Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods The News from Planet Bill Hobbs
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Republican lawmakers sought to fix the problem last year but the then-majority Democrats blocked the legislation. The legislation, protecting the freedom of Tennessee parents who chose to opt out of the public school system and educate their children at home instead, is on the verge of becoming law today only because Republicans won a majority in the state legislature in the 2008 election. It matters who governs.And Hobbs isn't finished. Did you know this?
Incidentally, home schooling was widespread in the United States until the 1870s, when compulsory school attendance laws and the development of professional educators created the institutionalized form of education we think of today as "school."That's right, everybody used to be home schooled. That was a happier time.
Comments (24)
Showing 1-24 of 24
This fits neatly with the right-wing narrative that all Democrats are godless heathens hostile to religion, so it surprises me not a bit.
As to whether it's accurate or not, however, that is another story entirely.
like
dislike
Well, yeah, Bill, a lot more people were home-schooled in the 1870s than today. You might also add that literacy rates back then were a lot lower, and a lot more Americans had no education beyond the 8th grade, if that much.
Honestly, why do you people at the Scene keep generating publicity and attention for this mutant cryptofascist freak?
Boyd, I hate to tell this, but most people in Tennessee think just like Hobbs. Have you been to the legislature lately?
The TN legislature is truly a scary place although I'm told that the other Southern state legislatures are similar. It is a beautiful part of the USA though.
That Bill Hobbs is intellectually bereft and fundamentally dishonest isn't news. But this is a new and weirder Bill. To say that homeschooling is great because it was widely practiced up to 1870 is beyond absurd. Slavery was widely practiced in these parts up until just 5 years before that. So that means the legislature should recognize property rights over other human beings?
I employ people, and I assure you I will never recognize a home-school "diploma" as being worth the laser printer paper it rides on.
Woods says:
Boyd, I hate to tell this, but most people in Tennessee think just like Hobbs. Have you been to the legislature lately?
Posted On: Tuesday, May. 19 2009 @ 3:22PM
Then, obviously, Hobbs doesn't need any more help from you when it comes to exposure for his "ideas." Which was my point.
The legislative intent was for home school diplomas to have the same rights as public school diplomas.
Southern Beale: The Democrat track record is one of trying to remove religion from public life. Granted not all conservative southern Democrats are part of this, but they are enabling it by voting by putting the liberal members of their caucus in charge.
Even if there was a constitutional right to abort a child, there's no constitutional right to a tax-payer funded abortion. Rep. Favors may want the blood on her hands, but I don't.
"Slavery was widely practiced in these parts up until just 5 years before that..."
Hobbs and Robin and saving that initiative for the 2010 session....
If you want to sustain an embryo/child then put back in the support for every child until they reach 18 years of age. It doesn't make sense to support a life until it's birthed and then ignore it's larger needs. Either you are Pro-life or you are for Partial-life, partial-life occurring after birth. Why does a mother not have a right to make decision about supporting a child, pregnancy, but then has the supportive position thrust upon her with no financial or emotional help? And there is no mention of the person who contributed the other half of the zygote. Let's propose some legislation on that group. Oh, forgot, it's most of the legislature.
The guy who snagged my initials to write drooling rightwing crap is not me, the DG who has been commenting here for a few years.
For what it's worth, the Original DG believes that there is a right to health care, including abortion, and that a decent society doesn't restrict care based on income. Free abortion on demand. Twist that, imposters.
At least BHo didn't call them "government schools," which is what many wing-nut homeschoolers derisively call public schools. Since the wing-nuts are selective in which parts of the federal and state constitutions they favor and oppose, one assumes they are opposed to the Tennessee Constitution's requirement that the state main a free public education system.
Hah! I went over there and read BHo's piece. First he says the legislation "would end the Bredesen administration’s multi-year attack on home-schooling."
Multi-year?
A few sentences later, he says: "The legislation corrects a problem created by the Bredesen administration in 2008 when anti-homeschooling bureaucrats at the Tennessee Department of Education reinterpreted a 1992 era regulation..."
Does 2008-2009 qualify as "multi-year?"
And did those "anti-homeschooling bureaucrats" at the Dept. of Education consult with the governor before they launched this vicious attack, as BHo implies.
But the funniest of all is, he says it's "estimated" that there are 40,000 home schoolers in Tennessee. Estimate is hyper-linked to what one might think would be some evidence. Nah -- it's some right wing blog.
Get ready folks: that's the future of journalism. God help us, each and every one.
"For what it's worth, the Original DG believes that there is a right to health care, including abortion,"
And you would be wrong about that because it's not in the Constitution.
That would be an affirmative right. And there is no such thing as an affirmative right.
The Bill of Rights consists of ennumerated negative rights as well as a catchall mention of other unenummerated rights (also negative ones) in the 9th Amendment.
Ennumerated negative rights? That's inspiring, Gilbert. No wonder our country has lasted so long.
It is a fact, whether you consider it "inspiring" or not.
Negative in the context of rights doesn't mean something bad. It simply means the nature of the right is such that one is allowed to do somthing without intererence from the government. It requires no action on the part of government - rather it requires inaction on it's part.
As opposed to an affirmative right which requires government to actively provide something to somebody - which it cannot do without first taking something away from somebody else.
What about them?
Neither one requires the government to provide you with healthcare or anything else.
The Founding Fathers clearly believed in affirmative rights -- as in those "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the marvelously vague "pursuit of happiness." The Bill of Rights enumerated specifics about how the rights to life and liberty could not be abridged.
As to the other matter, Roe v. Wade was not decided on the question of whether there is a right to healthcare but on whether there is a right to privacy that extends to one's person.
"The Founding Fathers clearly believed in affirmative rights -- as in those "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the marvelously vague "pursuit of happiness."
Uh no, they didn't - as those aren't affirmative rights.
The "inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the the government cannot kill you, lock you up or otherwise intefere with you living your life without a very good reason (i.e. due process).
There is no individual right to receive free food, shelter, healthcare or any other material good or service necessary for one to stay alive.
