DeSantis vs Newsome

Isn't the answer here obvious? If you screw up at work, who are you accountable to? They answer to their bosses. And their bosses answer to their own bosses. That goes up the chain to eventually the school board, who answers to the voters.

 

What are you like 5 years old?
What a weird thing to say to someone who is clearly your superior.

 

DeSantis' humiliating loss looks even worse considering that he had a teleprompter only he could see feeding him the questions in advance on stage.

 

You missed one big step. The school board answers to state law which is set by the Florida Legislature.

Also, we've alluded to this point already here, but a lot of government employees, especially at the administrative level have tons of red tape which effectively shields them from accountability. Not saying it's impossible to hold them accountable, but much more difficult. The Parental Rights in Education Act, though it presents some issues as well, makes it easier to hold these officials accountable. I think there should be a clearer standard as to what exactly the statute allows and prohibits. But I'm sure the courts will fill in some of those gaps.

Just say this is because you hate the policy, not because of some sort of overreach of authority from the state. At least that would be an honest discussion. Heck, the vagueness and First Amendment arguments are a lot more compelling to me than this state/local distinction.

 

I actually agree with this, but I don't think that's what Contra is saying.

Progressive activists on the other hand are bending over backwards to such a degree to condition children to view promiscuity, homosexuality, and gender confusion as normal... they're trying to get the next generation to adopt that secular progressive value system. I think that's 100% true. A tell is that any highlighting of this is characterized as simply teaching kids "tolerance" and "decency," both of which have nothing to do with "normalization." Tolerance and decency is understanding your neighbor may be completely different from you, and you have no obligation to be his/her best friend, but you have a moral obligation to treat them with this baseline level of dignity and respect. What it does NOT call for is an endorsement of all of their life choices just because it happens to fit the secular left-wing orthodoxy. And that's the slight of hand Democrats have been pulling for at least a decade when it comes to issues related to gender and sexual orientation.

I'm also not a fan of lumping all of these things into one umbrella term like "LGBTQ" because they're actually very different things that sometimes have very conflicting agendas as Chappelle so eloquently points out. For example, the big pitch for gay rights has been that they're born this way and they can't control who they're attracted to (a point I agree with). But with the modern view of transgenderism, gender is completely malleable. And if gender is malleable, so must sexual orientation. In essence, if gender is a choice, and your gender IS your identity which society must validate, it logically follows that sexual orientation must also be a choice.

 

I'm not surprised. You don't believe in local control because you and the other DeSantis fans aren't real "conservatives" or "libertarians."

I didn't miss the step. You used the word "should." And I don't believe the Legislature or Governor have any business being involved in or exercising oversight over these processes.

 

No I believe in local control. I just believe that the state has the authority to implement laws in its own state, and that authority under the Constitution is incredibly broad.

Bullshit.

You don't believe THIS Legislature or Governor should be involved in overseeing this process. I don't see you screaming bloody murder over the US Department of Education in Washington dictating local standards.

 

Kevin Drum clarifies the record on two California-Florida comparisons which came up during the debate.

First, Covid - Who did COVID better, California or Florida? - Kevin Drum

Florida's raw death rate from COVID-19 is substantially higher than California's. The reason the CDC's numbers are so close is because they've been age adjusted. COVID-19 was far more deadly among the elderly than it was among the young, so states with older populations are naturally going to have a higher death rate even if they do everything right. The CDC adjusts for this, a routine correction in cases where age matters (suicide rates, cancer rates, etc.).

Now, Bump also makes a point about Florida's death rate staying high after vaccines were introduced, while California's death rate flattened out. This is true. Prior to vaccines, Florida had a lower age-adjusted death rate than California. But in the year 2021 Florida's death rate from COVID-19 was 12% higher than California's. Over the past three months it's been 27% higher—which is actually a little odd since neither state has any COVID restrictions in place anymore.

Bottom line: Hannity's numbers were legit and honestly sourced. Since the start of the pandemic, California and Florida have had similar death rates from COVID-19. However, Florida has had a lower vaccination rate than California, which is probably due at least in part to general COVID skepticism from DeSantis and his handpicked health department. Since the start of 2021, this is why Florida's death rate has been significantly higher than California's.

Then taxes - charts at and stats at link

But just to set the record straight on something I think Newsom didn't make clear enough, it really is true that taxes in California aren't generally higher than in Florida. Florida has higher taxes on the poor and California has higher taxes on the rich:


The working poor are better off in California. The working and middle classes are about the same in both states. The upper middle class and the affluent are taxed less in Florida.

Long story short, the tiresome debating point about people leaving California has nothing to do with taxes. California no longer attracts a lot of people because we don't build enough new housing, which has made it expensive to live here. That's it.


Raw data: Taxes in California and Florida - Kevin Drum

 

Ah, you believe in local control, you just don't support it. Good to know.

 

I think this is a big part of the whole debate.

I'm sure some fear that people are trying to convert their kid to be gay, but I'm sure many others fear their kid is being exposed to ideas at school which contradict the religious teachings the parents are trying to instill at home. Of course, religious objections are distinguishable from the objection that certain material is age inappropriate. I definitely understand the latter, but presumably, if the objection is religious and not based upon age, those people would oppose all books being available (even if entirely age appropriate) which include gay or lesbian characters - much less portray those characters in a positive light.

