I don't know Jon Alter personally, but I worry about guys like this. One of the hallmarks of the left is that government is viewed as the solution to the human condition. Alter's comment is blindingly clear evidence of this top-down mentality.

It is almost a superiority complex whereby these politicians that get elected to office (or at least try to get elected). It's like they think that they are somehow endowed by God himself to be in charge because they know how to run your life better than you do. Ladies and gentlemen, this is how cults get traction. Some charming and charismatic guy comes along and convinces the more intelligent members our society that he's the next coming of Christ and they follow like lemmings...sometimes to their deaths (wasn't one of them a big fan of Bill Haley and the Comets?)

If we flock to a president to mold us and shape us and be our guide, we are in trouble. America is dead if we have really lost the ability to think for ourselves. Presidents are supposed to be good leaders, and yes, role models in the sense that they should lead by example. But, no president is the Messiah. Can we look back in history at some of the strongest and most charismatic leaders whom people follow like sheep and see what the end result can be? Hitler convinced a lot of people that the Jews had to die.

The President is extremely powerful. We know that. Hence, I do believe that one who leads by setting a good moral example can do a lot of good for a society. However, (and I know the anti-religious left will go nuts over this) I think it's dangerous to replace God with a president. Now, whether you actually believe in God or not isn't the issue. That is certainly your free choice, I just ask that you understand the thought process. If one looks back at the history of this country, it was established early on that we are "endowed by our creator" with certain "unalienable rights" that cannot be taken away by man. Replacing God with some person means that now the person decides who has the right to do what. Ladies and gentlemen, a president is just a politician. If we can simply understand that humans are imperfect, we can understand that it is not a good idea to put all of our faith in some guy that managed to get elected President. Power does funny things to people. Holding some dude up in that kind of light is not only inaccurate, but could cost you your freedom. Again, look at Hitler.

Even if you don't buy into the idea of our rights coming from a power beyond any man, including a US President, please recognize the danger of looking to one person as the supreme educator of the land. It is absolutely not the job of government or any particular politician to mold us and shape us in his or her image. Ladies and gentlemen, the government works for the people, not the other way around. We are not the children, they are not the parents. We are not sheep. Humans are intelligent and have potential beyond anything you or I could imagine. That's what makes this country so amazing. Everyone is free to use their own intelligence as they see fit to serve their fellow man. Hell, that's what it means to be an entrepreneur. Use your God-given gifts to serve others, and if you do it well enough, you can make a good living. Please, can we all recognize that politicians aren't smarter than us just because they get elected to office?

Hawaii, do you disagree with me or Jon Alter? It sounds like you're stating my point. I have gone so far as to say that I don't think it is even the place of a president, or presidential candidate to even be some supreme teacher. My whole point is that we should not be sheep that follow some great shepherd. I think it's a sad day that anyone in America thinks that it is some divine duty of a US President to shape and mold us lowly citizens in their image.

As far as Hillary and Obama are concerned, they both have a certain level of delusion in thinking that they are more knowledgeable than us. Anyone that thinks that they can run healthcare better than doctors or that they know how to spend our money better than we do has at least some element of that. Either way, whether we agree on Hillary or not, I hope that you understand the point of my original post.

"Anyone that thinks that they can run healthcare better than doctors"

Yeah, because the system we've got now is just so great. Besides, it's massive insurance businesses that run healthcare to make a profit. It's no wonder why they are in the business of throwing people OFF healthcare, not actually delivering it.

Isn't asking doctors how to manage the money of health care kinda like asking contractors how they want to be paid for housing? I guess we could stretch this to a parallel (I call them obamalels due to his wacky ones)

If contractors were asked how to manage the mortgage crises then we wouldn't have the mortgage crises we have today!

If doctors were truly so concerned about Health care then a Nutrition certificate would be a mandatory requirement for becoming a doctor.....heck how about ONE nutrition class. But that would be like:

asking a mechanic to know about the stuff that goes into a vehicle, why would a mechanic need to know THAT!

Yeah Doctors who have a financial stake in getting money from folks, (avg 150.00 per doctors visit) ummm yeah those are the FIRST people I would ask.

I say ask the villager's, but that smacks of Hillary

God hard to be logical ain't it?

