State of the Union Address

[elwoodblues]

Just curious what everyone's opinion of the State of the Union Address was. I thought the president delivered a good speech that was fairly persuasive. I disagreed with most of his positions, but the speech itself was well written.

The high point for me was the liberal applause/standing ovation when Bush began the sentence about key provisions of the Patriot Act expiring soon.

~elwood
p.s. to President Bush the word is NUCLEAR not NUCULAR

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The State of the Union Address is usually a whole lot of fluff. I never watch it. I can pick up the main points reading newspapers. If you ask me, it exists mainly to provide work for journalists.

Last night I chose a SNG with "Clear and Present Danger" on in the background over the GWB.

And don't tell me that it's required in the constitution. All the constitution requires is that the President send a report to Congress on the state of the union. It doesn't mandate all the hoopla. He could fulfill his constitutional duties with an e-mail.

[adios]

Honestly I don't think Bush is a very good speaker. I read the speech didn't see it though. He basically touched on many things without going into a lot of depth like Social Security reform (it needs to be reformed), his education programs, and his prisoner rehabilitation programs to name a few. He was a little more specific about Medicare/Medicaid reform. I think his points about Homeland security were very good ones. Don't think we'll see the Patriot Act in it's current form again though. Liked the part about taxes and discretionary spending although to "fix" the budget deficit problem, entitlements such as Medicare/Medicaid (recent legislation is part of the reform) and Social Security will have to be reformed (I know Social Security is currently running at a surplus).

I got in a heated discussion with wife and daughter about drug testing in schools but he was vague about that too.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I got in a heated discussion with wife and daughter about drug testing in schools but he was vague about that too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious what the position you took was? I have no problem doing drug testing for students involved in extracurricular activities --- mandatory testing based on the fact that you are enrolled is a different issue entirely to me.

[adios]

They basically said that any drug testing was Nazism and stated that kids who are experimenting with pot are far different than hard core drug addicts. I more or less played the devils advocate. I pointed out that in the work place people are screened; that pot users often try and use other drugs; and that drug dealers on school campuses need to be eradicated. I agree that there are nightmare scenarios where the rights of students are trampled. I think there's a place for drug testing in schools but I'm not sure what Bush is proposing exactly.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I have no problem doing drug testing for students involved in extracurricular activities

No offense, but I've always thought this was the silliest idea I ever heard. I would think the students most likely to be involved with drugs would be the ones who don't participate in extracurricular activities.

Of course, I oppose all drug testing in public schools. There's that little thing called the Constitution. 4th & 5th amendments.

[elwoodblues]

I agree that they are the ones least likely to be involved in drug activity, but they are also the ones (depending on the extracurricular activity) that can and do serve as positive role models for other students.

I certainly understand the Constitutional argument; however, extracurricular activities are by their very nature voluntary. That's an important distinction for me.

~elwood

[adios]

I guess my daughter and wife were right (as usual).

[Zeno]

Drug testing is repulsive and intrusive and to institute such policies in the US public school system is inane and counterproductive in that it would, in the long run, lead to ugly consequences far more dangerous than what it purports to cure, in my opinion. Do you yank a sixth-grade girl out of class and demand that she pee in a cup? Eight-grade boys? All High school students? What about teachers, administrators, or the janitor?

Many schools are already pseudo police facilities – Can’t we leave students a small fraction of trust and a little self-respect and dignity? What kind of message does this leave to very young and impressionable children and teenagers? This is viciously insane. But I’m sure many people will support it.


-Zeno

[elwoodblues]

Mandatory drug testing can be very repulsive. I am actually very torn about it. On the one hand, I am generally opposed to this type of state-action --- illegal searches and seizures are a big problem and mandatory drug testing would certainly exacerbate the problem..

On the other hand, I know that something has to be done about the drug problem in this country (particularly in High Schools). Perhaps more education on the adverse consequences is part of the answer (though students tend to view themselves as invincible). I don't know if testing students is the answer (perhaps, as I suggested earlier, targetting your testing to "role model" students is better.) What potential solutions do we have?

Solution 1: mandatory testing of all students -- Constitutional issues; unsure what the result would be if someone tests positive

Solution 2: testing of "some" students (e.g. those involved in extracurricular activities) - same Constitutional issues, though probably not as much so as testing all students. Consequences? (kick them off the team? turn them in to police? etc.)

Solution 3: more education about drugs -- probably not effective

Solution 4: Just say No! --- No.

Solution 5: status quo - there is no problem. I don't buy it. I worked in the dean's office of a high school for a short period of time (affluent suburban school). You would be absolutely shocked about the amount of drugs we found.

