I saw that Spunky and noticed it had been taken down this weekend as well. I am wondering as to the legality of a website being run by government funding (because it is a .gov link it must be paid for by tax dollars correct?) that lists a president elect's plans before he even takes office. Seems to me that just doing what he is currently doing in making these changes is counter to what he said that only one president can be in office at a time. He seems to be blatantly ignoring and insulting the current president and running the US out of his office without first being in the white house.
My concern this weekend was when I heard he was reviewing over 200 presidential mandates and was considering overturning some and that that was how he would institute some of these changes quicker than going through the legislature.
Frankly he is not an all dictating ruler elect and he would do well to remember this.
How soon before we are not allowed to criticize our leaders and internet and radio is all liberal all the time?
How soon before we are all mandated to volunteer our time wearing the naziesqe messiah army t-shirts?
So sad, really, that thinking homeschool parents as engaged and knowledgeable as we all are, would be focused on ideological defense, on this historic day when the outgoing president and the incoming president met peacefully in the Oval Office to discuss the orderly transition the people have spoken to endorse.
Hi Spunky,
I wrote about this, too, on Friday and again today, not realizing until I read your post just now that it had been edited. Here are links to my posts if you are interested in reading them:
Change.gov: The New Slavery
Change.gov: Infringements on Liberty
But I really didn't comment for the sake of self-promotion. What I wanted to say was that I tried using The Wayback Machine to recover the original wording (which I had copied and pasted as well), but the website isn't being archived there...This is usually a good resource when you are trying to quote something that was later edited, but not this time. 
OMG! Change.gov changed!?
You know what? Buckle up! Because I bet it's going to change *again*. It might even change again and again. Terrifying, isn't it?
I am just so tickled by so many people experiencing such heart-stopping outrage that this wording actually changed to something they agree with more than the original.
Also, if you really miss pouring over Barack Obama's policies, looking for things to knit your brow over, they are all still available on his web site. I believe this is the part you wanted to worry about:
http://www.barackobama.com/issue...issues/service/
With a cryptic address like barackobama.com, I don't know how he expects anyone to find it. Transparent government, indeed!
"So sad, really, that thinking homeschool parents as engaged and knowledgeable as we all are, would be focused on ideological defense, on this historic day when the outgoing president and the incoming president met peacefully in the Oval Office to discuss the orderly transition the people have spoken to endorse."
JJ, Obama didn't have to put up a website that says he was going to "require" community service and then when people noticed remove it. Obviously his staff is still working on things during this "historic" time, even working the weekend. If others want to take a vacation during this time, that's their privilege. But as for me, I prefer to keep-up-to-date on what's going on and hold our "rulers" accountable when they put forth ideas like "requiring" community service.
Lydia, I can accept changes to a website. Not to have any would be odd. But to put up a website on November 6 and then take it all down three days later seems to be a bit more than just a few changes.
I know that the content was still up at Barack Obama, I mentioned that in the post where I said, "Most of the information was just repeated from his campaign website, so why take it down?" So you're not telling me anything I didn't already know on that front.
But why delete it in one spot, change it in another, and keep it up at his Barack Obama site? And in one spot call it voluntary and in another say it is required.
Ironically, the idea of requiring children to do community service isn't new. It was put forth by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm back in her 2003 State of the State address.
"I will ask all of our school districts to volunteer to make 40 hours of community service a requirement for graduation from their high schools. We want to raise young people who embrace service to others as a way of life."
How nice, Jennifer Granholm wants the state to "raise our children to embrace" volunteering to serve by making it MANDATORY and a condition for graduation. Requiring voluntary service is an oxymoron.
All of this was a key component in her economic plan to help Michigan. She went on to say,
"Just as stronger schools are critical to our strategy to build Michigan’s economy, so too are our efforts to create a healthier Michigan."
And guess who is an one of two key advisors on Obama's tranition team regarding the economy? You guessed it, Jennifer Granholm.