Ap, go ahead and move to Canada if you really want a "single payer" system. I pray for your sake that you have 4 to 6 months to spare if you ever need an MRI. Did it ever occur to you that there might just be a reason that Canadians flock to the US for life-saving health care (which, by the way, their government-turned-HMO won't pay for)? The system we have now may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than that. I'll take my chances with Highmark or UPMC.

No, doctors don't manage the money, necessarily. But they make the diagnoses and medical decisions, right? Isn't the big gripe about insurance companies that they deny payment of certain procedures? Well, you turn over healthcare to the government and you'll see costs skyrocket. Increased demand without increased supply means higher costs and longer waits. But, hey, what do I know? I'm not Canadian.

That mess aside, I still have yet to see anyone refute my original post. Tell me why we need an Educator in Chief.

"Yeah Doctors who have a financial stake in getting money from folks, (avg 150.00 per doctors visit) ummm yeah those are the FIRST people I would ask."

You mean the guy that sells his service to make a living? I know, profit is evil, isn't it? Profit isn't the reward one gets for providing quality goods and services to his fellow man. Nope, not at all. I know who would do a better job of figuring it out. A bureaucrat in Washington. They know everything. I should just pay 100% of my salary in taxes so they can manage it all for me.

"If doctors were truly so concerned about Health care then a Nutrition certificate would be a mandatory requirement for becoming a doctor.....heck how about ONE nutrition class."

Are you honestly suggesting that doctors don't know how to provide health care? In the words of Gilbert Gottfried, "What the F***?"

FordTruck5Speed:

I don't know Jon Alter personally, but I worry about guys like this. One of the hallmarks of the left is that government is viewed as the solution to the human condition. Alter's comment is blindingly clear evidence of this top-down mentality.

It is almost a superiority complex whereby these politicians that get elected to office (or at least try to get elected). It's like they think that they are somehow endowed by God himself to be in charge because they know how to run your life better than you do. Ladies and gentlemen, this is how cults get traction. Some charming and charismatic guy comes along and convinces the more intelligent members our society that he's the next coming of Christ and they follow like lemmings...sometimes to their deaths (wasn't one of them a big fan of Bill Haley and the Comets?)

If we flock to a president to mold us and shape us and be our guide, we are in trouble. America is dead if we have really lost the ability to think for ourselves. Presidents are supposed to be good leaders, and yes, role models in the sense that they should lead by example. But, no president is the Messiah. Can we look back in history at some of the strongest and most charismatic leaders whom people follow like sheep and see what the end result can be? Hitler convinced a lot of people that the Jews had to die.

The President is extremely powerful. We know that. Hence, I do believe that one who leads by setting a good moral example can do a lot of good for a society. However, (and I know the anti-religious left will go nuts over this) I think it's dangerous to replace God with a president. Now, whether you actually believe in God or not isn't the issue. That is certainly your free choice, I just ask that you understand the thought process. If one looks back at the history of this country, it was established early on that we are "endowed by our creator" with certain "unalienable rights" that cannot be taken away by man. Replacing God with some person means that now the person decides who has the right to do what. Ladies and gentlemen, a president is just a politician. If we can simply understand that humans are imperfect, we can understand that it is not a good idea to put all of our faith in some guy that managed to get elected President. Power does funny things to people. Holding some dude up in that kind of light is not only inaccurate, but could cost you your freedom. Again, look at Hitler.

Even if you don't buy into the idea of our rights coming from a power beyond any man, including a US President, please recognize the danger of looking to one person as the supreme educator of the land. It is absolutely not the job of government or any particular politician to mold us and shape us in his or her image. Ladies and gentlemen, the government works for the people, not the other way around. We are not the children, they are not the parents. We are not sheep. Humans are intelligent and have potential beyond anything you or I could imagine. That's what makes this country so amazing. Everyone is free to use their own intelligence as they see fit to serve their fellow man. Hell, that's what it means to be an entrepreneur. Use your God-given gifts to serve others, and if you do it well enough, you can make a good living. Please, can we all recognize that politicians aren't smarter than us just because they get elected to office?

If Government (which in the US represents the people) is an unacceptable way to take care of the people it represents, then what is the right way? Anarchy?