Solution 6: Test once there is probable cause (as is done in criminal matters). Who would determine probable cause? Do we want this onus placed on teachers?

Solution 7: Drug sniffing dogs smelling lockers. Really only addresses the issue of kids coming to school with drugs, not kids coming to school stoned. Still raises constitutional questions (though I suspect it would be constitutionally permissible). Parents tend to not like this idea (having a dog walk around seems too prison-like).

Other solutions?

[elwoodblues]

Mandatory drug testing can be very repulsive. I am actually very torn about it. On the one hand, I am generally opposed to this type of state-action --- illegal searches and seizures are a big problem and mandatory drug testing would certainly exacerbate the problem..

On the other hand, I know that something has to be done about the drug problem in this country (particularly in High Schools). Perhaps more education on the adverse consequences is part of the answer (though students tend to view themselves as invincible). I don't know if testing students is the answer (perhaps, as I suggested earlier, targetting your testing to "role model" students is better.) What potential solutions do we have?

Solution 1: mandatory testing of all students -- Constitutional issues; unsure what the result would be if someone tests positive

Solution 2: testing of "some" students (e.g. those involved in extracurricular activities) - same Constitutional issues, though probably not as much so as testing all students. Consequences? (kick them off the team? turn them in to police? etc.)

Solution 3: more education about drugs -- probably not effective

Solution 4: Just say No! --- No.

Solution 5: status quo - there is no problem. I don't buy it. I worked in the dean's office of a high school for a short period of time (affluent suburban school). You would be absolutely shocked about the amount of drugs we found.

Solution 6: Test once there is probable cause (as is done in criminal matters). Who would determine probable cause? Do we want this onus placed on teachers?

Solution 7: Drug sniffing dogs smelling lockers. Really only addresses the issue of kids coming to school with drugs, not kids coming to school stoned. Still raises constitutional questions (though I suspect it would be constitutionally permissible). Parents tend to not like this idea (having a dog walk around seems too prison-like).

Other solutions?

[HDPM]

The positive role model argument is the worst possible argument IMO. I didn't see the SOU speech last night, but it infuriates me that our President thinks professional sport has some obligation to society to drug test and have athletes as role models. We are a doomed culture if the federal government gets involved in steroid testing protocols for women's beach volleyball or the NFL or whatever. Now telling a high school kid he should look up to a cheerleader or football player is even worse IMO. A kid has zero obligation to act as a role model for another kid. No kid should have some other kid as a role model IMO. Sure, sometimes you might admire someone's talent or work ethic, but that doesn't mean you worship them and it doesn't somehow put a collectivist obligation on the would be role model. That is just not what school is about. I really am not sure what school is about now. Clearly it has only a passing relationship to education. Sometimes educational programs and school functions overlap, but not always. Here, the goal of drug testing is to win elections through pandering, to increase federal spending, increase bureaucracy, create little feifdoms, and train children that the government has control of their bodies. The ONLY rational reason to drug test children in extracurriculars is becase of immediate concerns of physical safety while participating. There is no rational governmental purpose served by seeing if a debater smoked pot a month ago. Ah, anyway, the whole thing is ridiculous.


The more I pay attention to what goes on in school, the more I think it is child abuse to send our children to them. I don't have any kids, but if we do eventually have them, I don't know if I can send them to a government school. Prvate schools are bad enough since they operate on the same flawed model, but they are way better than the gov. schools. It may be time to separate education and state. I don't know how to do that as I want to see all kids educated, but the current government holding pens/indoctrination centers aren't very good. I used to knock home schooling, but I am rethinking it. Aside from the fact you only need maybe 3 hours a day to outperform the gov. schools, at least you don't have your kids indoctrinated with a bunch of crap. The downside is that they don't get as much exposure to how awful people are and how to get along with them. These are important life skills, but I think I'd rather have my kids learn that on the street than in a classroom.

[adios]

Wow! [ QUOTE ]
We are a doomed culture if the federal government gets involved in steroid testing protocols for women's beach volleyball or the NFL or whatever. Now telling a high school kid he should look up to a cheerleader or football player is even worse IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't this part of the reason why Kleibold and Harris shot up Columbine i.e. the exalted place given to jocks and cheerleaders in the high school?


[ QUOTE ]
I really am not sure what school is about now. Clearly it has only a passing relationship to education. Sometimes educational programs and school functions overlap, but not always.

[/ QUOTE ]

After thinking about what you wrote here it does appear that big government is probably too powerful in the school systems already. Thinking back on last night, I remember what proceeded the argument on drug testing. It was about how government isn't doing enough to help people obtain employment. I remember one of the points I was trying to make was that there's a downside to bigger government and if you're looking for a handout from government you have to be ready to accept the negative side of government intervention in this case in some sort of possible intrusive drug testing.