So I honestly don't think it was a mistake that the website said "required" because Jennifer Granholm said it first and wants to see it done nationally. This isn't change, it's social engineering by liberal politicians.
The rest of the country can enjoy the honeymoon, but not me. It's business as usual.
Another one of those pesky slips of the tongue...eh, Valerie?
Ruler indeed.
People will continue to make excuses for Obama. Even when he invents a new federal office complete with a seal--"Office of the President-elect".
He doesn't even have the decency to wait until the inauguration to start unraveling our government and re-making it into his image.
My eighth grader got out our copy of "Animal Farm". He read aloud, but stopped every couple of paragraphs saying: "This sounds familiar".
...of course it does.
The only reason people think Obama is going to "change" America is because they haven't read about those same "changes" implemented by the other communists who walked this same path to Utopia.
Same ideas. Repackaged. Re-URL'ed.
I'm not sure that the office was "invented" by Barack Obama.
The Presidential Transition Act of 1963
provides for funding to set up a transition office. Calling it the Office of the President-Elect seems logical, but creating a seal seems over the top. But there is precendent for Obama being over the top, he was anxious in the campaign to create a Presidential like seal.
As far a using the Dot GOV extension, that may be the reason they took down the content since much of it was from the Obama website. But you'd think a crack team of legal scholars including the Harvard grad himself would have checked the legal requirements BEFORE going live. But then why let a few legal technicalities get in the way of progress and change.
You're right, Spunky. Obama didn't invent the transition office. He is just inventing a new tradition for the office. Image is everything for future "rulers" of America.
I guess his eagerness to change our terrible country should excuse his lack of good manners.
But, somehow, I'm just not that eager for his changes.
I'm not eager for his new civilian national security force, having to work without pay, loss of our Bill of Rights, etc.
So, I respectfully and enthusiastically disagree with President-elect Obama...until he says I can't.
I watched Witness to Jonestown last night on MSNBC.After it was done I told my husband the creepeist part of the documentary was how much Barack Obama is like the late Jim Jones.The story talked about how Jim Jones was looked as a savior and he promised health care,jobs,housing and food to all who followed.
Like it or not, Obama was elected so I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Jim Jones analogy. However, I think that many of Obamas supporters appear willing to accept anything that Obama says, similar to those that followed Jim Jones.
One of the characteristics of the ardent supporters that I talked to was that unwillingness to admit possible problems in his resume or questioning his ideas. Even here when presented with ideas, more often than not the conversation turns to me instead of refuting the ideas.
It happened again the comments, when JJ was critical of the timing of comments rather than discussing the proposal itself which is a direct infringment on our liberties as parents and invidividuals. No one should be required to work without compensation and the very idea that this would pass thorugh and make it onto a website of our future President is nothing short of amazing.
Brandy, I added your links to the post, well done. Feel free to self-promote any time you (or anyone else) likes. That's what makes blogging, fun and informative at the same time.
Oh come now, the only thing that matters now is that the president-elect is "Cool". Hey, there is no need to worry about "change". President-elect is surrounding himself with former Clintonistas: Emanuel, Podesta, Rubin, Summers, Lux to name a few. Now that is real change! Just wish he would invite James Carville to join the team.
Change ... yeah right. It won't be long before we see the days of Camelot return. Goodie, Goodie!
Okay Spunky, I'll bite -- who is actually going to be "required to work without compensation" by the federal government?
JJ., I think I can answer that one. It would be our children. The original wording said 50 hours per year for middle school through high school and then 100 hours per year for college. This is an infringement of child-labor laws (at least in my state) since children here aren't allowed to work outside of family-owned businesses until they are 15 years old. I know it said required to "serve" rather than work, but I think that all of us know that serving is work in that it is laborious. Regardless of compensation, it is still technically slavery since the children are required to do this.
Interestingly enough, when I told my father tonight that one version was voluntary service rewarded with a tax credit, he declared this to be stealing since he knew that Obama would be taking extra money from him through taxation in order to subsidize these students who, more likely than not, pay no taxes at all.