On Hitler, who by the way was a fascist which means that Government is run by corporations. In Germany corporations were owned predominately by the Jews, which is why they had to go. Have to break the power base before you can instill your belief systems. Hitler also was for a pure race, there were 300k African-german's living in Germany at the time, mixed heritage was a bad thing, but pure raced were allowed in the Luftwafte. Hitler's rise to power was a combination of economic disaster, his ability to assassinate, and his self-avowed takeover of the Political caucus of Germany at that time, (which was intended to represent all of the ideas of the country btw). Once in power he began arresting political objectors (nonpatriots), and started his spin. He represented to the German's economic freedom, but not all German's over 13 million people were purged in Nazi Germany by Hitler, as many political objectors as Jews were murdered. (so when Wright glorifies HItler, he is also glorifying destruction of anyone who has political views other than himself). The power of chancellor in Germany was one of leadership within a collective unit of parties all represented. He tossed aside the word chancellor and became Fuhrer (literally means Leader). Loyalty to Hitler superseded all other beliefs. Do I think that Obama is as charasmatic as Hitler...no not really but then again I never really was into Obama period. I tend to like stronger personality types. Malcolm X, Mamma Cass, Bella Abzug. I don't think that Obama has a thought in his head except how much money he can make from the spin on this election, and how much internal fun he can poke at his "followers". Yeah I think he's having a good joke on all of us.

Could it happen, heck I'd love to say no, but that's what I said when I heard he was running for office. Could it have happened if he was white? Hell no. That is the variable. and one that should make us all reconsider the Educational system here in the US. If Germany could let it happen with a good educational system....yeah it could happen here mainly due to a lack of educational standards. I see the things that he is getting away with (the 100 million dollar misappropriation of funds in his district, his poor voting record [he blames that on inability to use the buttons], his decision to join a racist church [he blames that on his gramma])but still there he is just chugging away with that limpid smile on his face and his rabid wife in the background with their little Hitler jugend indoctrinated kids tagging along.

I've thought about it and realize that the standards expected of Obama are low. He can do a lot of incorrect things, say a lot of stupid stuff and it doesn't matter because well he is visibly black and visibly a man.

The standards for Hillary are impossibly high. She has accomplished incredible things, she came out with health care reform before america thought about health care needs, she is by fact a visionary. She had shadow fear and memory in her trip to Bosnia well ask any guy who has been in dangerous areas what their memories are of those times and you will find that emotional fear does exascerbate it.) She has accomplished in Arkansas an educational reform that other states now are trying to mirror. She follows up with her district and knows what is going on in her area. She was a great first lady that was blamed for "running the place" then (yeah 8 years of prosperity and American's gendist fear is that it could of been Hillary doing it not Bill) to now hearing (she was the least active first lady we have ever had)

Oddly enough, the fine comb that Obama's machine is putting Hillary through is so nitted that I am amazed any of them can sleep at night.

I am amazed that gendists even allow women to raise kids, their fears are unjustified, unfounded and not a little bit silly.

Simply put Hillary has proven herself as a public servant. Obama has not. Where HIllary has United, Obama has divided. Hillary gives credit where credit is due, Obama takes credit for things he has not done, and blames others for things he has obviously done.

So if you can't admire what she has done how about what she has not done:

No Female President of the United States has ever plunged America into War, No Female President of the US has ever plunged the US into recession. No Female President of the US has ever blown up the world. No Female President of the US has ever owned a slave. Actually no woman has ever owned a slave (women were not allowed to own property then). No woman has gone on rampages through Universities killing innocent women

Hillary 08

I did get off topic, that's the problem with reading too many other threads in the fray.

I think we do need a centralized plan for Education.

A national Department of Education,

National Teacher Certification

National Educational programs to follow

Nationally approved Classroom Curriculum

Nationally approved books

This would also National criteria for population saturation and number of schools in each area.

Tax monies would go into a National pot and be broken down into cost of maintenance in areas they are in.

The problem of course is we would have even more government workers which would create teacher's earning double what they do now.

It would mean less money to impoverished areas and less money to wealthy areas, but more money to working class school districts.

It would mean some publisher's would go out of business, and debates over racially specific histories will be a hot topic.

JEQAL-You still didn't answer the basic question of how I'm wrong about our president being some kind of great teacher, and why we need it.

This:

jeqal:

I did get off topic, that's the problem with reading too many other threads in the fray.

I think we do need a centralized plan for Education.

