The Confederate Flag

[Kramodlog]

Why should States control educational standards? Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live. Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs. Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.

On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.

It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, Canadian & American laws certainly differ, those FACTS could certainly be taught correctly if mandated at the national level.

The issue of language & assimilation is much trickier...but even OUR version of Quebec- my home state of Louisiana- has maintained its unique heritage, even without manditory French- or Spanish, or Choctaw- language instruction.

 

[Coredump]

I don't believe it. I'm sure that federalism, and the appropriate size of political structures and design of political layering, is a fascinating subject in political science, and maybe it comes up more in EU politics. But I don't recall any cases in American politics where states rights weren't a smoke screen for the real issue. Both sides in the gay marriage argument were all about using the power of the federal government when it served their cause. The South Carolina succession document talked about states rights, and how states didn't have the rights to not return escaped slaves and to let black men vote.

Then you really need to expand your experiences.... Of course there issues that trigger the concern, but the concern is valid regardless. I, for one, don't want an overbearing Fed telling states what they can and can't do. (except in the areas where they are specifically allowed to do so) States are still bound by the US constitution, and that is enough. I have no problem with states making decisions I don't like... that is their prerogative. I moved to a different state that made 'better' choices. Happens all the time. But that should be up to the states, and the citizens living there.

 

[Coredump]

My gun-toting buddies often lament that they can break serious laws merely by traveling cross country with a gun in the car because of where and how they have them secured. (Remember that when someone brings up the "shall not be abridged" language of that Ammendment.)

The people in New Jersey want strict gun control, the people of Vermont want anyone to be allowed to conceal carry without a permit. As long as the laws are not violating the constitution, why would you want the Feds dictating exactly how every state should work? Why not allow the states decide what is best for their citizens?
How will your friends feel when the 'national' stance mimics the New Jersey laws?

Similarly, the insistence that States should license health care professionals & insurance leads to increased costs of licensure & insurance, decreased mobility of health care professionals, higher mortality rates due to malpractice, inconsistent levels of healthcare or even what appropriate standards of treatment should be.

So you would rather the Feds were responsible for liscensing? DO you really think that would lead to a *less* burdensome system? Do you really think that such a top-down 'one size must fit all' approach is going to be better? (There is entirely *too much* required licensing, but that is a separate issue)
Some states require a license for (Massage, chiropractor, midwife, hair braiding, pumping gas, etc.) do you really think everyone should have to follow the same rules?

Why should States control educational standards? Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live. Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs. Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.

Because, so far, the Feds have been completely atrocious at dealing with education. Every single administration for the past 50 years has had an educational plan they put into place... and every single one has been atrocious. If you don't like the curiculum in your district, you have a chance of dealing with it.... good luck when it is the "national' curriculum. (And you need a link for the Korean war Nuke story.....)

 

[Ryujin]

On that one I can give an answer. Controlling education help Québécois preserve their culture. It let us control the language in which class was given. That certainly helps prevent assimilation.

It also means we know the correct history of this land. It was discoverd by Jacques Cartier in 1534, not by John Cabot. Did you know John Cabot isn't even his real name and that he was a drunk?

Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that they won the War of 1812

 

[Kramodlog]

Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that they won the War of 1812

If I am not mistaken, from the USian perspective it is the Anglo-US War of 1812-15. Sort of like a war to confirm independence. The war of 1812 is just one (minor) battle of many.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, Canadian & American laws certainly differ, those FACTS could certainly be taught correctly if mandated at the national level.

Facts vary. For example, for the French it is Jacques Cartier who discovered North America first. Canadians and Brits say it is John Cabot. Portuguese say it is a guy named Joao Vaz Corte-Real in 1473.

Sometime facts are just influence by politics. Which politicians do you prefere influence your history, Chinese or USian?

The issue of language & assimilation is much trickier...but even OUR version of Quebec- my home state of Louisiana- has maintained its unique heritage, even without manditory French- or Spanish, or Choctaw- language instruction.

That is highly debatable. From what I understand Cajuns are a folkloric minorty and French isn't spoken much by youth. It is disappearing rapidly.

 

[billd91]

Shhhhhhhhhh. Remember, you're talking to people who think that they won the War of 1812

When you consider how much the war's resolution opened westward expansion, the US did win... And the Native Americans were the premiere losers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The people in New Jersey want strict gun control, the people of Vermont want anyone to be allowed to conceal carry without a permit. As long as the laws are not violating the constitution, why would you want the Feds dictating exactly how every state should work? Why not allow the states decide what is best for their citizens?
How will your friends feel when the 'national' stance mimics the New Jersey laws?