Spunky, thank you for the links.
That's a strange stretch ferom what I see, Brandy. But whatever -- the par thta tinterests me most, is why homeshcoolers would be looking for such troule, rather than opportunity. . .
Our children,JJ, that's who.
Read the quote in the comments from Jennifer Granholm. She said "
"I will ask all of our school districts to volunteer to make 40 hours of community service a requirement for graduation from their high schools."
Obama isn't even asking for the schools to volunteer our children. He is tying it to federal funding. If schools want their share of the money, they've will have to make sure their students are doing community service.
Think about it, the parents are forced to provide money for public education, now their being told you're child won't graduate until they "volunteer" to work.
Requiring community service is work done after hours for which they are not paid. When someone requires someone else to work without just compensation it is slavery.
Further, the school has no authority to dictate what a child does with their time outside of school hours. The child can choose to volunteer but when it is tied to graduation it is no longer a choice, but an obligation forced upon them by the state.
I'm not looking for trouble. This is a reality in my state and with Granholm involved in Obama's transition likely a national issue as well.
Except in fact, it is NOT "our children." We homeschoolers don't put "our children" in school.
Chicago began a similar plan in 1997. Here's a look at the website that explains the tie between community service and graduation.
I thought this requirement was telling,
"Students may not earn service hours by working with a for-profit business or for a religious organization if the service involves proselytizing or receiving payment for their work."
They actually admit that this is work for which they CANNOT be paid! Yet it is required for graduation.
When anyone requires free people to work without just compensation it is slavery not community service.
JJ, I used "our" because that is what Obama kept referring to in his speech, "our children."
Of course our children are not in the schools, but that doesn't mean we're exempt from the requirement.
Remember Obama's statement in support of homeschooling he said as along as they conform to the laws and regulations in their state. Quite a few states require homeschoolers to fulfill all of the same requirements as those enrolled in public school. Requirements that can all be amended, especially if there is federal pressure to do so.
One of the other statements that appeared on Change.gov was that "all schools of education" be accredited. He didn't just refer to the public schools. What does Obama mean by "all schools of education."
But even if homeschoolers were exempt. It is a troubling precendent for the leaders of a free nation to require work without just compensation. No government should require anyone to work without paying them, especially children.
One can't take such concerns seriously now, after all the concerns I've raised relative to public schools that were blown off by "homeschoolers" insistingI must be some kind of spy or whatever, because public schoools were no concern of homeschooling families.
Daily attendance is required. Homework is required. Algebra and sex education, phys ed and computer skills, you name it, it's required all day every day for 13 years for all "our" kids, meaning kids generally, who I care about but didn't think other homeschoolers did.
If I were a white hsing mom with no dog in the fight, I don;t think I'd have the nerve to attack a black Democrat dad over something I characteried as slave labor in the schools.
And frankly this country has more volunteerism than any around the world...requiring people to do it and then dictating which groups are acceptable to volunteer for is not what made this nation great and will only increase the socialist agenda.
Homeschoolers will not be exempt. Why do 'we' worry and watch and discuss? JJ we can not blindly ignore things that are mandated for students just because we homeschool it is because we homeschool that we have to keep vigilant. We will be lucky to not have a loophole inserted at some point that would allow federal regulations of homechoolers...this is not paranoia this is a real issue.
But mostly because we love this country and it is a poor direction to head down-slavery in the form of volunteerism.
"Schools of education" presumably are university teacher prep programs.
What is a school of education? Is it possible you're asking this in earnest?
A school of education is a school where you get a degree in education. Obama is talking about teacher training here; that's why it falls under the heading "Teacher Prep." Unless you want to give your homeschooled child a teaching certificate that will allow him/her to get a job in a public school, this doesn't apply to you.
