Financial Shakeup this weekend

[emayer]

Thanks for the info (I actually fogot the Limbaugh action which was quite publicized).  The ACLU continues to provide a valuable service protecting our constitutional freedoms, perhaps I should have defined my earlier statements more clearly by saying the extent to which the constitution is interpreted needs to be questioned in some of the ACLU's activities.   Below is the link regarding the Palm Beach FL suit:

http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/edu/34...80318.html

Additionally, another statement I copied from the ACLU site:

"The actions listed below are meaningful ways of raising public awareness and shifting policy.  They can be undertaken by individuals or groups of interested people."

The quote was taken from an ACLU primer on how to engage in public discourse, relate to elected officials, etc.  In and of itself a commendable idea, but the portion I emboldened suggests more than defending the constitution- it implys altering that which already exists.  To "shift policy" engenders a philisophical disagreement with the law rather than its constitutional compliance.

[Wellardmac]

emayer wrote:

Thanks for the info (I actually fogot the Limbaugh action which was quite publicized). The ACLU continues to provide a valuable service protecting our constitutional freedoms, perhaps I should have defined my earlier statements more clearly by saying the extent to which the constitution is interpreted needs to be questioned in some of the ACLU's activities. Below is the link regarding the Palm Beach FL suit:

http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/edu/34...80318.html

Additionally, another statement I copied from the ACLU site:

"The actions listed below are meaningful ways of raising public awareness and shifting policy. They can be undertaken by individuals or groups of interested people."

The quote was taken from an ACLU primer on how to engage in public discourse, relate to elected officials, etc. In and of itself a commendable idea, but the portion I emboldened suggests more than defending the constitution- it implys altering that which already exists. To "shift policy" engenders a philisophical disagreement with the law rather than its constitutional compliance.

Well, this is an interesting one. They're not bringing the suit under Federal law, but State law. Their argument comes down to the "separate but equal" argument that was used to segregate schools by race in previous years.

They're saying that the FL State Constitution requires the state to provide “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality�? education, but according to the data they quote in the lawsuit Palm Beach County has a track record of low graduation rates when compared to other areas of the state. It is also apparently even worse in centers of non-white population. Additionally, they are stating that the County is fudging their graduation numbers to include kids that do not actually graduate and receive a diploma.

So, the logic goes like this: Palm Beach County is fudging their graduation numbers, they are an area of non-white population and their graduation rates are lower than the rest of the state. By that reckoning the state is failing to provide a reasonable quality of education (back to the discussion we were having earlier) and is failing the children of the county. In filing the suit the ACLU is attempting to get the state to acknowledge the issues in the county and fix them.

I can see where they're coming from and it's a laudable cause. Sometimes you file a suit to make a point that a law isn't being adhered to - this could be one of those cases where the suit was filed to make a point and a settlement will happen that will result in improved quality of education, rather than a finding of fault against the county. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.

Here's an article from the Palm Beach Post that gives more details:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/c...usuit.html


As for the quote on shifting policy, I've always interpreted that to mean that they will file lawsuits to ensure that public policy remains constitutional and if public policy is unlawful, then attempt to change it... examples might be keeping government funding away from religion (still working on that one!), or modifying Affirmative Action policies that break the law. Does that makes sense?

Now back to your quote about "The ACLU advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices and the myths upon which these unfair laws are based." - that I can only interpret (unless you have an example) to mean that they will work to ensure that those groups are protected under the Constitution when discriminated against - remember that EVERYONE, regardless of citizenship and residency status is protected under the Constitution - the second you step into the country, then you're protected, even if here illegally. Sometimes law enforcement or government forgets that the Constitution applies to those people also.

[emayer]

In regards to the ACLU's FL lawsuit and taken directly from the article you posted:

Palm Beach County School District Superintendent Art Johnson would not comment on the lawsuit but said he is "absolutely not" content with the graduation rate as long as there are students failing.

