no slaves or women) "citizens" of Rome and the Empire.  Amid all the myriad of "bad" things Caracalla did, many look on this edict as his one and only redeeming action as Emperor of the Rome and ruler absolute of the entire civilized world... but it wasn't.

Citizenship in the 3rd Century of the new millennium was NOT the same as it was in the old Republic... or even what it was during the rule of Julius Caesar or Augustus.  It was NOT something people fought wars to obtain or defend anymore... it was simply a means to expand the tax base of an increasingly insolvent Empire.  People, common people on the streets, gained nothing by the 212 Edict other than a new means by which Caracalla could squeeze 28% of all profits and income from an additional thirteen million previously exempt men who had never and would never see the city of Rome... or even the Italian peninsula... EVER!

That, my friends, sounds an awful lot like the sort of disdain for "citizenship" and "civic duty" that F. Ryan is describing, doesn't it?

Preach on, Brother!

The cart two counties ahead of the horse!

Titus wrote...

There are lessons to be learned, no question... TONS of lessons can be learned from what the Romans did and did not do over that 2,000 year span. We simply must be careful not to draw too close a comparison between the two vastly different states.

We should be careful not to draw too close a comparison? What country are you living in? My concern here is that we aren't drawing any comparisons of any kind whatsoever.

There's no intelligent discussion of what's happened in the course of man's existence prior to now within our public domain. There is only the "now" in our nation, and preferably for most, the RIGHT NOW. Instant gratification, numb to history and the world around them our country is completely detached from any resemblance of an "informed people." American idol, Kardashian, facebook - it's all these people care about. The number of those "aware" is diminishing, rapidly. I was at the gym today, listening to the History of Rome. How many IN THIS CITY, COUNTY OR STATE were doing the same? So forget Rome, let's say that's a high standard that even I didn't qualify for two weeks ago, ok. How about the news? I mean outside of ESPN. The congress is about to pass a nation-changing amnesty bill and most 18-45 year olds don't even know what amnesty means! They know Jay-Z got his NBA agents license though. I'm sick of it, fed up. I go to class with people whom are supposed to be "educated", the "cut above" at a private university and they're asking me what habeus corpus is, not what it "means", what it "is", they've never even heard the phrase, in any context, EVER. Pessimism is a gross understatement to describe what I'm feeling.

What does this all mean as we become less and less connected with the responsibilities of citizenship, less connected to our own government, and to history? I'll tell you what it means - the pool of people whom will decide our national fate shrinks with every generation. Scratch that, every ten years I'd wager. My fellow Americans are too busy posting every excruciating detail of their vacation on facebook to be bothered with educating themselves in the home, which is where it should happen. School should be where your child's beliefs are either challenged or reaffirmed - NOT DEVELOPED. But in Los Angeles County, their school district is recruiting teenagers to be taught about Obamacare, so they can in turn instruct their parents. That is the specific stated goal of the plan, not hyperbole. My God man, what is happening to us?

Look, if the vagaries of man's endeavours have taught us one thing, it is this: when history comes a knocking it starts with the most basic question of all - who's there? The world will go to those who show up. And Americans are sinfully absent.

Recovery day...

Moving a little slow today, putting myself back together after our 18-year-old had his graduation party last  night.  All the usual local crowd says "Hi" to you all, by the way...

I have almost finished the "History of Rome" by Mike Duncan, and I too have seen the "parallels" that can and are drawn between Rome and the United States.  They are too many to count, and some do (as Ryan implied) apply to our current state of affairs.

However, I (like Mr. Duncan himself) hesitate to indulge in such comparisons, simply because for every similarity or parallel that CAN be drawn, there are thousands of details that magnify the differences between the two "superpowers".

The single, most glaring disparity between the two is their histories.  The US, at 238 years young, is still at the height of its greatness (no matter what its detractors might say to the contrary).  By the time the Republic was drawing to a close and the Julio-Claudians were bring about the Princep Imperium, "Rome" as a nation had existed and dominated the Mediterranean region for nearly 500 years.  The entire scope of the "Empire" runs the better part of 2,000 years, from start to finish.  To compare the two is simply impossible with any degree of objective certainty.  The USA may simply be a "flash in the pan" compared to the scope of what the Romans accomplished in regards to pan-cultural and multi-ethnic stability and security.

There are lessons to be learned, no question... TONS of lessons can be learned from what the Romans did and did not do over that 2,000 year span.  We simply must be careful not to draw too close a comparison between the two vastly different states.