To elaborate. Look at this web site:
http://www.alleducationschools.com/
Notice how many of these schools, particularly the "featured" ones, are online schools that you've never heard of or maybe have seen advertised on TV? These colleges of education need to be accredited like regular brick-and-mortar universities. That's the issue here -- making the University of Phoenix adhere to the same standards that the University of Michigan does.
"If I were a white hsing mom with no dog in the fight, I don;t think I'd have the nerve to attack a black Democrat dad over something I characteried as slave labor in the schools."
Why not? Why in the world would any of us turn a blind eye towards policies that intend to use children and young adults as slave labor just because they're presented to us by a black Democrat dad? Neither his race nor mine have anything to do with this issue, nor any other issue.
And frankly, I'm appalled at the notion that we shouldn't stand up for injustice unless we have "a dog in the fight."
JJ, "One can't take such concerns seriously now, after all the concerns I've raised relative to public schools that were blown off by "homeschoolers" insistingI must be some kind of spy or whatever, because public schoools were no concern of homeschooling families."
Simply because SOME homeschoolers blew off your previous concerns does not answer the concern that Obama has a policy that promotes requiring children to work without just compensation.
"If I were a white hsing mom with no dog in the fight, I don;t think I'd have the nerve to attack a black Democrat dad over something I characteried as slave labor in the schools."
Requiring children to homework is not the same thing as requiring a child to work outside of school hours in a service project. If that were the case then the government could mandate just about anything for children after school hours.
As far as making sure the University of Phoenix adheres to the same standards and U of M, are you encouraging federally mandated standards at the university level? I certainly don't support federally mandated standards at any level including college. Such an idea, in fact when Bush's D of Ed Secretary Spellings proposed it it was resoundingly shot down by just about everybody except the most progressive education policy types who sought centrally controlled education from preschool to grade 16. (P-16 with 16 being four years of college after grade 12.)
Kathy Jo said, "And frankly, I'm appalled at the notion that we shouldn't stand up for injustice unless we have "a dog in the fight."
I agree and the willingness of Obama supporters to excuse this requirement simply because homeschoolers have dismissed other concerns in the past or they require homework so this is okay too, is absurd.
"If I were a white hsing mom with no dog in the fight, I don't think I'd have the nerve to attack a black Democrat dad over something I characteried as slave labor in the schools."
The fact that Obama is a "black Democrat dad" is irrelevant. This isn't about Obama, his skin color, or his fatherhood and it's not an attack either. It's an examination of his policy proposal that requires students to work without pay. You may call it what you will, but it is slavery to require anyone to work without just compensation. I could never force my neighbor's child ot work for me without paying them, that but somehow the federal government proposes it and every says it's "educational."
It depends on what one's actual goal is, in "examining his policy proposal" --
If it's really to study and understand the public education issues and then when you've educated yourself, to become part of the solution rather than making new problems, to advocate for something to actually progress toward improved public education policies for America, not just your own kids, then great.
This is the first time I've met a group of conservative homeschoolers without public education policy expertise for whom that IS the goal. But maybe y'all are so new at it, you don't realize yet how seizing on inflammatory wedge words is counterproductive to that end -- slave labor is right up there with baby-killer, murderer, Nazi, Marxist, terrorist, etc etc --
JJ:
What does being white have to do with being concerned that "our" children are being forced into compulsory "service" to our country?
(Pop Quiz: what do Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce have in common?)
And per your presumtion that schools of education that require accredidation will be at the university level, I think it's smart for all of us to get specifics nailed down and avoid assumption and presumption. When any politician speaks vaguely and with sweeping platitudes about something so important as parental rights in educational choice, specificity should be demanded.
Or is that too white of me? Or am I white? Maybe I'm brown.
Obama is our PoTuS now; it matters not the color of his skin. It's the content of his character that counts.
(I'm concerned that Granholm is an Obama economic advisor....Michigan doesn't seem to be in stellar shape in that particular area......!)
JJ, there is no goal except to learn exactly what is being proposed. I have educated myself, and as I previously pointed out this isn't a new proposal.