"You have many students who have very challenging beginnings and the impact of society on them outside of school is enormous," Johnson said. "But, clearly, that can't be an excuse. We don't make any excuses. We know that's part of our job and we accept it."

School district officials had known of an impending suit since the ACLU began holding community meetings more than a year ago to find plaintiffs.

----

In no aspect of the complaint has the ACLU elucidated how the school system failed to provide the necessary education for students to achieve their diploma.  Statistically speaking, in every state there has to be a high school with a worse graduation rate than all others

Assuming that funding and resources are equally available (again there is no mention of this anywhere in public record as this not being the case), we are left with the more than likely prospect that the low diploma rate is attributable to poor attendance, poor parenting, and social issues outside of the school.  The quote above suggests this to be the case.  The fact that the ACLU had to farm the community for plantiffs rather than the parents stepping up en masse on their children's behalf only validates this theory.  In conjunction with some of the statements I provided, one could argue this case represents the ACLU's pursuit of social activism rather than constitutional interest.  Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I believe that even the ACLU is not above reproach.

[Wellardmac]

emayer wrote:

In regards to the ACLU's FL lawsuit and taken directly from the article you posted:

Palm Beach County School District Superintendent Art Johnson would not comment on the lawsuit but said he is "absolutely not" content with the graduation rate as long as there are students failing.

"You have many students who have very challenging beginnings and the impact of society on them outside of school is enormous," Johnson said. "But, clearly, that can't be an excuse. We don't make any excuses. We know that's part of our job and we accept it."

School district officials had known of an impending suit since the ACLU began holding community meetings more than a year ago to find plaintiffs.

----

In no aspect of the complaint has the ACLU elucidated how the school system failed to provide the necessary education for students to achieve their diploma. Statistically speaking, in every state there has to be a high school with a worse graduation rate than all others

Assuming that funding and resources are equally available (again there is no mention of this anywhere in public record as this not being the case), we are left with the more than likely prospect that the low diploma rate is attributable to poor attendance, poor parenting, and social issues outside of the school. The quote above suggests this to be the case. The fact that the ACLU had to farm the community for plantiffs rather than the parents stepping up en masse on their children's behalf only validates this theory. In conjunction with some of the statements I provided, one could argue this case represents the ACLU's pursuit of social activism rather than constitutional interest. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I believe that even the ACLU is not above reproach.

Oh, I agree. A lot of it is about attentive parenting and there's probably lots of blame to go around. I'm not defending them on this one, but I can see where they're coming from. Without more data it's hard for us to make judgement.

In reading the complaint they point to data that shows that the school district has worse graduation rates for those of similar demographics and socioeconomic status - that's a flag, but not a smoking gun. What is not told is whether equal funds are spent per capita and if there are programs in place to help failing students. The complaint does make it clear that the school district is fudging it's numbers to make the graduation rates look better than they are - that's a big non-no.

I don't doubt that this is being done to make a point, but the problem is that the state constitution was what put the school district on the hook, because it doesn't matter if they're spending the same amount of money in this district than every other, by not taking steps to ensure that graduation rates are not equivalent to other districts, then they're not providing "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality�? education that meets the needs of the students in the district - by definition, if the students are failing, then the education system is not meeting their needs.

I can't say that I agree entirely with the suit, but I can see the point they're trying to make and what they're trying to achieve. As I said, I think this one will be settled out of court.

[Wellardmac]

I was thinking about this topic this evening while watching Buck Rogers (don't ask me why Wilma Deering would make me think of this) and I thought of a reason why they might be filing a complaint that is relatively insignificant in the scheme of things... you can think of this as a strategic attack on the "No Child Left Behind" law.... now we have to figure out why they're attacking that law.

[catchacab]

Alright, you pinko pansies, it is time to end your Hippie love-fest, put down your joint, and come back to the real world


The ACLU does pick the issues and laws that it feels is important to address, and I feel they do this according to their political agenda.  Due to California's strict environmental laws (some that aren't based on science) many companies have had to relocate out of state to remain in business.  The environmental laws forced many families to leave their friends and family, so they could continue to be employed, while others lost their jobs.  Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?

