News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[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. 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. 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.

 

[turbo]

I don't know how common these ideas are, but the TP members in this state (or supporters, more fairly, since it's not an organized party) seem to have a poorly-focused rage regarding government programs that benefit others. If a single mother needs access to Medicaid to get health-care for her children or food-stamps, then she is a freeloader, regardless of her work-status, wages, and lack of benefits.

Governor-elect LePage played to this rage regarding government programs, despite the fact that his business benefits disproportionately from them. His company offers part-time jobs with low wages, and NO benefits - not even access to unemployment insurance coverage. His company makes plenty of money while foisting off all their low-wage workers onto public-assistance programs. Somehow the TP members never seem to understand the connection between sub-living wages and the need for public assistance.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

 

[turbo]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Certainly, there is a lot less anonymity in rural settings, but I don't know that welfare abuse is more common in one setting or another.

 

[NobodySpecial]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Or schools, roads, fire, police, hospitals that are vastly more expensive to run in areas with low population density. Government costs per person are normally a lot higher in rural areas than in a major metropolitan setting.

 

[WhoWee]

This will surely get me into trouble here but (IMO) abuse of food stamps and medicaid are less acceptable in a small community setting - more likely to be reported.

 

[lisab]

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

 

[turbo]

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns.

The toll of ethanol on small engines is staggering, resulting in a hidden tax that is spread all around. I have to add expensive fuel-stabilizer to every jug of gas that I buy for my wood-splitter, small tiller, chain-saw, weed trimmer, outboard motor, lawn tractor, etc, and I have to perform lots of extra maintenance to keep them going. I paid over $75 a couple of years ago to get my Husqvarna chain-saw rebuilt after the ethanol practically dissolved the fuel-line and contaminated all the fuel-system downstream of the tank. That fuel-line was tacky to the touch and would stick together with no provocation.

The fuel systems on my neighbor's tiller and sawmill will both have to be torn down and rebuilt this winter. They are both in rough shape from the crappy ethanol-laden gas we have to buy here. We'd both pay a premium to buy gas that doesn't contain ethanol, but everything up here is now 10% ethanol.

 

[WhoWee]

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns. QUOTE]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

 

[mheslep]

Ethanol subsidies, as I understand them, differ from the mortgage deduction in that the former is a case of tax money taken from taxpayer A and given to ethanol producer B. The later, mortgage deductions, are a case of keeping more of your own money than you would have otherwise paid through taxes. I'd do away them both. Canada seems to avoid mass homelessness without a mortgage deduction. I think it certainly would have avoided the housing bubble, at least the worst of it.

 

[turbo]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

Well, for one, ethanol production takes valuable crop-land out of production for human food and livestock feed, and increases those costs to all of us, while sucking up our government's tax revenues. Ethanol is nowhere near break-even. I'd much rather subsidize wind-projects. Wind is usually there, and it doesn't result in profit windfalls to the putative producers of the wind (our planet).

 

[mheslep]

It might be difficult to run that tractor from the local wind turbine. Ethanol serves a purpose unique to transportation, for the moment.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

 

[NobodySpecial]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

Is there a democrat equivalent of the tea party?
Would it be the Latte party?

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

 

[Evo]

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

 

[Evo]

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

 

[Char. Limit]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

 

[WhoWee]

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

McCain was not effective in the debates. He made solid arguments, but Obama clearly had the advantage when it came to personality. Also, McCain tried not to be negative - he left that to Palin.

Just out of curiosity, would you have voted for McCain/Lieberman?

 

[WhoWee]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

 

[Char. Limit]

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

I know the feeling. My facebook page declares me an "unrepresented angry independent".

Most of the Tea Party people that I know are either small business owners or managers of some type. Nearly to the person, they describe themselves the same way.