I was going to post about this article at my blog, but thought it fits better here. I mean, this is a fine example of American Descent if ever there was one.
There are many things over which even those of the same political persuasion could argue regarding how tax money is spent. Some don't like that we went to Iraq, while others see it as a necessity. But few things are more pathetic than to allow tax deductions for sex change operations. The principles in the article liken it to deductions for apendectomies. Give me a break. What qualifies more as cosmetic if not sex change operations? It's not as if they are actually changing a person from one sex to the other. They're only changing the appearance of the person. That's called cosmetic surgery.
And it's not as if they're "fixing" anything as in the case of someone needing reconstructive surgery after a disfiguring accident or as in the case of a woman after a double mastectomy because of breast cancer.
No. This is totally cosmetic and it does not address the real issue, which is the problem of these people thinking life as a member of the opposite sex is the way to go. The struggle is not that a man who believes himself to be a woman must live as a man, it's that he believes himself to be a woman. THAT'S the issue that is NOT being resolved by sex change operations. If I must contribute my tax dollars to such people, I'd much prefer my money goes to their psychological treatment rather than this expensive dodging of the issue.
Just as bad is the fact that the tax court actually agree with this claim. They speak of medical evidence but I doubt there is any to support the notion that this is the proper course. There certainly isn't any medical evidence that justifies homosexuality being considered no different than heterosexuality. This decision is a travesty and more evidence of our decline as a nation.
Friday, February 5, 2010
10 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Equally important to taking back our government, we must also take back Education.
ReplyDeleteAbolishing the Department of Education would be a great first step. Return to the states and the communities the responsibility of educating our children. Create a national test to insure everyone teaches a standard curriculum, but get the radicals and the unions out of education.
Abolish the Dept of Education - to get the Feds out of state education, I presume? BUT, then, create a national test (ie, the Feds getting INTO state education). I'm unsure of the point. Do you want federal gov't out of state educational policy or do you want them involved?
ReplyDeleteThen, get the "radicals" and unions out of education? How do you propose to do that, Eric?
Some federal Anti-Radical Cabinet to implement tests, loyalty oaths, investigative committees to identify the "radicals"? Radical by whose definition?
What are you proposing, Eric?
And Unions are legal entities. How do you propose taking away from workers the right to organize?
It sort of sounds like you want a larger federal presence in our schools, not a smaller one. Perhaps you could explain?
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteA national test to ensure all meet some standard is hardly federal involvement, especially if all the states agree to it. The point is how the students are trained to meet those standards and without the feds, each state will again be free to work their particular magic, as it were. When one state is failing in meeting the goal of educating the kids, they could look to successful schools to find out why and perhaps adopt what they think will work in their own schools.
Having teachers unionize is not the same as union interference in education. Unions should have no say in what is taught and how. They should only have a voice in compensation. The union can't be protecting bad teachers and interfering with accountability.
As far as radicals in education, like those who use Howard Zinn's "A People's History of America", they should be subject to parental approval. Radicals insist that parents have less voice in what is included in curriculum. This is as wrong as wrong can be.
So, who decides who is and isn't a radical?
ReplyDeleteIs the Christian teacher who wants to lead prayers in their classroom a radical? Is the hippy teacher who teaches uses books by Zinn as a supplement to teaching from the standard history book a radical?
A national test to ensure all meet some standard is hardly federal involvement, especially if all the states agree to it.
ReplyDeleteUmmm, right. So, if all the states agree that having a Dept of Education is a good idea, then is that "hardly federal involvement," also?
"So, who decides who is and isn't a radical?"
ReplyDeleteThe people of the communities or their representatives in their local school boards.
"So, if all the states agree that having a Dept of Education is a good idea, then is that "hardly federal involvement," also?"
The ED, formerly the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, was created by Ike in the 50's and then separated into two different cabinet posts by Carter. But it was NOT an issue decided by the states. You mistake a national standard created and agreed upon by the states with a federal intrusion into the educational process. The ED is an intrusion. What I suggested is not.
Local entities ARE the ones who decide who teaches our children. There is no federal gov't saying who can and can't be hired as a teacher. Local boards of education make that decision.
ReplyDeleteProblem solved, as is. Unless you're suggesting something other than local boards making those decisions.
Which is why I asked the question. It seems like you're advocating the status quo - letting boards of education make those decisions.
The US Dept of Education is controlled by whoever is president as he gets to appoint the head of the Dept. To say that it has no influence on the local level is pretty naive. That there are currently severe leftists in the BO administration, including in the area of eduation is without question. It's totally unnecessary and way too costly for our current economic climate to have such a department that has no successes to its credit. There is no Constitutional mandate for it, either, so what's the point?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, as said earlier, unions have too much influence in the quality of education by their pressure to keep every lousy teacher employed.
What good has the US Dept of Education done thus far, aside from mandating the color of busses?
Nice little Stossel piece regarding another reason to eliminate gov't interference in education.
ReplyDelete