One of the major problems in American education is the parents.  There are too many parents that  do not spend enough time with their children, educating, disciplining and guiding them.  In poorer areas children are not exposed to highly successful (and yes, rich) role models.  The federal program, head start, really doesn't give those who are in it a head start.  It benefits those by taking them away from their moron parents (or mother and some anonymous guy who shouldn't have been allowed to pro-create anyway) for a few hours a day, so they will know their ABC's and 123's by the time they get to kindergarten.  You need a license to drive a car, cut someone's hair, or be a real estate agent, but any a-hole can be a parent.  There should be a course and test for everyone before they would be allowed become a parent, here are a few sample questions:

1.  You newborn baby, last ate at 11 PM, wakes up crying at 3 AM, you should:

   a. stay sleeping, the baby will stop crying

   b. yell at the baby to shut the f--k up

   c.  go get the baby, and shake the baby violently until the baby stops crying

   d. feed the baby, and change the baby's diaper

   e.  give the baby some of your drugs so the baby will fall back asleep, and you should take some too.

 

2.  You have a 2 week old baby, your friend has tickets to see 50 cent, you should:

   a. take the baby to the concert with you

   b. go the the concert, and leave the baby at home alone in the crib, what could happen, leave a bottle in the crib in case the baby gets hungry

   c. put the baby in the closet, so no one will hear it cry when you are at the concert

   d.  stay home with the baby

 

I hope you get the idea.  If you can't pass this test then the government should grab a rusty hanger and remove a uterus or for a man, make him into a unic.

Parents need to be held responsible for their children.  If their children are being disruptive or getting poor grades in school, the parents should be required to attend classes so that they could better parent and be better able to help their children with their school work.   This program would need to start when the kids are in kindergarten.  If you wait until the kids are in the older elementary grades or above, the child  (and parent) would probably be already lost.

  

 

 

[Wellardmac]

Eric, most of what you said is a repeat of things that we have already said and agree with. There is no disagreement with us on parenting.

Sadly, the steps you advocate are a little extreme and in contradiction of the Constitution and the general actions of a country that values freedom. Are you advocating that most of the country can be allowed free will and the right to procreate, except those that the state deems unworthy? Doesn't that sound a little repressive? Doesn't that sounds like Eugenics? Oh, sorry, the US WAS the first country in the world to institute Eugenics, so what you're advocating is not new and barbaric, but old and barbaric, but still invented here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Adolf Hitler agreed with you wholeheartedly! Wouldn't it be better to educate people to be better parents than institute draconian measures such as the old tried and discredited ones that you advocate?


Now, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on this paragraph:
"The ACLU does pick the issues and laws that it feels is important to address, and I feel they do this according to their political agenda. Due to California's strict environmental laws (some that aren't based on science) many companies have had to relocate out of state to remain in business. The environmental laws forced many families to leave their friends and family, so they could continue to be employed, while others lost their jobs. Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

Can you cite examples of when this has happened? Can you also help me understand this sentence? "Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and would like to dig deeper.

[emayer]

Wellardmac wrote:

Eric, most of what you said is a repeat of things that we have already said and agree with. There is no disagreement with us on parenting.

Sadly, the steps you advocate are a little extreme and in contradiction of the Constitution and the general actions of a country that values freedom. Are you advocating that most of the country can be allowed free will and the right to procreate, except those that the state deems unworthy? Doesn't that sound a little repressive? Doesn't that sounds like Eugenics? Oh, sorry, the US WAS the first country in the world to institute Eugenics, so what you're advocating is not new and barbaric, but old and barbaric, but still invented here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Adolf Hitler agreed with you wholeheartedly! Wouldn't it be better to educate people to be better parents than institute draconian measures such as the old tried and discredited ones that you advocate?