"This is the first time I've met a group of conservative homeschoolers without public education policy expertise for whom that IS the goal...."
JJ, Here again you prove my point. You have attempted once again to shift the subject to me and a group conservative homeschoolers without policy experience, instead of the real issue which is Obama's proposal.
The discussion is about Obama's educational plans and whether requiring children to work without just compensation is right in a free society.
Ridiculing me or anyone else for a lack of public education policy experitse does not serve to do anything but distract from the proposal which is slavery couched in flowery language in order to escape scrutiny. I don't need a degree in public education policy to recognize it when I see it.
Mrs. Burns said "(I'm concerned that Granholm is an Obama economic advisor....Michigan doesn't seem to be in stellar shape in that particular area......!)"
You're not the only one. Granholm campaigned on the promise, "give me four years and I'll blow you away." She wasn't kidding. She's blown more people out of Michigan than you can imagine. We're about to go even deeper in unemployment with GM unless she can get Congress to bailout the car industry. Her policies have been nothing but disastrous for this state and her approval rating is lower than Bush's. She's looking for an exit door and Obama's administration is her ticket out of the state too. Even she doesn't want to live here anymore.
You misunderstand. I meant to ridicule inflammatory language and closed echo chamber of indignation about public education, as counterproductive in at least two ways: it's no way to actually improve education policy, and worse for us homeschoolers directly, it hurts our credibility in education advocacy.
Mainstream moderate voters could be forgiven for concluding we're ignorant ideologues who cannot teach critical thinking skills and good citizenship at home, which makes hsing more vulnerable (not less) to increased regulation over time. This wouldn't hurt my own family's freedom -- as you point out, I have education credentials -- but it would be affect most homeschooling families, and I believe it would be a bad thing not just for them personally, but for America.
Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (he's not an education policy expert either) hits the current tone and mood of the people about education imo, which is past dividing us by grievance and jarringly at odds with any talk of "slave labor":
With Mr. Obama as the head of government, discussion of racial problems now comes in the form of pragmatic discourse for how to best give all Americans opportunity, for example, how to improve schools.
The change in black politics has been slowly coming with the growing black middle-class. It now accelerates with Mr. Obama's victory.
As King said at the end of the 1965 march for voting rights in Alabama -- when he reached the state capitol in Montgomery -- the result of black political participation is a "society that can live with its conscience."
There are no quick solutions, he added, but no matter how difficult or frustrating there will be success because "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice."
"You misunderstand. I meant to ridicule inflammatory language and closed echo chamber of indignation about public education, as counterproductive in at least two ways: it's no way to actually improve education policy, and worse for us homeschoolers directly, it hurts our credibility in education advocacy."
JJ, I'm confused. This discussion centered around a federal policy proposal requiring to do community service. You have said nothing about the merits or problems with such a proposal but seem intent about trying to make sure that homeschoolers don't use inflammatory language when discussing the issue. Point taken.
Now let's get on to discussing the proposal. Requiring children to work without just compensation is wrong. A free society should not compel any citizen to work without pay regardless of how altruistic the motive or how noble the goal. The next President of the United States has proposed making this a national policy. I say it is wrong to require students to work without paying them for the work.
What do you say?
"Mainstream moderate voters could be forgiven for concluding we're ignorant ideologues who cannot teach critical thinking skills and good citizenship at home, which makes hsing more vulnerable (not less) to increased regulation over time. This wouldn't hurt my own family's freedom -- as you point out, I have education credentials -- but it would be affect most homeschooling families, and I believe it would be a bad thing not just for them personally, but for America."
Homeschooling is not more vulnerable because of what is written here. That's absurd anymore than public education is vulnerable because of the teacher who berated the little girl in the classroom. What makes homeschooling vulnerable to increaswed regulation are policies that are promoted as altruistic but with unintended consequences that undermine our ability to direct the education of our children.
Requiring children to work without just compensation does exactly that.
