"Controversy at Museum of the American Revolution" Topic

"Banned"? When it can be purchased on Amazon? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Doc, did the mothers demand "To Kill a Mockingbird", be banned? Don't remember seeing that. 😉

Please see the following. I said nothing about the 'Mothers' banning the book:

link

link

link

link

definition of 'banned': From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. to prohibit especially by legal means.

2.to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of, as in to ban a book.

Seems to me that an understanding of 'book banning' is in order.

Ahhh…. But by mentioning "that book" in a political discussion about the mothers group, the insinuation was supposed to be made. Ok the old straw dog. Got it.

You know some schools banned the Bible? 😱

But the mothers weren't involved there either. So not relevant to history, miniatures, the revolution or the mothers. 😉

Banned is the right word, but it must be put in context. Jarhead is now banned in schools by a town in Michigan. If parent really want to control what kids read, they need to start with themselves, not the government, IMO. Instead of banning books, require parental permission for minors on the books in school that raise issues.

There is just something about the government, local or not, banning books. I respect the right of parents, liberals, conservatives to object to some taxpayer supported content for minors. I object to some of it, and feel strongly about restoring certain values. But a middle ground will help protect both minors and free speech.

And that's the heart of The Moms…they are not so much about parents,books, school boards. They are about big time power. But they are perfectly free to do so. We are sold products all the time, including media and political candidates, our choice. This kind of thing happens on all sides.

And Doc, I have known hundreds, if not thousands of moms. The moms running this group don't see much of their kids, I'm guessing. You don't set up a museum event with national implications, invite top national political candidates, run an expanding organization with numerous staff, raise funds, start local chapters, in between loads of laundry, meals, and driving kids to activities. This is about optics.

Raising children is far more difficult today than 40 years ago when my wife and I were doing it. I have been able to watch my children raise our grandchildren, however, and have noted their appropriate concern with limiting not only how much but WHAT the kids read and watch. "Screen time" is limited. The house is filled with books, and the kids have been read to nightly since birth, and two of them are now voracious readers themselves -- but the parents are extremely conscious of WHAT is being read, or viewed.

This is wisdom. And ALL parents are entitled to have the PRIMARY say in what their children are exposed to, appropriate to their ages and levels of maturity and the family's moral teachings and values.

I hope nobody disagrees with that?

But most kids go off to a public school, age 5 or 6. Do parents then -- at that very young age -- GIVE UP their monitoring role in what kids learn? We say NO!

But individual parents are almost helpless against whatever curriculum choices, whatever teaching choices, are made in classrooms. It is not only appropriate but essential to organize to influence and hopefully to control what our children are being taught.

THAT is what the MOMS and other groups are doing. And of course they are in opposition to other interests who likewise want to control what kids learn. So it is a battlefield in the culture war, maybe the key one.

I expect we shall see (in red states) either vouchers and such, so that the state PAYS FOR everyone's education without actually PROVIDING it; OR, public education will be replaced increasingly with private or home schooling. Because only fools allow someone else to decide what their children think.

Yes 35th, I think we have been indicating this throughout much of this thread, which I thought we had put to bed. But I fell off the wagon. I will make this my final post. I should not have continued. I apologize, thanks for the reality check.

Doc I am back to not really getting it. If people have to organize to control what children are taught, but only a fool allows someone else to decide what their children think… I am missing something. But that's okay. I respect your opinion. Lets just disagree and get back to gaming and minis. Have the final word if you like.

I taught middle school math, English, Science, and History in North Carolina for twenty years after retiring from the Marine Corps. Teaching was not indoctrination. And my son, who is now 22 and in college, was certainly not indictrinated by his teachers.

Further, we didn't have parents telling us what to teach, but from time to time did disagree, going to the principal not the teacher, to complain about the English reading listings. Those were usually religious fundamentalists who saw everything from a narrow point of view. I was certainly involved with my son's education, but any problems I found were usually from a particular teacher being a right pain and not from the point of view of indoctrination of any type.

My son received an excellent education in both Catholic and public schools. The schools that had good principals were good schools, those that did not had problems that the teachers had to deal with. The main drawback in the public schools were administrators, not teachers.