[ QUOTE ]
I used to knock home schooling, but I am rethinking it. Aside from the fact you only need maybe 3 hours a day to outperform the gov. schools, at least you don't have your kids indoctrinated with a bunch of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Home schooling is a very viable option in New Mexico and yes students tend to do quite well from what I understand.

[ QUOTE ]
The downside is that they don't get as much exposure to how awful people are and how to get along with them. These are important life skills, but I think I'd rather have my kids learn that on the street than in a classroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true about home schooling at least not in New Mexico. Other parents who home school network etc. to give home schooled kids this kind of exposure.

[MMMMMM]

"On the other hand, I know that something has to be done about the drug problem in this country (particularly in High Schools)."

I don't know this at all. Perhaps you could tell me how you do know.

Sometimes, too, there are better ways to "deal with a problem" than "doing something about it."

Also, some problems do not respond positively to any attempts at direct meddling, but are better solved by individuals (or families) rising to the challenges on their own. In other words, maybe people becoming more empowered to take control of their own lives (through lower taxes, say, and greater rewards for personal achievement) may result in fewer people being susceptible to harmful vices.

[MMMMMM]

"On the other hand, I know that something has to be done about the drug problem in this country (particularly in High Schools)."

I don't know this at all. Perhaps you could tell me how you do know.

Sometimes, too, there are better ways to "deal with a problem" than "doing something about it."

Some problems do not respond positively to any attempts at direct meddling, but are better solved by individuals (or families) rising to the challenges on their own. In other words, maybe people becoming more empowered to take control of their own lives (through lower taxes, say, and greater rewards for personal achievement) may result in fewer people being susceptible to harmful vices.

[Zeno]

There is possibly some degree of "drug problem" in many or most schools of the US. But this stems, in my opinion, from a host of causes, some perennial in nature, others cultural, social and/or family orientated. But if something is to be done - it is not drug testing. That is the wrong path.

Almost all young kids and adults experiment with some form of mind/conscious altering drugs or experiences. It is part of growing up. We all (or the majority) drank some in our early years, or smoked some pot or hash, or experimented with other drugs. This is somewhat dangerous for some young people who may have a proclivity to addiction or dependence on illegal substances, but for the most part we all grow out of this phase and mature and only use legal (or illegal) drugs in moderation or discontinue use altogether. Drug testing adds government intrusion, bureaucracy, and no small measure of police-state tactics to a natural process in the growth to adulthood, in addition to laying another burden on schools already strained to meet their obligations.

Illegal drug use is a complex issue for both young people and older adults. The issue will only be made more troublesome with the addition of a drug testing policy in the school system with the entire attendant legal, political, and social ramifications.

-Zeno

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
No kid should have some other kid as a role model IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might very well be right. In fact, no kid should probably have a sports star or a celebrity as a role model either. The problem is that they do (I find myself in the awkward position of defending the president here...I feel kind of dirty.) As to sports stars, the president wasn't calling for legislation in this regard; he was calling for the athletes and the athletic associations to take responsibility for the fact that kids look up to them and as such they should do everything they can to promote a positive image.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, sometimes you might admire someone's talent or work ethic, but that doesn't mean you worship them

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go so far as to require worship.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, the goal of drug testing is to win elections through pandering, to increase federal spending, increase bureaucracy, create little feifdoms, and train children that the government has control of their bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably one goal. I would suggest that there is another (really subtle goal) of trying to decrease drug usage among kids.

What, if anything, would you propose to curb youth drug use?

[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY rational reason to drug test children in extracurriculars is becase of immediate concerns of physical safety while participating

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned the role model thing (perhaps not rational)

How about the fact that mandatory drug testing might curb youth drug use and that it is unconstitutional to do it to all students, but not to do it for kids in extracurricular activities. (I know, probably still irrational)

How about - having kids represent the school at interschol functions while high is not a good thing


[ QUOTE ]
The more I pay attention to what goes on in school, the more I think it is child abuse to send our children to them

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious when you think things changed? The reason I ask is that most people say that it's shortly after they left. You probably aren't one of them, but I'd be interested to find out. I think it's similar to what happens when you ask people about politicians and lawyers. My senator is fine, but politicians (in general) are horrible. I have a great lawyer, but lawyers in general are scum. I turned out fine as a product of public education, but I pity anyone else who goes through it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to do that as I want to see all kids educated, but the current government holding pens/indoctrination centers aren't very good

[/ QUOTE ]