I say we seem not to be speaking the same language in any respect. My working definition of words like "require" and "compel" not to mention opportunity and scholarship and education, doesn't fit what I've seen about the national service proposal.
And even if this proposal were to be compulsory, mandatory for every enrolled student rather than an incentive they can opt out of, I haven't anyone make a valid distinction between this and other mandatory requirements of public schooling. This "after school hours" distinction is meaningless when all manner of field trips and academic work is assigned. The definition of "credit hour" in fact, is predicated on a one-to-three ratio of time in class and time out of class.
And I say we disagree completely in our view of how public discourse shapes public opinion, and how that public opinion changes law. (And of course how important Internet ccommunication including blogging, is becoming in that process.)
Sandra Day O'Connor's pragmatic, non-ideological way of hearing when middle America is ready to change, and how much, is basically how I see it. It's a moving target and if you keep shooting at it from one entrenched position, you not only miss but you may wind up a target yourself. An education example would be how she approached affirmative action cases in higher education over time.
I misspoke about the classic definition of credit hour above. It IS a three-hour concept, but that makes the ratio of time in class to time out of class one-to-two, not one-to-three.
How do we parse words or websites when they keep changing? How do we extrapolate meaning from Obama's words when he changes the meaning?
He says he will require community service and then changes the word to goal.
What does that mean?
When a government "requires" something, it usually means compulsion through law. When he changed the word to "goal", does it really mean anything different?
I think we had this argument before.
The word at the time was "ask".
The result is Obama using government mandates to get the results he wants...forced volunteering, work without compensation, child labor, slavery. All these words mean the same thing.
Those who believe Obama's "goals" for education are laudable and nothing more than what is already being done, will find those words offensive.
I believe that combined with all his other statements about the federal government's role in our lives, will find those words accurate.
WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, [ya think??]
but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.
"I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may _ may not, I hope not _ but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
"I say we seem not to be speaking the same language in any respect. My working definition of words like "require" and "compel" not to mention opportunity and scholarship and education, doesn't fit what I've seen about the national service proposal."
JJ, Read Obama's first proposal before it was editted, it clearly used the word "require." That wasn't the only place either, it was used multiiple times before the website was taken down. Granholm also used the term as did the website talking about national service in Chicago, all use the word "require" in regards to community service.
So just to make sure I'm not making any erroneous assumptions are in favor of the federal government requiring students to "volunteer" while in middle and high school?
Obama did propose a national security force that was just as strong and well funded as the US military.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, strong just as well funded."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...h?
v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
JJ, since words are important I'd like to know what do you call it when the leader of the FREE world calls for a CIVILIAN national security force funded by the government, a social club, a fraternity, or something else?
Thank you Julia for identifying that one of the ways the fellow travelers are fooled into making the (short?) march into bondage is through the use of language.
Words mean things.
Ideas have consequences.
George Orwell wrote the book on this tactic, I do believe.
And this book is also pretty descriptive on the topic: Matthew 5:37:
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Here's a paragraph from the Chicago service-learning project that establishes that the type of "required" volunteering is was not academic. In fact the Board of Education required that it not be related to academics, so that blows the excuse that this is just like homework.
"
Contrary to the panel's recommendation, the Board of Education chose a community service requirement that did not integrate students' service activities into their academic studies. The Board felt that community service would be a positive way for students to develop healthy attitudes about volunteerism while delivering hundreds of thousands of hours of service to neighborhoods throughout the city."
This is very similar to the settiment by Gov. Granholm in her first State of the State in 2003 that I quoted above.
Let's see how yes-and-no I can be (not my specialty!) 
No, I am not in favor of the federal government requiring anything of students, including compulsory attendance. I am in favor of our federal government holding other levels of government and all public education institutions accountable to us, not the other way around (within what is constitutionally consistent, of course.) I am in favor of this all the time, as a principle meant to make education better, not worse, to guarantee equal access to high-quality education opportunities, as a necessary form of promoting our general welfare and providing for our common defense.