Homosexuals have the secular right to be students and teachers (at least in public schools - not sure about private schools). Same sex couples have the secular right to marry (religious institutions are not forced to perform the ceremonies or recognize them). People who are homosexual also have kids in public schools. Homosexuality has been normalized from a secular perspective, and the law protects them from discrimination. Given this secular framework, to what extent can or should public schools be required to cater to religious doctrines? Clearly there were people who objected to interracial couples after the law protected those relationships, and many cited religious beliefs for their position. Many people also oppose the theory of evolution or sex education. Others might have religious objections to other things. Seems like we would typically provide parents with opt-out options for their kids.

 

Yes, I do. Just like I believe in state control, however, if the federal government passes a law within their Constitutional authority contradicting a state law... federal law wins.



Doesn't mean I hate state control.

 

Great question.

By not favoring any religion over another, by not favoring religion over atheism, and by not favoring atheism over religion.

There are two extreme possibilities that can emerge from efforts towards this way of running schools:
1. Neutrality, while challenging, is possible and schools teach kids the basics while parents teach them the values.
2. Neutrality is not possible and this is simply a matter of who wields control over education.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't think complete neutrality is possible. Schools will always have to take sides on some issues, otherwise kids are going to be confused. The Holocaust is a good example of this. "Neutrality" on the Holocaust is detrimental to education for young people, and would inherently imply a distorted portrayal of it.

However, most issues aren't the Holocaust, and public schools taking sides on issues like affirmative action for example or abortion would be inappropriate, not necessarily because it's not age-appropriate... but because it's inappropriate for tax-funded institutions tasked with raising children, politically and religiously tipping the scales in favor of one side. That is not their job.

 

This is all a dodge of the point. It's not a question of authority. It's a question of principle. If you stand for the principle of local control (particularly on this issue), you should oppose the legislature getting involved. The question you asked was "should," not "can."

 

Link to federal Dept of Ed required curriculum and federal Department of Ed banned books list?

 

Good points.

We do promote values in public schools. Respect for others. Keeping their hands to themselves. Not cheating. Those aren't controversial of course and are supported by people of faith and those without. I don't think public schools should be promoting religious doctrine or constrained by it. But they shouldn't be promoting atheism or denigrating faith either. I think most Americans probably agree on this conceptually.

I don't think having books in the library about the theory of evolution, for example, seeks to malign religious belief. I'm sure many conservative Christians would disagree, but I don't consider the theory of evolution to be a "value" anyway. In contrast, if a teacher were to proclaim to students that there is no god during instruction about evolution, that would clearly cross the line to me.

With respect to LGBT books in libraries, I think all else being equal (such as age appropriateness), if a book about a heterosexual character or couple is deemed suitable, then a similar book about a homosexual character or couple should also be considered suitable. Also, if it's permissible for a heterosexual teacher to mention their spouse or have a picture of them displayed, there's no reason that a gay or lesbian teacher shouldn't feel free to do the same. To the extent a teacher were to proclaim moral truths regarding specific sexual acts or were to encourage students to engage in sexual acts, that would be a different issue to me regardless of the genders/orientations involved. I think that's a pretty neutral way of handling those things but sure many disagree with me.

 

Why do you hate federalism, yet are a champion of "local control" which in this case is really a euphemism for administrative and bureaucratic control?

My guess is you think the US Department of Education should have a much bigger role than I do, where's your principle of "local control" there?

 

Completely agree. We agree on that idea, but many of us disagree on how that looks in practice.

Evolution is a good case as to why neutrality is impossible. Some people disagree with that, but you're taking a side by teaching it or by omitting it. But I think there's a fine line between teaching evolution and giving a PowerPoint on Darwin, and teaching about global warming and showing a class an Inconvenient Truth.

This is simply one of the consequences of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage in the manner in which it did. They held that not allowing it violates both the right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the right to equal protection under the law under the Equal Protection Clause.

So government, including public schools, need to present same sex couples the same way they present heterosexual couples for better or for worse. I think the Parental Rights in Education Act presents genuine Constitutional issues of law so I would be curious as to how SCOTUS would rule on it.

However, I believe this is the text at issue: "prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity." The text does not take sides and parents are typically the ones seeking legal remedy for these cases, not the government. I understand that the implementation of this has been incredibly broad, but if I were the state I'd argue that I have no control over which books parents find objectionable. I view "prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity" as relatively narrow compared to a lot of critics. I don't view that as precluding a gay man from having a photo of him and his husband on his desk, nor do I view that as necessarily a prohibition of any book depicting a couple of some sort. My understanding is you simply cannot discuss (or encourage the classroom discussion of) the issue of sexual orientation. If a student asks, you basically have to dismiss the question or tell the student to discuss the issue with their parents. That hasn't stopped schools from being overly cautious to avoid liability, but the Florida Legislature only has so much control over what schools do and what parents do. This dramatically tipped the scales in favor of the parents, especially with how objections to instructional material are enforced so there needs to be an adjustment there. As things are now, it's too easy to have a book removed, which is why this should be viewed by Republicans as a temporary measure until the status quo changes.

Your opinion of this likely comes down to how much you trust public schools and how large/important of an issue this was in the first place. And I think this is generally a political win for Republicans, but I don't see this policy working "as is" in perpetuity. Sooner or later, there's going to need to be some changes.

 

Why do they need to do either of those things to "control" what local governments are doing? You know, the issue gator_lawyer and I are discussing.

 

And based on your awfully broad view of the role of the federal government, I don't believe you.