Richard Dreyfuss. Well what can I say other than what we all feel when hearing another Hollyweird name in the media?
This interview hosted by Tucker Carlson on Fox left me as speechless as it did Tucker. Tucker's expression is priceless as he sits dumbfounded not believing his own ears.
Don't get me wrong, or Dreyfuss for that matter. I have seen him in subsequent interviews where he does engage in partisan politics. However, for my money he earns credibility points with his endeavour to bring back Civics, Constitutional studies in particular, back into the classroom from the twelfth grade on down.
Watch, listen and learn. I hope your optimism for the future will be a little brighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gzS2z_8wpA
His website link:
http://www.thedreyfussinitiative.org/
Until next time
A Republic, if you can keep it.
"Civics Preamble Oath" I love it!
Without high school civics this country has no future. Mr. Dreyfuss was absolutely correct when he said high school civics has not been taught since the 1970s. However, what he failed to mention is why. The reason high school civics was removed from public school curriculum was because the Democrats created the federal Department of Education in 1980. Since the existence of the Department of Education high school civics has been abolished from public schools.
Mr. Dreyfuss is also making a generalization with regard to Presidents controlling spending via Executive Orders. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to appropriate funds. Congress could specifically allocate appropriated funds to the various States for any reason they like, or they could allow the Executive Branch to determine how those funds are to be allocated. The latter is commonly used by Congress with regard to the Foreign Operations budget.
If Congress allocated appropriated funds for a specific purpose, the President may veto but assuming it becomes law, then the President must comply and enforce the law. However, that is typically not the case in many appropriations. Congress will often include appropriated funds for the President's discretionary spending.
So the only thing Mr. Dreyfuss got right was that Congress was the only government branch with the constitutional authority to appropriate funds. Everything else about the President's authority he got wrong, but he was right about bringing civics back to the classroom.
I hear you. I also hear him, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Generalizations rarely clears the air. As a matter of fact, they more often lead to misconceptions. For example, his generalizations were correct. But, mitigating details, some of which you pointed out, could lead one to believe Dreyfuss to be disingenuous.
Such is the problem, that compounds the issue, of a soundbite. I see him as wanting to cover more ground than the time allotted.
I'm not a Dreyfus dufus apologist. Shrimpenstien has always been in my book of, Actors who screw up movies because they are disgusting.
His effort however, is admiral. Even though he lies when he says he's out of partisan politics. A habit no one can exclude their self from, I suppose.
Personally, I graduated in '72. Though it has been a long time, I don't recall any civics class requirement in my high school years. While I do recall studying civics in the fifth grade. The schools I went to were all public with a curriculum more desirable than many schools today.
So, 1970 is just about right, give or take.
Quote from: enola on May 13, 2018, 11:59:30 PM
I hear you. I also hear him, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Generalizations rarely clears the air. As a matter of fact, they more often lead to misconceptions. For example, his generalizations were correct. But, mitigating details, some of which you pointed out, could lead one to believe Dreyfuss to be disingenuous.
Such is the problem, that compounds the issue, of a soundbite. I see him as wanting to cover more ground than the time allotted.
I'm not a Dreyfus dufus apologist. Shrimpenstien has always been in my book of, Actors who screw up movies because they are disgusting.
His effort however, is admiral. Even though he lies when he says he's out of partisan politics. A habit no one can exclude their self from, I suppose.
Personally, I graduated in '72. Though it has been a long time, I don't recall any civics class requirement in my high school years. While I do recall studying civics in the fifth grade. The schools I went to were all public with a curriculum more desirable than many schools today.
So, 1970 is just about right, give or take.
I graduated high school in 1970, and my civics classes were either included in history classes or "social studies."
I also remember very basic civics classes in grade school. I think we were only required to read the US Constitution and nothing else while in grade school. I don't recall any discussion of the document until I got to high school.
The US also ranked in the top ten in education among the industrialized nations prior to 1980. Since 1980 and the creation of the federal Department of Education the US has dropped to 19th in mathematics and 21st in science out of the 27 industrialized nations. So it wasn't just civics thrown out the window when the Democrats took control of education.