[conspire] Schools WTFery

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> You are much better at it than I am.  You just think you are not, which
> is what is sooo charming about you.  

Point 1:  One of us doesn't get thrown off mailing lists, and it's not
you.

Point 2:  http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#moenslaw-debate1

  Moen's First Law of Debate

  "No matter what the issue, someone will try to turn it into a
  personality dispute." In part, this is because complex issues become
  more comprehensible if you convert them into soap opera, however
  inaccurately. Additionally, it's common for someone who's losing an
  argument to misbehave in hopes of debasing the discussion, scoring a
  draw in the eyes of casual observers, and tarring the opposition by
  association.

(The tu-quoque fallacy remains a fallacy.)



> These are two, hopefully balanced, legal and policital looks at States
> rights, and the federal role in education so I posted them.  I did read
> them, and don't agree with everything they say, but they are fairly
> comprehensive

So, this is the part of the discussion where you disregard what I said
and fall back on merely 'I don't agree'.  OK. 

But lazy-ass you don't get to rationally claim that you addressed 
what I said, since you really didn't.


> The first is from Harvard.
> 
> The second os the the DOE itself, so it needs to be taken in that
> context.

Again, I already said that.  And you're not addressing what I said,
merely ignoring it.


> Didn't Reagan successful end the Department of Education?
> 
> I guess not.

'I guess not'?

In the first place, learn some civics, already!  The head of the
Executive Branch lacks the authority to create or remove Federal
departments or agencies on his/her sole initiative.  Doing so requires
action by Congress.

Your incapacity to understand your own country's system of government,
and your continual urge for Latin American-style strongman dictatorship,
continues to amaze me.  It's frankly more than a little embarrassing.

I could understand the 'I guess not' from a tourist from Kazahkstan, but
not from an American voter in his 60s, i.e., you.


In the second place, learn some history, if you were really so oblivious
while living and voting through that period that you didn't understand
what was going on.  In 1980, Ronald Wilson Reagan's campaign platform
included sponsoring legislation to abolish the U.S. Department of
Education, that had been created under Jimmy Carter the year before as a
dubious political favour to teachers' unions.  

Reagan filled the top seat at DoE with his first appointee for that
seat, Terrell H. Bell, in 1981, vowing to transform the department into
an independent foundation.  But Bell went native, deciding in office as
Education Secretary that he backed the department's mission.  So, Reagan
replaced Bell with hardliner William J. Bennett.  Their best efforts
achieved only limited results, notably the 1981 Education Consolidation
and Improvement Act and lesser measures that cut the departmental budget
11% and reduced the scope of its regulatory authority a bit.  Reagan
declared defeat on his campaign promise of eliminating the department,
declaring in a January 1985 letter to the Senate:

  I have no intention of recommending the abolition of the department to
  the Congress at this time.  As you know, I have previously recommended
  the abolition of the Department of Education.  This was because I
  believed that federal educational programs could be administered
  effectively without a Cabinet-level agency. While I still feel that
  this is the best approach, that proposal has received very little
  support in the Congress.

Imagine that!  A President gifted with functional literacy, and a basic 
understanding of the laws and the fact that he's not a dictator, unlike
the short-fingered vulgarian who can neither read or write and said,
on-camera, 'Article Two means that I can do whatever I want.'

Anyway, exit Reagan, riding on a horse into the Santa Barbara County
sunset.  Cue theme music.  Roll credits.

The next effort was during Gingrich's reign of error as Speaker of the
House.  Ed-biz lobbyist Steve Gunderson, wanting to waive away DoE
regulations, proposed merging it into Dept. of Labor and the EEOC.
Gingrich was behind this plan, but was unable to get Congress to support
it.  The idea was pushed through the early 90s, but then died off for a
while.

The idea resurfaced during 2012 GOP primary election debates.  Batshit
crazy candidate Michelle Bachman promised to abolish DoE forthwith.
Gary Johnson concurred.  Gingrich, oddly, merely said he'd shrink the
department.  Rick Perry included it in three Federal departments he
wanted to abolish -- except, on-stage, he couldn't remember all three of
the department names he had in mind to axe.  "Um, what's the third one,
there?'  ('Great moments in electoral history for $100, Alex!')

The name of the department he couldn't remember during the presidential
debate in 2012 -- the gaffe that sank his campaign more than all his
other screwups -- was the Department of Energy.  Guess which Federal
department the Toddler appointed Perry to run.  ;->

Still, even with control of both houses of Congress, the GOP couldn't
get its act together on eliminating the department.

Rafael ('Ted') Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and the Toddler all
said in the 2016 primaries that they wanted to eliminate the
department.  After election, the Toddler's staff released a 132-page
position paper about how the Administration would like to merge the DoE
and the Labor Department.

But still, there's not even a bill in committee to do it.


> Do I want the federal government more involved in education?  I don't
> know to be honest.  [...]

Fair enough.  I'm not sure, either.

I do notice that, in all the things you listed in your long list of
issues, including shameless whataboutism ('the core problem is
education, black on black violence, drugs abuse, and family
stabilization') as if you were a KGB propaganda apparatchik, you don't
mention the one thing that stands out to -me- as an obvious Federal
role:  mandating and supporting uniform-across-the-country standards for
education quality.

Part of the problem with devolving education almost entirely to the
states under our federal framework is that a number of the states just
epically suck, at running schools capable of teaching even basic
literacy, civics, mathematics, and science.  There is an obvious Federal
role that could correct this.

And, no, I'm not talking about sad failures like 'No Child Left Behind'
that fixate on test scores and starve schools that don't do well enough.
That was neither clever nor useful.


> It is a multigenerational problem that is expensive to fix, and gives
> no immediate results...so it is not going to happen.

Pounding the table and putting illiterate, pathologically lying,
incompetent crimelords into the White House doesn't make it happen.  
(I'm aware that the 'it' you're saying isn't going to happen is actually 
good education, not eliminating DoE, but neither happens by pounding the
table and putting the Toddler in charge of the Federal Executive.)

Disclaimer:  I'm not well briefed on these matters, because I don't have
children.  (Which makes it all the more astonishing that I'm having to
brief _you_, sir.)