I welcomed any parents to visit my classroom any time, including during instruction. Some administrators didn't care for that, but too bad. Well over ninety percent of the teachers I worked with were excellent, despite any drawbacks of the system.

My son would come home and talk to me about anything in school that bothered him. He had lots of questions and we would discuss what he had been taught, most of the questions coming from history classes. Unfortunately, history positions are usually the last to be filled and most history teachers do not have a degree in history. And most, if not all, of the history books approved for middle and high school are insufficient in content, which is why I stopped using them and taught the students from my personal library using extensive notes and lectures as well as discussions.

At the high school level, the main thing is to teach critical thinking. The kids will use it in their own ways to unexpected results, which is, if not okay, at least unavoidable.

At the elementary level, though, kids are not ready for critical thought, and ARE ready to be stuffed with data. STORIES and SONGS and GAMES are what is needed, plus a lot of memory work.

In between, middle school, is tough, because kids mature differently and parents' expectations at a given grade level are different. A class in which half are ready for and desireous of critical thinking while the other half are not there yet, is a real challenge.

Did you ever teach middle school students? Or high school students? I've taught both and preferred middle school. The students were a lot of fun and eager to learn. And we taught critical thinking skills…

Both, and prefer high school. But mids are fun too.

Seems to me that an understanding of 'book banning' is in order.

Brechtel, you're wasting your time. doc repeatedly doesn't like the universally understood definitions for words and concepts. Censorship isnt censorship, fascism isnt fascism, banning isnt banning. It's all part of a scienter to make sure that you're never in the wrong.

I mean this nonsense that a completely dishonest political performance artist nailed the Nazis in a way that every other historian has never managed to do should be enough to discredit them as someone to be reasoned with. When you just want what you want because you want it, everything can go into the plumbo jumbo machine and come out supporting your position.

It's even more stupefying for someone on a forum that's supposed to promote reading, research, analysis and independent thought to present us with the equivalent of Bizarro Universe history.

But should we be surprised by an opinion which considers the absolute destruction of the USA a good idea to be taught to children in the form of Confederate History Month and yet constantly wants to block new ideas on race and sexuality from being presented on the basis that it is anti-American?

Well done, Au Pas. +1

This article is an interesting commentary on what can happen when fascists dont think they're fascists, dont like to be questioned and shut down all other voices and still suffer intense dissatisfaction and angst with their "society".

link

No one speaks for all conservatives, but I am well informed about our movement. And I do not know a single radical nor "white supremacist" nor racist. Those mainly exist in the fevered imaginations of the Left.

Have you heard of or know of Project 2025?

Anne Applebaum knows what she is talking about. Well done, Au Pas.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Heritage Foundation, and that sounds like an excellent project.

Because the US government is out of control and needs some serious reform.

The biggest problem is the administrative state, much of which is unconstitutional. Congress has largely abdicated its legislative function, granting its law-making authority (which is its alone) to agencies. The budget is out of control and the power of the purse almost non-existent. (Both parties have abetted this.)

The biggest problem is the administrative state, much of which is unconstitutional.

The US Constitution provides for the appointment of 'public ministers…and all other officers of the United States…'

The authority granted is in article II, section 2 of the US Constitution…

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

'He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'

Further 'The United States Constitution does not establish administrative agencies or explicitly prescribe the manner by which they may be created. However, the Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has broad constitutional authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy. Congress may use its Article I lawmaking powers to create federal agencies and offices within those agencies, design agencies' basic structures and operations, and prescribe, subject to certain constitutional limitations, how those holding agency offices are appointed and removed.

Have you ever worked for the federal government to see how it works?

Check the wiki entry on The Administrative State. It delineates the arguments both ways.

Perhaps, then, out of your deep knowledge of the Constitution, you can point to the language that authorizes Congress to delegate its legislative powers to executive branch agencies?

And if your answer is the Supreme Court has allowed it, does that mean that you are NOW okay with whatever the Supremes decree?

And, as a scholar of the Constitution, you are no doubt familiar with Lincoln's analysis of the Dred Scott decision, in which he delineates to what extent we are and are NOT bound by Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Do you agree with Lincoln's reasoning?

