The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

Another TP endorsed creationist. It's not surprising to find that someone rejects climate science once you know they've rejected evolution.
LePage has said he'd like to see Creationism taught in public schools. I hope he doesn't have a legislature that is empathetic to that idea.

Where'd you see that, i.e. i) that LePage is a creationist and ii) that he 'rejects climate science'? Quickly googling, I see:

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Augusta/LePage-defends-comments-in-creationism-spat-,150031

Replied LePage: “I have looked at my life, I have looked at my career. There is nowhere in my career where the term creationist comes in. The only part of my life … that anyone can ever consider me a creationist is because I am a French Catholic and I believe in God.”

Edit: And what's the point of saying "Another TP endorsed ..."?

 

[WhoWee]

You should find out what it takes to survive in Maine, and what jobs are available. It's tough times here. We were deep in recession well before the rest of the country and we'll still be in it when many other regions have pulled out of it. Many of the people who need some form of public assistance are already working multiple part-time and/or seasonal jobs. The couple down the road each have a couple of jobs (both of hers as a store clerk, and his as a rafting guide in the summer and/or a ski-resort worker or mill-worker in the winter). They have two little children and would have a very tough time of it if his mother and grandmother didn't help support the family.

Timber/lumber/building products are big business here, and long before the housing bubble burst, we felt the leading indicators. Chip-board mills shut down, sawmills shut down, woods operations got shut down and truckers lost their trucks to their creditors. There is only one large sawmill operation left in the state, and the owner is trying to stay afloat (at a loss) so that he can keep his most skilled workers, hoping for an upturn in the building industry. His mill is in a very remote location on the Canadian border, and if his employees have to leave to try to find work elsewhere, he'll never get them back.

You're talking to someone from the Rust Belt - Pittsburgh/Cleveland Region. The economy around Youngstown (once among the highest per capita income averages in the US) has not recovered from Jimmy Carter's era. A 1,000 square foot ranch home built in 1960 for $20,000 has never exceeded $85,000 in value - compare the same to $400.000+ in boom areas. The real unemployment rate is around 20% locally.

The one "glowing" spot in the local economy - the GM plant at Lordstown (famous for the Vega). This is a place where workers have bragged for 30+ years that they HOPE they're laid off >>> because they "earn" 90% of their wages during such times. The unions have chased countless businesses away from the area.

The economy is bad everywhere. Extending COBRA and unemployment benefits helps in the short term but (like giving debit cards to Katrina victims) is not a long term solution. Likewise, it will prove difficult to wean the increasing numbers of people on food stamps and Medicaid - especially if the future reality is a $7 to $10 per hour job.

 

[Gokul43201]

Where'd you see that, i.e. i) that Lepage is a creationist

Heard it on the radio several months ago.

and ii) that he 'rejects climate science'?

Read it somewhere on the net today - and okay, I was paraphrasing. I don't recall the exact words. I'll see what I can pull up from google.

Replied LePage: “I have looked at my life, I have looked at my career. There is nowhere in my career where the term creationist comes in. The only part of my life … that anyone can ever consider me a creationist is because I am a French Catholic and I believe in God.”

In his career? That sounds like a deflection. You don't have to have a career in creationism to be a creationist. Is there someplace in his career where the term Catholic comes in?

Edit: And what's the point of saying "Another TP endorsed ..."?

I had to pull up video of the Coons - O'Donnell debate for a friend just a little while ago, and reading about LePage shortly after induced that reaction. So far, the only people in this election that I know of who support teaching Creationism in school have been Tea Party candidates.Edit: Found it --> http://video.mpbn.net/video/1506788602 (video - skip to 43min 40s)

Q: “Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?”

A: "I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes."

(bolding mine)

 

[edward]

You're talking to someone from the Rust Belt - Pittsburgh/Cleveland Region. The economy around Youngstown (once among the highest per capita income averages in the US) has not recovered from Jimmy Carter's era. A 1,000 square foot ranch home built in 1960 for $20,000 has never exceeded $85,000 in value - compare the same to $400.000+ in boom areas. The real unemployment rate is around 20% locally.

The one "glowing" spot in the local economy - the GM plant at Lordstown (famous for the Vega). This is a place where workers have bragged for 30+ years that they HOPE they're laid off >>> because they "earn" 90% of their wages during such times. The unions have chased countless businesses away from the area.

The economy is bad everywhere. Extending COBRA and unemployment benefits helps in the short term but (like giving debit cards to Katrina victims) is not a long term solution. Likewise, it will prove difficult to wean the increasing numbers of people on food stamps and Medicaid - especially if the future reality is a $7 to $10 per hour job.