Now, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on this paragraph:
"The ACLU does pick the issues and laws that it feels is important to address, and I feel they do this according to their political agenda. Due to California's strict environmental laws (some that aren't based on science) many companies have had to relocate out of state to remain in business. The environmental laws forced many families to leave their friends and family, so they could continue to be employed, while others lost their jobs. Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

Can you cite examples of when this has happened? Can you also help me understand this sentence? "Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and would like to dig deeper.

Wayne,

I truly enjoy the lively discourse, but I must point out that it was not I that made the aforementioned comments! I am glad however that I am not alone in thinking that the ACLU, in addition to protecting constitutional freedoms, also engages in social activism of a distinctly selective nature. It is here that I take issue with this organization.

Going back to the FL lawsuit, would it not be more appropriate to indict the parents of these kids for endangering the welfare of a child? It would send a clear message that parents are primarily responsible for raising their children rather than society. It should be they, not some school system or governmental organization that should be taken to task.

[catchacab]

Wayne, I have not read the part of the Constitution that specifically states that you have the right to have sex or pro-create.  Could you please point me to it.  Laws are enacted primarily to protect the citizens of a country.  Sadly, children are the least protected citizens of our country.  One of the best predictors to determine how a child will turn out is by evaluating parental attitudes and interaction with the child(ren).  If parental interaction is lacking or negative, shouldn't the state step in to protect the child.  Children are our nation's most important and valuable resource.  They should be protected.  It is them, who can make our country greater, or destroy it.  Too many children's lives have been destroyed by bad parenting.  

We do not have absolute freedom.  Certain freedoms are restricted for the best interest of the public.  If ending a cycle of being bad and/or unproductive citizens can correct this, by either restricting a person's ability to pro-create, or removing a child from an unfit parent, then it should be done.  By not doing this the financial, and emotional pain felt by society will continue to grow.   It is these children, who if  not rescued, that will cost society.   Many of these children are born with the ability to be great citizens, unfortunately, Thieu parents destroy their potential.

We can see that society and the state are failing our children.  Today, there are more children with learning issues and behavioral problems than ever before.   Why is this?  It is because of changes in basic parenting.  The other day, I was speaking with a child psychologist who works for a local school district.  He told me there are many parents that feel that it is not  Thieu responsibility to educate Thieu child, it is the school's responsibility.  Soon I guess we can expect this segment of society will expect that it is the states responsibility to clothe, feed and house them (oh, I guess that is called our current welfare system).   The sad part is that this attitude is extending to other segments of our society especially the younger members of adult society. 

One way of correcting this is though education of the parents.  If parents are unwilling or un-able to improve, then the state and society needs to step in and take custody of the children.  And those who have shown that they can not adequately care for children should be prevented from having more. 

The problems we are encountering today, I attribute to acceptance of liberal parenting styles.   

The bottom line is that society and the state do not do enough to protect the welfare of children.

As far as the ACLU discussion, I really do not have the time to adequately research the topic.  

Sorry, if this post is bit choppy at times, but I was typing it as I was playing with my two and three year old children.

[Wellardmac]

emayer wrote:

I truly enjoy the lively discourse, but I must point out that it was not I that made the aforementioned comments! I am glad however that I am not alone in thinking that the ACLU, in addition to protecting constitutional freedoms, also engages in social activism of a distinctly selective nature. It is here that I take issue with this organization.

Going back to the FL lawsuit, would it not be more appropriate to indict the parents of these kids for endangering the welfare of a child? It would send a clear message that parents are primarily responsible for raising their children rather than society. It should be they, not some school system or governmental organization that should be taken to task.

I agree with you 100% the primary responsibility of raising children rests with parents and I'm of the opinion that the state should get out of the way and not interfere. To often the state thinks that it has more parental rights than the genetic parents and that is a more appropriate target of a lawsuit. I actually get more annoyed when I see authorities interfering with good families when they shouldn't.

As for the ACLU, I didn't dispute that they're selective in their lawsuits. Most of the time they get it right, but sometimes they can be off base. I still stand by my previous comments that I don't necessarily agree with them on this one and cannot see the angle that they're coming from, but I can understand the logic they're using.