So, WITHOUT consulting wiki or any other reference, explain what the "administrative state" means, where the phrase comes from, and what are the main arguments for and against it. I'm SURE you can.

Considering the Constitution creates powers both explicit and implicit it is hardly necessary to pass a literal purity test just because you think that figment will grant you the result you would have. Congress created the agencies and delegated regulatory authority. Regulations are not "laws".

This is the system we have and dismantling it would destroy the country. There is only one type of viewpoint which would enjoy that. Needless to say, that viewpoint is a shortsighted, selfish, reactionary one.

And in any case, the solution to curb Executive Branch authority is hardly giving the President supreme authority over everything. That 2025 project creates a solution worse than the problem.

And if your answer is the Supreme Court has allowed it, does that mean that you are NOW okay with whatever the Supremes decree?

Nice try. The current SCOTUS is applying both faith based and imaginary historical based tests to undo the Nation's progress. In many ways, they are a return to the Taney court.

You constantly maintain that you are a conservative, and while I am not terribly surprised because you also struggle with other basic, accepted terms, a conservative seeks to halt progress, not bring it all crashing down to return to an earlier time. Those are the tools of both the anarchist and the reactionary; which you constantly tell us you are not.

Doc +1

Doc hard to fight against the effects of the pink Kool-aid of socialism, the red Kool-aid of Communism or the here·to·fore unknown color Kool-aid, of CNN/MSNBC/NYT/CBS/NBC/ABC/CSNBC/NPR/The View//etc.

That is a truly unappetizing color and I heard there is no coming back once you're hooked on that last Kool-aid. Worse than heroin. You start believing everything you're told and regurgitating it as truth. Even when proven wrong. 🤢🤮.

My personal Kool-aid color is a mix of red white and blue. 🤔

I did say this was nothing but a political thread and was always intended as one.

But enjoy if want to continue.

Tort 😉

A definition of the administrative state:

'what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.'

Napoleon was 'the originator of modern centralized bureaucracy in France…The features of Napoleon's administration were those of a modern bureaucracy: hierarchical organization; stability of position and of personnel; written, well-defined procedures of operation; promotion through the ranks based on seniority and merit; increasing professionalization of personnel and of code of conduct; and a system of training new personnel. The training… adroitly combined theory (the study of public law) with practice (the observation of senior administrators and the performance of minor missions). It was Napoleon's most original contribution to the science of public administration and was decades ahead of its time.'-see Owen Connelly, editor, the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France, 1799-1815, 8-9.

The US government has independent governmental organizations in the executive branch that run the different responsibilities of governing different aspects of the US government some of them independent and are run by their own secretaries who have cabinet rank. They are not run by one central agency or person. Generally speaking, these agencies are staffed by civil service personnel.

I am just curious and asking the question, not implying anything.

Are there books that are inappropriate for children under the discussions going on in this thread?

It seems to me that answer is either yes or no, and if yes, then discussions as to what fits that criteria would seem appropriate at some level. Should parents be involved in that discussion?

If the answer is yes, does that make said books banned?

Just wondering, as it seems people here devolve into everything goes or 'anything I don't like can't be given to kids.'

Many books are 'age inappropriate.' That means that they aren't suitable for young people in many cases.

Merely saying that young people won't understand what is written in some books is nonsense. Many times young people rise to the occasion and can surprise you.

Parents should always be involved in their child's/children's education. That does not mean that they should dictate what a teacher says in the classroom unless the material being presented is nonsense or otherwise unacceptable for whatever reason.

I always told my students that they could ask me any question they wanted to. That didn't mean I would answer it. I told them if I thought the question inappropriate I would tell them that and then tell them to ask their mother.

Frequently I was asked how old I was and who I voted for if their was an election. My answer to both was always 'none of your business and the question was inappropriate.

I am firmly against censorship and banning books. That being said, there are books that are age inappropriate.

Then there are those books innappropriate to anyone under eighty, unless accompanied by both parents.

Further discussion involving the museum is welcome.

Further discussion regarding Moms for Liberty should adjourn to our fellow forum, the Blue Fez.

link