No, I am not in favor of pitting the perfect against the good, or one good against another, or one civil right against another. I am not in favor of policy arguments that work backward, rationalizing after the fact what one first concluded based on personal belief. That is the worst of what the Bush administration has done to this noble nation imo, and it is inexcusable.
Yes, I see much reason to hope we will do much better at intelligent, pragmatic rather than ideologically driven government, starting right now.
No, I don't take the suggestion of any sort of civilian "national security force" as presaging a Marxist dictatorship, much less the opposite, Hitler fascism reincarnate. (One is hyper-liberal, the other hyper-conservative and neither is anything more than wild fearmongering to America's past, present or future in the real world we need to be figuring out how to re-engage.)
Military as the only kind of national security force we understand and support, is demonstrably failing as the way to meet too many of the global concerns that threaten us all -- the economy, energy and climate change, and education.
You're right, Mrs. Burns, that was Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language". He showed how politicians twist language to distort and deceive.
Maybe we can help President-elect Obama with a few suggestions: "National Fraternity for the Security of the People"...too wordy? or maybe too exclusive--it might make women feel left out.
"Club America"...snappy and patriotic at the same time.
Of course, Obama likes the word 'global' too.
I'm going to have to get out my thesaurus.
Thanks for the unequivocal equivocaton on this policy. I have to admit, when you said, "No, I am not in favor of the federal government requiring anything of students, including compulsory attendance. I am in favor of our federal government holding other levels of government and all public education institutions accountable to us, not the other way around (within what is constitutionally consistent, of course.) I am in favor of this all the time, as a principle meant to make education better, not worse, to guarantee equal access to high-quality education opportunities, as a necessary form of promoting our general welfare and providing for our common defense."
it made absolutely no sense to me. If you'd like to clarify that's fine but if not I'll leave it here.
I created a new post regarding the national security force. I just couldn't say what needed to be said in a comment box.
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...lice-
state.html
The stoopid! It burns!
He's not president yet. He has literally no power to do anything. Change.gov is irrelevant. Do you believe everything you read on the intertubes?
It's like y'all have forgotten the way government works. Ideas get floated as trial balloons. Most get shot down right away. Others get modified and become part of the agenda. Then those have to get through Congress.
I have little doubt that the federal gov't will tie Title I aid to a service requirement. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, but it's really not that big a change. I don't have stats on it, but it seems that more and more states have some kind of service requirement for graduation from the public schools. NC does. MI, too. (BTW, no state requires this of HEKs, AFAIK.) That's the way federalism works, remember? The states experiment. So what if Obama has concluded that MI and NC are right? Spunky, how come you haven't rallied the troops in MI to get the requirement repealed? It seems that your opposition to Obama is bleeding over to just general opposition. Choose your battles well. Right now you and many of your commenters are sounding a bit "unhinged."
As for the rest of the hysteria with the Nazi comparisons and rants about an American Gestapo... Please re-read the first 'graf of my comment above.
Daryl, I didn't read this on the "intertube" I was doing my own inquiry when I noticed that something that Presisdent-elect Obama put up is now down. That seemed odd so I checked into it.
You may want to assume that he isn't going to do any of this, or much of it. Not me. That's how we got No Child Left Behind. A service requirement may be something a state does for those in their public schools, but a President requiring it is something entirely different.
The fact that no state requires it of homeschoolers does not mean we are immune to the effects of such a requirement.
Just to correct one statement you made Daryl, Michigan does NOT have a state wide requirement to volunteer, it is done by districts. So each district determines on their own if it will be added to the state wide requirements. Granholm would like to make it statewide and the Michigan Merit Scholarship board attempted to sneak it in as a requirement for the Merit Scholarship but it didn't happen because the Attorney General said they had no authority to add to what the legislature stipulated.
Right now we're in the information gathering stage. Staying informed about what COULD be coming is the best way to make sure it does not occur. Most of us are just getting to know the real Obama and the sooner we can bring to light some of his ideas and discuss them the better. I totally understand how government works and I'm well aware that these are ideas, but my intent is to educate myself and those I come in contact with. So that if the trial balloon ever floats into Congress we will be able to articulate exactly why this is a bad idea.
