Our goal is provide running news, updates and commentary on every competitive race in the country -- and even some that aren't so competitive perhaps, but still worthy of attention.
That's from Josh's announcement of the EC site back in the summer of 2006. Check out the subject of one of the very first EC posts:
AK-GOV: Poll: Palin Tops Unpopular Murkowski
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/06/akgov_poll_palin_tops_unpopula.php
1) The law is actually pretty lenient, absent clear neglect, at least as applied in many places. And rightly so. There's quite a large difference between allowing a child to drop out or skip school at his or her own whim - truancy - and taking the child temporarily out of school in order to travel under the direct supervision of a parent. My child has school mates who have missed two or three weeks in order to travel overseas to attend family functions; they were given a stack of math worksheets etc. to do while they were gone and gave presentations about their travels to the class when they returned. Anecdotal evidence, I know. I've also got a couple of friends who "unschool" - homeschooling without curriculum - in two different states with no legal hassles.
2) Both the charge of educational neglect and the alleged motivation are assumptions.
3) I knew someone in college who greatly resented being dragged all over Europe going to museums and other boring stuff for an entire semester while her parents were on sabbatical. She was mad that she missed her Junior prom; I would have killed to have an opportunity like that. Maybe she would have been better off in school, maybe not, but I really can't fault the parents for not leaving her behind for all that time they were abroad. That situation definitely failed the Ferris Bueller test, but really we're talking apples and oranges here: kids traveling under the direct supervision of a parent, especially in a situation like the Palins' which is rife with opportunities to learn, are not merely skipping classes to goof off.
There is one area that I agree with you, and that is that Palin is a hypocrite, on any number of issues. I just don't see the evidence that her choice to bring the kids along is necessarily neglectful or purely selfish.
Would you call me a bad parent because I once let my eight-year-old stay up until 11pm on a school night so he could hear a live opera broadcast he was enthralled with, even though he was five minutes late for school the next day and bombed his spelling test? Obviously, formal schooling is not the be-all and end-all of my educational philosophy.
I'm as appalled as many of you at Palin's candidacy, and pretty much everything she stands for, but I do wonder at the criticism being hurled at her over this particular issue. If she left her kids in Wasilla, wouldn't everyone be judging her for "abandoning" them? Up until the point that she accidentally leaves Piper at a gas station in West Podunk PA, I've got to assume, on principle, that she has the right to bring them along in her travels, and see to their education - for these three months or so - in whatever manner she and Todd think works best for their family.
MJ, I would appreciate seeing how you respond to the corrected version. Josh too, since he's got a post highlighting this on the front page.
This is how stupid rumors get started.
]]>That was satire. As in, not true.
]]>http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/26/nation/na-labor26
Very similar to the hyped-up concerns about "voter fraud" being used as cover for efforts to disenfranchise voters, particularly voters who are less likely to vote Republican.
Whenever the right's talking points sound like their proposals are efforts to promote democracy, you can bet what they are actually trying to do is anything but that.
]]>