Why is it that anyone on unemployment is lumped into one group and given the "lazy label"?

I have a niece who worked computer tech jobs in factories ever since computers existed. The last few years she bounced around from factory to factory keeping ahead of plant closings.

Everything in Indiana hit the wall last year. My niece had no choice but to draw unemployment. To make extra money to buy presents for her grandchildren last Christmas she shoveled snow off of sidewalks. At age 59 that is not easy.

7$ to 10$ jobs have been the norm in the Midwest for a number of years. People are working in a steel mill just north of Auburn Indiana for $9 per hour and praying that the auto industry does not collapse.

 

[WhoWee]

Why is it that anyone on unemployment is lumped into one group and given the "lazy label"?

That is not what I said.

7$ to 10$ jobs have been the norm in the Midwest for a number of years. People are working in a steel mill just north of Auburn Indiana for $9 per hour and praying that the auto industry does not collapse.

My point was that it's hard to motivate someone to give up $600+ per month in food stamps, free health care, and $1,500 per month in unemployment - to work for $9.00/hr in a steel mill.

 

[BobG]

You're talking to someone from the Rust Belt - Pittsburgh/Cleveland Region. The economy around Youngstown (once among the highest per capita income averages in the US) has not recovered from Jimmy Carter's era. A 1,000 square foot ranch home built in 1960 for $20,000 has never exceeded $85,000 in value - compare the same to $400.000+ in boom areas. The real unemployment rate is around 20% locally.

I feel sorry for you.

I moved from Akron at the end of the Carter era. Back when cities in that region just took turns leading the nation in unemployment. Except when unions were negotiating how big a paycut to take to keep the tire companies in town a few extra years, it was pretty clear Akron's problems were worse than just Carter. I decided that town was decades away from coming back and decided to look for a brighter future somewhere else.

On the bright side, when I visit there, the air smells a lot better than it did when I was growing up.

 

[WhoWee]

On the bright side, when I visit there, the air smells a lot better than it did when I was growing up.

Steel and rubber are dirty industries. Unfortunately, the trade off for clean air was economic collapse.

 

[CAC1001]

Another TP endorsed creationist. It's not surprising to find that someone rejects climate science once you know they've rejected evolution.LePage has said he'd like to see Creationism taught in public schools. I hope he doesn't have a legislature that is empathetic to that idea.

I don't have a problem with someone believing in creationism, however I would have a problem if they wanted it taught in public schools I would think.

 

[turbo]

I don't have a problem with someone believing in creationism, however I would have a problem if they wanted it taught in public schools I would think.

You would have a problem with LePage.

 

[Galteeth]

The creationism issue is a camouflage issue. Its proponents, and to some extent its opponents, make it out to be a religious freedom issue. It's not. It's a parental rights versus youth rights issue. Unfortunately, we have the concept that children under the age of 18 are basically the property of their parents. I have no problem if people want to believe in creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that the sky is purple, whatever. The question is, do they have a right to shield their children from opposing views? I would say no. But the pivotal point is the idea that "children" have rights, and are not their parents' "pets."

 

[WhoWee]

The creationism issue is a camouflage issue. Its proponents, and to some extent its opponents, make it out to be a religious freedom issue. It's not. It's a parental rights versus youth rights issue. Unfortunately, we have the concept that children under the age of 18 are basically the property of their parents. I have no problem if people want to believe in creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that the sky is purple, whatever. The question is, do they have a right to shield their children from opposing views? I would say no. But the pivotal point is the idea that "children" have rights, and are not their parents' "pets."

As a parent, I do monitor what they are being taught.

Specifically, I don't want sex ed taught before grade 7 in my suburban school district. We don't have a teen pregnancy or disease problem.

As for religious teachings in a public school, I think they should be limited to their historical significance.

When Evolution is taught, I prefer it when the teacher begins with an explanation that opinions vary but this is the science as we know it now. I do not think an anti-religion explanation is necessary or appropriate.

If anyone teaches that the sky is purple - it better be getting ready to storm. As for "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" scenarios - the teacher will find it uncomfortable in front of the schoolboard.

 

[Gokul43201]

The creationism issue is a camouflage issue. Its proponents, and to some extent its opponents, make it out to be a religious freedom issue. It's not.

I think judge John Jones of the middle district of PA would disagree.

 

[Al68]

Unfortunately, we have the concept that children under the age of 18 are basically the property of their parents. I have no problem if people want to believe in creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that the sky is purple, whatever. The question is, do they have a right to shield their children from opposing views? I would say no. But the pivotal point is the idea that "children" have rights, and are not their parents' "pets."