I appreciate the exhortation to choose my battles wisely. But let's not forget that you voted for the guy, so your counsel is taken with that in mind. The battle hasn't begun yet, at this point we're just looking at a map and trying to determine where the first shots may be fired.
LOL- but clearly it's a war against him, stay tuned for the next battle to begin? That mindset is mired in the past politics of personal destruction. Choosing to hunker down in ideological bunkers firing wildly at everything that moves, is HARDLY info gathering, bringing new ideas to light, getting to know the new president-to-be, etc.
Reminds me of those old WWII movies where isolated pockets of Japanese hole up in some mountain cave and fight on, telling themselves it's about honor, as the rest of the world moves on to resolve the conflicts and find peace.
It's every citizens' right of course, but that doesn't make it right.
America the :
" We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth.
The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection.
This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities. . ."
I don't have time to read all of the comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said. In my county it's a graduation requirement for public school students *already* to complete a certain number of community service hours. I'm not in the PS system with my kids, so I can't give more detail than that, and I don't know if this is a county, state, or federal mandate.
I'd also like to respectfully suggest that we give President Elect Obama a chance. Yes, keep an eye on what's happening, but sheesh. The man is taking on an entire country in a huge mess. He deserves the support of his country - at least until we see that there is REALLY a problem, REALLY a policy that can't be tolerated.
Kris, as I said in my statement after Obama's election, I "respect" Obama. That's all that he deserves. The campaign is over and the transition has started. I'm not going to wait until this is introduced in a Congressional session to see IF this is a problem, many of these ideas are not done through the legislature but through executive order and in budget allocation.
He'll be plenty busy for awhile undoing all the horrendous civil rights violations of the current president's executive orders.
If your idea of respect is to accuse Obama of conspiring to conscript your children, or any of the other myriad conspiratorial accusations that you've floated in the last few months, I'd really hate to see how you reacted to somebody that you don't respect.
COD,
I'm curious to know why it is that you - and all Obama supporters - seem to assume and presume that his intentions are so benevolent??
All that Spunky has done these last few months is point out over and over again that his ideas are not clearly defined or are contrary to the ideals that some of us hold.
Just *because* you would like to read into his words what you would *like* to believe he is saying doesn't mean that your assertions are correct anymore than Spunky's 'conspiracy' theories are.
Asking children to volunteer is one thing, requiring it is quite another. Even Jennifer Granholm's education advisor (the one who said that he wrote that portion of her speech) had to admit that this was one problem with her proposed policy and he struggled immensely with the wording and still didn't get it quite right. That's because there is no stylish way of telling parents that the state is going to require your children to volunteer. Requiring a child to volunteer is an oxymoron. But that's exactly what they are trying to do in order to teach children civic responsibility. But the whole policy contradicts the very liberties our country was founded upon. It is the individual who decides to volunteer, when to volunteer, and how they will volunteer. State mandated volunteering in state approved ways is not volunteering. But state mandated work without just compensation - slavery.
As far as respect, making an assertion based on what I read in Obama's agenda isn't in and of itself disrespectful. Examining and disagreeing with a leader is one of the hallmark liberties of a free society. Even disrespectful disagreement is tolerated.
JJ Ross said: We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth.
*****************
I would humbly submit that whether you meant it that way or not, the author of this blog and most of the commenters here fit this description to a "T". Compliments all around.
It's the emotional, projection types that worry me. Talk amongst yourselves.
And as far as all those horrible Bush civil rights violations go, wasn't I reading earlier this week where the AP was all excited that some of those very "violations" were set up in a way that will allow President Obama tremendous flexibility in the War on Terror?
MrsBurns said:
"It's the emotional, projection types that worry me."
Me too.
Those who claim to be tolerant end up being intolerant.
Commenting by HaloScan