A national Department of Education,

National Teacher Certification

National Educational programs to follow

Nationally approved Classroom Curriculum

Nationally approved books

This would also National criteria for population saturation and number of schools in each area.

Tax monies would go into a National pot and be broken down into cost of maintenance in areas they are in.

The problem of course is we would have even more government workers which would create teacher's earning double what they do now.

It would mean less money to impoverished areas and less money to wealthy areas, but more money to working class school districts.

It would mean some publisher's would go out of business, and debates over racially specific histories will be a hot topic.

...is utter B.S. You're kidding, right? The absolute worst thing you can do to education is make it even more centrally controlled than it already is. NCLB is a disaster. National education "programs" are just an avenue for indoctrination. Teachers are professionals, sir. They are highly trained in their field and they know better how to teach children than some bureaucrat. What, pray tell, does a senator or even the president, for God's sake, know about teaching a kid how to read, or do arithmetic or perform music? WHAT DO THEY KNOW??? The answer is, of course, not a damn thing.

You want to force a certain number of schools on an area? Who pays for that? People's taxes are already used to pay for the public schools we have. You propose more public money?

Oh, wait, yes you did say that. National redistribution...great idea. Don't let individual school administrators (and God forbid, teachers) make any decisions on their own about what they need in their classrooms. That's like letting the government tell a supermarket manager how many cases of green peppers to order. The government isn't there in the school and can't readily determine how much one needs over another, or how much should be allocated to this or that. Your cockeyed proposal just takes more control and authority away from the professionals that are charged with doing the job of teaching.

Teachers earning "double" what they make? So, teachers are rich now...Uh, dude, do you have any idea how long it takes most teachers who have to pay for at least 6 years of college to make a good living? The people that supposedly hold the future in their hands have to take on second and third jobs to make ends meet. June, July and August aren't vacation time. They are secondary income time. The problem with centralized control of education has nothing to do with teacher salaries. Money would be poured into every pet program of whatever bureaucrat who wanted to get their face in the papers this week.

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to poor, middle-income and wealthy schools. From that perspective, its a wash. There is no monetary benefit in the model you use (though I have no idea where you came up with it).

Publishers going out of business? Why? I can think of several good reasons for publishers to go out of business, the primary one being that they put out a bad product (kind of like every other business on the planet). But what's the deal with "racially specific" histories? What about freaking HISTORY?!?!? That's a big problem I have now with the educational system. Thanks to political correctness and feelings-based education, we don't teach a full history anymore, and if you've ever looked at a history textbook published after 1990, you'd see that America is always the bad guy. You propose more indoctrination by handing complete control of the educational system to the government? God help us if that ever happens.

Now, can you please get back to the original post and actually answer the question of how I am wrong about a president "teaching" the population how to live? It flies in the face of what it means to be an American. America isn't just a place or collection of citizens. It's an idea...an idea that humans are best suited to solve their own problems by using their own creativity and ingenuity. Being American means that you believe in bottom-up governance, i.e. the government works for us. If you believe that top-down governance by force is the solution to the human condition, you are not an American.

sorry the problem with not being on meds is, one still needs their sleep.

You do know that you had a very long post so I am addressing it one paragraph at a time right? Will answer this one but it will back me up a little!

I'm not entirely kidding, I haven't fully explored it, but would like to. In Michigan it is not centralized. School Districts have a lot of control, millages passed do not put the money into the schools but into other pursuits, so when the city says "the schools in our roofs is leaking, this new millage has got to be passed, just sign here, don't read it" I kinda just say no. You start looking at problems and you start seeing that the problem goes farther than it seems. For the next part read the Li Chi. One of the few set of books I actually get returned to me.

<link>

Basically, you are kinda making a lot of assumptions so will try to take it point by point. Jesus, you owe me a trip to a database with some statistics.

Ok Point One:

Not kidding about centralized Education

Point Two:

Not disagreeing that Teachers are paid professionals. Do think they are not paid enough, but have argued with people about this and have been in the war zone, Jackson's 187 is a trip to disneyland compared to some of the crap I've been exposed to in some schools.

Point Three:

What, pray tell, does a senator or even the president, for God's sake, know about teaching a kid how to read, or do arithmetic or perform music? WHAT DO THEY KNOW??? The answer is, of course, not a damn thing.