Making decisions for one's children isn't treating them as "pets" or "property", it's being a parent. That's what parents are supposed to do prior to their children reaching the legal age of consent.

And we can argue about what decisions parents should or shouldn't make at certain ages, but referring to the fact that parents make decisions for their children as "treating them as pets/property" is complete nonsense any way you look at it.

 

[Galteeth]

Making decisions for one's children isn't treating them as "pets" or "property", it's being a parent. That's what parents are supposed to do prior to their children reaching the legal age of consent.

And we can argue about what decisions parents should or shouldn't make at certain ages, but referring to the fact that parents make decisions for their children as "treating them as pets/property" is complete nonsense any way you look at it.

By the time kids are being taught about evolution in school, I think they have the right to hear about views that their parents might disagree with.

 

[Galteeth]

As a parent, I do monitor what they are being taught.

Specifically, I don't want sex ed taught before grade 7 in my suburban school district. We don't have a teen pregnancy or disease problem.

Why?

 

[CAC1001]

The creationism issue is a camouflage issue. Its proponents, and to some extent its opponents, make it out to be a religious freedom issue. It's not. It's a parental rights versus youth rights issue. Unfortunately, we have the concept that children under the age of 18 are basically the property of their parents. I have no problem if people want to believe in creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that the sky is purple, whatever. The question is, do they have a right to shield their children from opposing views? I would say no. But the pivotal point is the idea that "children" have rights, and are not their parents' "pets."

You have to be careful about that "children have rights" issue because that can be a sneaky way to basically say that the State should act as the parent and not the parents themselves.

This can also become a self-reinforcing thing over time, as parents need to be vigilant and responsible parents. The more the State parents the children, and the less the parents themselves do, then the worse the parents get at this, thus leading bureaucrats to justify the State parenting the children even more, thus making the parents even worse, justifying more State intervention, etc...

 

[Al68]

By the time kids are being taught about evolution in school, I think they have the right to hear about views that their parents might disagree with.

And when you and a child's parent disagree about what their child should or shouldn't hear, who should consent on the child's behalf, you or the child's parent?

I definitely think (the science of) evolution should be taught in public schools, and can't understand why anyone would want their children to be ignorant of it (especially if they believe evolution is not the origin of humans), but society has determined that 18 is the age at which they "have the right" to decide for themselves.

Of course we can debate the specific age, but the principle is the same.

 

[D H]

And when you and a child's parent disagree about what their child should or shouldn't hear, who should consent on the child's behalf, you or the child's parent?

Depends. Suppose your parents are white supremacists and the question is whether should you be taught about the civil rights movement. Suppose your parents are anarcho-communists and the question is whether you should be taught about politics and economics. Sorry, in neither case do you or your parents get a choice.

The same goes for evolution. The only controversy is an invented one.

 

[Al68]

Depends. Suppose your parents are white supremacists and the question is whether should you be taught about the civil rights movement. Suppose your parents are anarcho-communists and the question is whether you should be taught about politics and economics. Sorry, in neither case do you or your parents get a choice.

The same goes for evolution. The only controversy is an invented one.

You seem to be referring to a different controversy. I wasn't referring to whether an individual parent can dictate a school's curriculum, but whether the parent can choose whether or not their child attends that school.

 

[WhoWee]

Why?

Well, we monitor what they are being taught because it gives us a track to run on - to gauge progress and support as necessary.

As for not wanting sex ed taught before grade 7 - it's not necessary. My kids are basically country bumpkins. They've never walked down a city street (unescorted) nor are they exposed to the challenges of street life.

The lack of a teen pregnancy or disease problem is attributable to the environment. My kids are insulated to a degree. I understand that I can't protect them for ever, but I'm in no hurry to force them out of childhood either.

 

[WhoWee]

Kids minds are like a vacuum - something will fill the space - sometimes it's better to trust your input rather than a strangers.

 

[Evo]

Kids minds are like a vacuum - something will fill the space - sometimes it's better to trust your input rather than a strangers.

Unless you're ignorant. :tongue: Isn't that kind of the basic purpose of school, to educate the ignorant? If the extent of a child's publicly paid education was to teach only what the parents knows or believes, it's rather useless. Of course a parent is free to restrict knowledge from their child, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

My kids are basically country bumpkins. They've never walked down a city street (unescorted) nor are they exposed to the challenges of street life.

The first two towns I lived in were small (each a few hundred people) coastal towns surrounded by farms and forests. They were quiet and peaceful. The next door neighbor at the first house raised goats. Then my parents moved us to metropolitan suburbs. I much prefer the countryside.