What particular laws are in place are not the issue- that gets sorted out via voting. The issue- prompted by my friends' expressed concerns- is that the laws they know and follow scrupulously here can get them jail time and fines if they cross a state border. Remember, ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is being from somewhere else.

As for the Constitutional violation (just playing devil's advocate here), the states are limiting a fundamental right the Constitution says "shall not be abridged." Nevermind the vague-ish part at the beginning about the right being linked to "militia", that is pretty clear language.

So you would rather the Feds were responsible for liscensing? DO you really think that would lead to a *less* burdensome system? Do you really think that such a top-down 'one size must fit all' approach is going to be better? (There is entirely *too much* required licensing, but that is a separate issue)
Some states require a license for (Massage, chiropractor, midwife, hair braiding, pumping gas, etc.) do you really think everyone should have to follow the same rules?

Yes.

1) State licensing of healthcare professionals allows quacks (and worse) to lose a license in one state and go to another. It's one of the reasons why you typically find them having been stripped of a license in multiple states before they finally serve jail time. And most malpractice is caused by repeat offenders, not the average doctor or nurse. But malpractice rates are calculated (in part) on national averages. IOW, no matter where a quack works, he's affecting your doctor's insurance rates, and thus, the cost you pay.

1a) State licensing costs money for each state your doctor is licensed in, which in turn costs you money. If he practices medicine in a state in which he isn't licensed, he opens himself up for liability. In contrast, military physicians need only be licensed in a single state, and operate under the authority of their branch anywhere there exists US military base, even in a foreign land. A single federal license saves them money, which saves you money.

(My father just recently gave up his Louisiana license a few years ago because most of the family is now here in Texas.)

In addition, they need not take the time to pass each state's particular requirements, which can be arbitrary. A cousin of mine is an MD married to a DDS. Her husband was licensed in another state when they moved to Texas. The Texas dental boards have a rule that says an applicant can be denied at any stage of the approval process, with no reason given.

He was in the final 5 minutes of the practical- the last stage of the process- when he was failed and was told to stop.

(Fact: Texas passes almost no out of state DDS license applicants their first time through the boards.)

This is blatant protectionism that costs DDS applicants money, which costs you money, and keeps qualified healthcare professionals out of the market for no good reason.

2) cosmetic professionals of all kinds may wind up causing their clients to bleed, either accidentally- a nick while shaving or giving a manicure- or as part of a procedure- Botox injection, tattooing, piercing, etc. But guess what? There are no national standards for how to handle these situations safely, nor are there national standards on the sterilization of equipment or environs.

Do you think that is the kind of thing that should vary from state to state?

Because, so far, the Feds have been completely atrocious at dealing with education. Every single administration for the past 50 years has had an educational plan they put into place... and every single one has been atrocious. If you don't like the curiculum in your district, you have a chance of dealing with it.... good luck when it is the "national' curriculum. (And you need a link for the Korean war Nuke story.....)

I'm thinking less of the grandiose stuff and more of the basics: shouldn't there be a general target for how much and what math a 5th grader knows? Shouldn't each kid have the same grounding in math & science? It isn't like that stuff changes depending on your longitude, latitude and elevation relative to sea level.

As for the book? Normally, I wouldn't bother, but it made national news.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-11-10/news/9104110179_1_books-korean-war-adoption

The reason it did is because states like California, Texas and New York are so populous that their sheer size skews the schoolbook market. If one of the big states isn't buying your textbook, it's probably not getting bought by any public schools.

It also matters because of the ripple effect in education. You teach enough kids that we won the Korean War by dropping A-bombs and similar misinformation, you then have a terribly misinformed college/job applicants. That doesn't just affect us internally, that affects how Americans do internationally.

And lest you think that the mistakes in Texas' textbooks are all accidental...well, they're clearly not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/

 

[MechaPilot]

States' rights are a delicate balance to be sure, but it's important to remember that the confederate flag isn't about states' rights, it's about state supremacy. The civil war occurred because the south thought that a federal abolition of slavery was imminent, and they didn't want to yield to a constitutionally enshrined higher authority.

There are many valid things that states do with their rights: taxation, non-discriminatory legislation, enforcement of laws, and so on. However, states' rights are also used as a sword to deny constitutional rights, to suppress voters, to promote a specific religion, to oppress certain members of the population, and achieve plenty of other ill ends. Federal laws can also do this too, but the broader range of federal representation makes it less likely.