Well they would know how to teach politics, or how to run for office.

Point Four:

You want to force a certain number of schools on an area? Who pays for that? People's taxes are already used to pay for the public schools we have. You propose more public money?

No, just bringing up something that would have to be considered. Everyone pays, it would be in a pot. It would be the same money for the schools we already have. No I don't propose more public money, it should cost less, however, did mention control of administration.

Point Five:

Don't let individual school administrators (and God forbid, teachers) make any decisions on their own about what they need in their classrooms.

I disagree

. That's like letting the government tell a supermarket manager how many cases of green peppers to order.

I really hate farm subsidies it only benefits the Carnegies

Point Six:

The government isn't there in the school

Agreed.

Point Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen

Teachers earning "double" what they make? So, teachers are rich now...Uh, dude, do you have any idea how long it takes most teachers who have to pay for at least 6 years of college to make a good living? The people that supposedly hold the future in their hands have to take on second and third jobs to make ends meet. June, July and August aren't vacation time. They are secondary income time. The problem with centralized control of education has nothing to do with teacher salaries. Money would be poured into every pet program of whatever bureaucrat who wanted to get their face in the papers this week.

Some are; no; I know; I know; agreed; AGREED (See text before First Point)

Point Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to poor, middle-income and wealthy schools. From that perspective, its a wash. There is no monetary benefit in the model you use (though I have no idea where you came up with it).

It is about moderating the pot, so that kids that would like to achieve have as much opportunity as everyone else. That is the point.

Point Seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twent-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four

Publishers going out of business? Why? I can think of several good reasons for publishers to go out of business, the primary one being that they put out a bad product (kind of like every other business on the planet). But what's the deal with "racially specific" histories? What about freaking HISTORY?!?!? That's a big problem I have now with the educational system. Thanks to political correctness and feelings-based education, we don't teach a full history anymore, and if you've ever looked at a history textbook published after 1990, you'd see that America is always the bad guy. You propose more indoctrination by handing complete control of the educational system to the government? God help us if that ever happens.

A centralized educational system would directly impact publishers, in order to be more efficient and to save money a centralized educational system would have text books electronically delivered via EVDO onto a Kindle. Because racially specific histories without a comprehensive history leads to racial divisiveness...wright?

Recommend "Lies my teacher told me" and "What our Historic Sites got wrong"

Like I said have to see how it would work out. You can't say god in school.

Now, can you please get back to the original post and actually answer the question of how I am wrong about a president "teaching" the population how to live? It flies in the face of what it means to be an American. America isn't just a place or collection of citizens. It's an idea...an idea that humans are best suited to solve their own problems by using their own creativity and ingenuity. Being American means that you believe in bottom-up governance, i.e. the government works for us. If you believe that top-down governance by force is the solution to the human condition, you are not an American.

Point -1, -2, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine

This is what the civil war was fought and lost over, so hate to break it to you but states rights is secondary to the right of the republic.

Look this happy hoo ha that you folks are talking about works great until you want Michigan's water because Georgia's has misappropriated there's.

This whole deal with Georgia could have been averted if they did a few common sense things, yeah I lived in Georgia during the time this protest was going on btw. They should have used the d***n aggregate in the cement and paid double. That would have allowed the water to go back into the ground table. They should have utilized a conservation plan along the coastlines of their rivers, and they should have regulated construction so that half the da**n state is not covered in cement.

If any of those folks who conducted the prayer vigil "ooooh lord whadda we do now! ooooohhhhlordie" had stopped to read the book of Genesis about how they are the caretakers of the land etc. Maybe their lack of water wouldn't be such a crises as it is today.

Lastly, for all of you religious fanatics out there who believe that a woman is going to destroy the world when she gets elected to office: Who are you to try to stay god's hand and next get Genesis right before you try to interpret Revelations.

on only this side point: doctors do not provide "heathcare." doctors do NOT know how to provide healthcare, as a whole. doctors know how to diagnose and treat a specific set of symptoms and diseases.

heathcare is a different thing, a much larger issue; for example, cuba has some of the best trained, most committed doctors in the western hemisphere, but they lack the medicine or facilities needed to provide good healthcare. even in one small american doctor's office, a doctor might be great, but she can't privide good healthcare unless the nurses and staff are also doing their jobs. the point is doctors do not, cannot do this alone.