On the kids are much the same whether country or city, and the difference has shrunk with the influence of TV and movies.

 

[WhoWee]

Unless you're ignorant. :tongue: Isn't that kind of the basic purpose of school, to educate the ignorant? If the extent of a child's publicly paid education was to teach only what the parents knows or believes, it's rather useless. Of course a parent is free to restrict knowledge from their child, unfortunately.

Actually, my point was that parents share in the responsibility. I would find it hard to believe that anyone on PF would depend 100% on the public school system.

 

[WhoWee]

The first two towns I lived in were small (each a few hundred people) coastal towns surrounded by farms and forests. They were quiet and peaceful. The my parents moved us to metropolitan suburbs. I much prefer the countryside.

On the kids are much the same whether country or city, and the difference has shrunk with the influence of TV and movies.

I agree - TV, videos, and the internet have speeded things up.

 

[Evo]

I agree - TV, videos, and the internet have speeded things up.

<cough> have *sped* things up.

 

[Evo]

Actually, my point was that parents share in the responsibility. I would find it hard to believe that anyone on PF would depend 100% on the public school system.

Unless the school is teaching crackpot nonsense and they're a bad school, are you suggesting that putting children through courses outside of the school system are necessary?

We're not talking religion or political beliefs, we're talking basic education.

 

[WhoWee]

<cough> have *sped* things up.

ouch

 

[WhoWee]

Unless the school is teaching crackpot nonsense and they're a bad school, are you suggesting that putting children through courses outside of the school system are necessary?

We're not talking religion or political beliefs, we're talking basic education.

I started out talking about watching the progress of the kids and being involved - checking homework. My most recent thoughts were of preparation for entering school, enforcing a work ethic and keeping them on track for college.

 

[Evo]

I started out talking about watching the progress of the kids and being involved - checking homework. My most recent thoughts were of preparation for entering school, enforcing a work ethic and keeping them on track for college.

In the best cases positive parental involvement is desirable. In some cases parental involvement can be detrimental. It's my hope to keep public school as factual and free of biased input as possible. If some people want to hide things from their children or teach them garbage, I can't stop them, but they should never interfere with my children's ability to get the most factual and up to date education.

 

[WhoWee]

To get this back on track - over the summer, I spoke to quite a few Tea Party people and it seemed to me that they were just average people taking an interest in politics - some for the first time.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think posts following (and including) #850 should be split off into a separate thread. They have nothing to do with the Tea Party or any other grassroots movement.

 

[WhoWee]

In the best cases positive parental involvement is desirable. In some cases, it can be detrimental. It's my hope to keep public school as factual and free of biased input as possible.

I strongly believe parents have a responsibility to keep their children prepared and focused (and yes, it is easier said than done).

 

[Gokul43201]

To get this back on track - over the summer, I spoke to quite a few Tea Party people and it seemed to me that they were just average people taking an interest in politics - some for the first time.

I don't doubt that at all (despite having talked to very few TP folks). I also believe that if you haven't been thinking about issues of politics and government for a considerable time, and come in with a fairly clean slate, that you are much more susceptible to social pressures to conform to whatever your peers fancy. This is particularly true (IMO) with young voters in college, but just as true with older voters who have lived their entire lives in a small rural community.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't doubt that at all (despite having talked to very few TP folks). I also believe that if you haven't been thinking about issues of politics and government for a considerable time, and come in with a fairly clean slate, that you are much more susceptible to social pressures to conform to whatever your peers fancy. This is particularly true (IMO) with young voters in college, but just as true with older voters who have lived their entire lives in a small rural community.

In some cases it's not social pressure, it's common concern/needs/situations that loosely unite people.

As for the success of the Tea Party, it most likely stands on 3 legs.

1.) fear of tax increases due to massive spending (stimulus) and legislation (cap and trade)
2.) revolt against special treatment for select groups (unions and banks)
3.) exposure of/to the legislative process (many people got their first real look of how Washington works with the health care bill) and the attitude/response of the politicians when people voiced concern.

I don't think this started as a right wing or Republican group. I think this is a group of people who said "wait a minute" - let's talk about this - tell me what you're doing and why.

Then Nancy Pelosi and others made fun of them, called them Nazis, someone (perhaps Anderson Cooper?) labelled them "tea baggers", town hall meetings erupted into screaming matches, etc. A politician should never position themself as anti-voter, or project a superior attitude of "I know better than you". At that point, it was obvious incumbents were in trouble.

By the way, when it was revealed last week that some of the Government employees unions were the biggest spenders to protect incumbents - I think the Tea Party grew a little larger.