It is true that teachers would be able to push bias of one sort or another, even under a lassez-faire system, but the difference is, that in cases of a parent's principled opposition, the parent would be free to boycott that particular school, (or organization). It would be a case of please the customers, or go out of business.

You're always going to have teachers pushing a bias of one kind or another. The important thing is to know what kind of bias the school pushes and to have options. I totally support the ability of parents to pick a parochial school if that's what they want. And I don't necessarily pan on all government educators, as I have seen a couple of really good ones (even principals) though now that I think about it they were great in spite of the system, not because of it...

Anyway, I think we just need more options. More options to help kids learn according to their abilities especially. I think too many bright kids get held to the lowest common denominator in public schools. And there are definitely some kids which are so disruptive in public schools that they shouldn't be there at all (kindergartners are the worst, high schoolers next).

What we need in the first place is to abolish public education. Government-financed & government-operated education necessarily leads to government thought control; from my second-grade teacher,who (in school year 1959-1960) nagged me about going to church and threatened me if I didn't start going,until modern times, when school has been pushing the book Heather Has Two Mommies, and pushing en-
vironmentalism and stuff about "climate change"; from one side or the other, either way it is wrong, and the solution is to have a separation of education and state, like the separation of church and state.

This is a wonderful problem to have. We have someone indignant that women's rights isn't in the US Constitution. The whole idea of a government based on Enlightenment ideas probably seemed like a pipe dream at the time. Only now, after it's become the model for governments everywhere, do we have the luxury to be indignant that it didn't bring liberty to more people sooner.

Then we have people indignant that Swalwell's indignant because the Constitution didn't mention the word man and therefore didn't codify the lack of liberty that existed at the time.

I suspect even Mary Wollstoncraft, one of the founders of feminism, would have been confused by this discussion if she observed it at the time when the US Constitution was ratified. Not only did the US succeed, their second attempt at a constitution succeeds, they become a regional power, then a superpower and model for nation states everywhere. Americans 200 years (after 1788) will struggled to understand why they didn't do the "obvious" thing and include ideas from A Vindication of the Rights of Women in the Constitution.

Equality seems so obvious to me, even I can wonder why they didn't just go the next obvious step in the 18th Century. We live in an amazing time for liberty.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach"
George Bernard Shaw

I was only half-serious.

I totally support the idea about having citizens question potential candidates about the Constitution. Of course, that requires that people actually learn about the Constitution - a job that public education has shied away from since the 60's. It used to be in the Founders' days that the Constitution (and many a political discussion) was held in the local churches and town halls. Now churches are hounded by the IRS for engaging in "political" speech and the only "town hall" meetings we have are meet-and-greets. Its a sad state of affairs for our nation.

No; we can't have the government set up standards of what people should know for office. It sounds good at first, but once they get started on that, there would be thought control; and it wouldn't take very long. But having citizens present questions on how much they know during a political campaign, that might be acceptable.

And then, even if not illiterate, would they actually read it if they got it?

Getting upset over that?! When is somebody going to get some sense?--Yes, women were oppressed in the past; but the 14th, and the 19th Amendments were passed, and women can be equal before the law. We need to get out of this identity politics, and have recognition of individual rights. (And, by the way, I am a woman).

Took the words right out my thoughts.

I still say it's hard to believe that a party so obsessed with veneer and genitalia is able to wield so much power in the Republic.

I think it is nor fair that men can not bear children.

The only real relevance of the Equal Rights Amendment to today's world, IMO, is that the courts ought to interpret its failure as meaning the states would never have ratified the 14th if it had been intended to include gender equality -- and therefore it does not.

As a female, I get sick of the Dems and their pandering to race, gender, and sexual persuasion.
My dad taught me to go with facts, and be prepared to compete in the business world on the basis of ability, not some gender difference. That means, when someone want s my vote, show me the programs, reasons, and fiscal data. Don't try to manipulate me, Mr. Swahwell, that is demeaning and it makde me angry.

Nope! Just angry white men.
(Sarcasm)

As taught in public schools.
(Not sarcasm)

Of course, the base assumption here is that members of Congress are literate. Based on their behavior and their rhetoric, I'm not so sure.

Hence the old bromide....
If you can't make it in the private sector, become a teacher.
If you can't make it as a teacher, go into politics.

Raving lunatic.

It's a shame to see it up close, but at least you know, from your own experience. It's hard to believe that people would change so fundamentally for the worse, and yet....apparently they do.

You may have a point.

I had a friend who ran for Congress and unseated a long time incumbent.

He was a professor at the University and became bored by the daily routine so he thought becoming a Rep would be fun.

He was a very bright guy who was an intellectual partner.

He was elected and his dumbing down commenced. He was doing things we (friends and family) were unable to grasp and find justification for. He and a few others went in front of the cameras to demonstrate their "commitment" to the people which came across as something a 5 yo would do. His wife was petrified at the juvenile actions.

He was a Republican, btw, meaning that the disease affects both sides. I remember his words when he arrived in DC, full of ambition to "do good". Quckly he realized that was not why he was there. He was told "you do this for yourself", not for your constituents.

He went through a fundamental transformation while in DC: divorced her wife of two decades and married a girl younger than his daughter.

So much for ethics and substance.

There’s a reason Galt would never voluntarily become a politician.

We need people to be able to pass a test on the Constitution and Declaration as part of being eligible to run for office in the first place. Its way too late once they are in office.

What a maroon!

Anyone notice that “woman” does not appear anywhere in the Communist Manifesto yet “man” appears quite a number of times.

Me dino getting tired of all the empty-headed squeaks uttered by these libtarded swamp rats out to awe
the voting bobble-heads who prop up these clueless clowns as some kinda ooo-weee great thinkers.