doctors do not decide which procedures insurance companies cover. doctors do not determine the price of medicines. doctors do not prevent americans from getting bad habits that cause heart disease and cancer (most doctors don't do prevention at all!).

few doctors choose their specialty based an abstract desire to provide "healthcare"; instead, they choose a specialty that either

1. provides them the best income (and return on their education investment), such as plastic surgery

2. or best fits their personal skill and interest, such as if someone is talented in arthroscopic surgery

i am not questioning the commitment of many medical professionals to providing the best care they can to their patients (though i do accuse most plastic surgeons of encouraging and profiting from our society's superficiality, and from personal experience i echo the accusation that most doctors do not understand nutrition).

but our healthcare system currently provides the best care in the world to the richest people. yes, rich people from around the world come for our healthcare system. not because we are good at healthcare in general, but because we are good at healthcare for rich people. and even for rich people, there is not much profit in prevention. if we all did things to prevent our diseases, half the doctors would be looking for a new career.

good healthcare would mean doctors less as operators, more as educators (oh no, anything but educators!).

doctors alone do have the knowledge or power to change this. i suspect that doctors who struggle economically, under the current system, are in favor of change. but doctors who earn millions under the current system? they're probably good at their jobs (diagnosing and treating illness), but they didn't gotten rich by fixing "healthcare" -- because it's still broken.

Jeqal, I've never seen anyone use so many words to say absolutely nothing. All in all, YOU STILL NEVER ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, unless your last paragraph was some kind of shot-in-the-dark attempt at it. And, I have no idea what your little Bible-babble was about at the end there.

I will address this, however. The Civil War was not fought so that we could learn to exalt some politician to the position of Supreme Teacher of the Land. I understand the part about states' rights. I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying that the wrong side won, but the Confederacy may have had a point. Either way, the Union winning didn't make the President the Emperor. It also doesn't change the ideal for America, which is that people are best suited to solve their own problems. And no, the Civil War also did not grant unlimited power of decree to the federal government. I know liberals wish that it did, but it didn't.

One thing that you don't know about me is the expertise I have in the educational field. You are absolutely 100% wrong about the wonders of centralized control. The farther you get away from the classroom, the less effective you are at managing it. Washington, DC is about as far away as you can get (we haven't formed the United Federation of Planets yet).

You also make an insane reference to a senator and teaching. First of all, there is a difference between knowing how to do something and knowing how to teach it. I personally know some outstanding trumpet players (I'm a saxophoist, by the way) that could give the late Maynard Ferguson a run for his money. Yet, I can teach a kid how to play the trumpet better than they can (and by their own admission) because I have the skill, knowledge and expertise to teach the instrument, even though I'm not as good at playing it. Second, even if a politician could manage to teach politics, what do they know about teaching reading, math, music, art, and history? Little to nothing. Soooo...we're back to my original point on the matter. Taking authority away from educators and school administrators and giving it to a centralized government is a bad idea.

Your spew about "moderating the pot" is one of the worst educational practices ever tried. Do you know what the goal for NCLB is? Excellence? Nope. Mastery? Nope...Proficiency. Not excellence, just "proficiency." A nice, middle of the road level of achievement that's "good enough." "Adequate" would be a good word to use. Well, if we want to compete in a 21st century global economy, don't you think we ought to push kids to be excellent, not just proficient? Look at the overwhelmingly dominant educational practices that are forced upon teachers today. Because of class size, "inclusion," and a host of other problems that a teacher has no way of solving, the general curriculum is "dumbed down" enough so that the lazy and mentally incapable students can plod along while everyone else grinds out 12 years in public school to get a diploma. There's been a lot of moderation (thank God it's starting to swing back the other way). The kids at the top tier have been getting short changed in many public schools. Our myopic view of education has pushed reading, math, reading, math, reading and some more math, while all but ignoring history (no, not "Social Studies," history), science, music, art, theatre, and phyisical education. What's the result? Culturally inept children with high self esteem and low achievement...and they are not any better in reading and math. We have some of the lowest test scores of the industrialized world. Yeah, let's have more laws and more central control and more top-down force. It's done so well for us in the last 40 years, hasn't it?

So, what was the original topic again? Oh yeah, something about the president being the "great teacher"... What about that?