What isn't good about them? Again, this is the sort of thing that is thrown out there as if it is a fact...I just don't buy it. Again, I'm not claiming this is your position, but so often I hear about the schools "indoctrinating" kids from the same people who want prayer in school and recitation of the pledge. My indoctrination is okay, yours isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I used to knock home schooling, but I am rethinking it. Aside from the fact you only need maybe 3 hours a day to outperform the gov. schools

[/ QUOTE ]

Home schooled kids get, essentially, a one on one education (perhaps slightly less if there are siblings). They have a curriculum that is specifically designed to meet their specific needs and learning style. They have parents that are absolutely committed to their education --- so much so that they have (usually) forgone a personal career to dedicate themselves to their child's education. State school's have an entirely different charter and set of boundaries within which to work. We should probably be surprised when home schooled kids don't outperform public school kids.

[Taxman]

I can't believe he expressed support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. That is a rediculous idea. Whether or not you belive same sex marriages to be immoral, the institution of marriage itself has nothing to do with morality in the eyes of the federal government, nor should it. I'm quite certain that far more and far greater "sinners" of different sexes get married than satan worsshiping gay men and women. Marriage is a social contract and the sex of either party is not an important issue when it comes to allowing a union. Churches can refuse to recognize them, people can shun them (though they shouldn't), whatever, but it's amazing to me that he can get away with this kind of stance, especially in the state of the union address. Somehow I doubt same sex marriages are anything near an important issue as far as the state of our country is concerned.

[HDPM]

What, if anything, would you propose to curb youth drug use?

--- Nothing the federal government can do about it really. I don't want a single penny of my tax dollars to go to useless programs to reduce the problem, if it really is a problem, of youth drug use. The federal government has yet to have a program that works that I know of. If there were a program that worked I would think about it. But that doesn't mean that federal tax dollars should go to it even if it is a very good thing. Most good things are not things that tax dollars should fund IMO. I include mandates here. Like the awful nochildleftbehind thing.

How about - having kids represent the school at interschol functions while high is not a good thing

--- Drug testing doesn't really prevent this. It detects prior drug use and it is unlikely testing would be done so as to find kids who were high right then. If a kid is high or impaired, someone can do something to stop him. Like don't let him play the game. Different issue really.


Just curious when you think things changed? The reason I ask is that most people say that it's shortly after they left. You probably aren't one of them, but I'd be interested to find out

----Hard to say exactly. Needless to say I always hated school to one degree or another. It was boring. It wasn't challenging. In the areas where I could have used some good teaching it usually wasn't available. The teachers had an agenda of controlling kids and keeping themselves mentally secure. Just to give you a context for my personal experience, I didn't go to many different schools. I went to one school from the age of 4 through 9th grade that is a highly regarded private school. After that I went to a public urban high school that had been desegregated by court order. Slightly differnet schools those. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif I can say I didn't really like going to either, although I did prefer, and did in fact recognize at the time, that the education was OK, although inefficient, at the private school. You could also get a fair education at the public school if you tried, for some unique reasons and the fact there were some good teachers etc... Overall the education was much worse though, more inefficient, and a lot of people got through with very little to show for it. But at least I could sneak a cigarette with a teacher and coach in his office without it being a federal offense and without getting drug tested. Yeah, you could get whatever drugs you wanted in the school or on the street, if you had the money. But most people didn't use drugs. Sure, there was some pot smoking. Sure some people used other stuff. But the ones who did were going to anyway. The use or non-use of drugs had nothing whatever to do with what the government said about it. Most people I knew didn't use. Other people's use did not affect me at all. So was there a problem? Who knows. Could the government fix it assuming it was? No. I then went on to various colleges/universities for higher education. Public and private, got degrees from both. Private was better. The government invariably screws things up. But higher education was a lot more rational than high school and below, public or private. So I think that the overall model for education is screwed up.

I think that what we do is largely driven by outdated ideas of what school ought to be. This hurts education at both public and private schools. It is a model designed to move from an agrarian to an industrial society and to produce factory workers and teach a few basics. For this reason I worry whenever schools try to fix personal problems. There is a reason public education is part of the Communist Manifesto. There is no better way to indoctrinate kids. Get them out of the home and control what goes in their heads. I get worried every time the federal government wants more control of the kids and more participation in the school system. Its involvement is usually for the worse IMO. So I guess I have thought education is screwed up for a while. But there has been an increase in the willingness to invade students' and families' privacy in recent years IMO.


I didn't mean to come on too strong in my first post. I just think drug use is a bogeyman used to attain other goals for the education establishment. Drugs have always been around. Kids have always used them. Kids have always had problems and always will. should the government step up and try to solve them all? No. It can't and the loss of liberty in the failed attempt will be extreme.