NationStates Jolt Archive

This story rings hollow with me, because over the past 25 years, classes in Civics were eliminated from the high school curriculum in most states. Not just classes on government, but classes on civil rights and civic responsibility. Gone.

This last week, there was a move in the Virginia government to force schools to teach Civics by adding it to the Standards of Learning tests that all students are required to pass in order to proceed from one grade level to the next.

On CNN’s “Larry King Live” last night, retired CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite said Americans are ignorant, and that the majority of the population isn’t smart enough to make the proper decisions at election time to vote for president.

In a tirade about America not paying its teachers enough, Cronkite said:

“We're an ignorant nation right now. We're not really capable I do not think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency of course.”

What follows is a full transcript of this encounter, and a video link.

CRONKITE: You can take off if you want to. No, I am so appalled at the amount we pay our teachers. Now here are the people that we turn our children over to at the age of five or so to -- to -- they're the most important people in their lives, probably more so than their parents in many cases unfortunately.

But we pay them so little that in nearly every school district of the country the janitors in the buildings in which they work make more than they do as teachers for heaven's sakes. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

If we expect this country to work, it depends on an informed, an intelligent electorate. You know, Thomas Jefferson said very early on in our republic that the nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects it never can and never will be.

We're an ignorant nation right now. We're not really capable I do not think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency of course. I don't think we're bright enough to do the job that would preserve our democracy, our republic. I think we're in serious danger.

KING: So, you are not optimistic?

CRONKITE: Not on that score.

KING: Well that's a big score.

CRONKITE: And one of the problems today is, of course, now we've got all these other expenses in the billions of dollars where we should be putting those billions of dollars into education first and then worry about these other things we have to pay for after that.

http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2005/09/30/larry.king.friday.cnn/content.exclude.html

Walter Cronkite doesn't think you should read blogs, either. Or write them.

Speaking at USC's Annenberg School for Communication, Walter Cronkite, the anchor who preceded Dan Rather at the CBS Evening News, had much to say about what's happening to journalism.

The LA Times reports:

In a brief interview, Cronkite said he fears the blogosphere, still in its "infancy," could threaten the standing of mainstream media as a news source for consumers already confused by cable's "opinion journalism." It is the function of the educational system, he believes, to train people to understand the difference.

Later in the day Cronkite held a question and answer session with university students. Some of the topics were the state of today's education and CBS' National Guard story from last year. You can watch the whole video at USC.

http://annenberg.usc.edu/events/050927cronkite/cronkite.ram

That rules out the cretins who voted for Bush, so the idea can't be dismissed out of hand.

Cronkite is an elitist little ****. They're gonna start with taking away the voting rights of the "stupid," and then everybody's after you know it.....

That rules out the cretins who voted for Bush, so the idea can't be dismissed out of hand.

No, it only rules out the cretins who aren't rich and well-connected. The rich and well-connected voted for Bush out of well-informed self-interest.

Should people who nothing about the topic be allowed to have a say that affects all? Interesting topic....

Cronkite is an elitist little ****. They're gonna start with taking away the voting rights of the "stupid," and then everybody's after you know it.....

-2 points for not knowing the difference between ignorant and stupid!

ah. I have always thought the same thing. you know the type, the ones who just don't know. They vote no on state question whatever because they saw a sign on the way to a polling place and are really just in it for thier sticker, and besides they get all thier political news from SNL and "The Daily Show". :rolleyes: those people annoy me, almost as much as the ones who tow the party line even when they disagree with what is going on because they "hate" the other side.....

Well, that's one person's view.


His other view on Faux 'news' as quite not journalism is right on.
Rent it at your local big box rental outlet today.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

-2 points for not knowing the difference between ignorant and stupid!

Maybe Cronkite wants to bring back the old Southern tradition of the literacy test.

If you can't read, you obviously shouldn't be allowed to vote (by a minimal version of Cronkite's view).

This would obviously leave out most of the lower economic classes, and nearly all members of some ethnic and racial groups.

Well, that's one person's view.

His other view on Faux 'news' as quite not journalism is right on.
Rent it at your local big box rental outlet today.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

Fox News is one thing - Cronkite's hatred of blogs is another. Who appointed him judge of what constitutes news?

-2 points for not knowing the difference between ignorant and stupid!
Agreed- the stupidity can be rectified through education. Ignorance is harder to beat- it is apathy combined with a lack of effort to learn.

No, it only rules out the cretins who aren't rich and well-connected. The rich and well-connected voted for Bush out of well-informed self-interest.
And the rest of the people who voted for the chimp last year did so because Fox are so far up the wanker's arse they need oxygen piping in to them. The power elite aren't a huge section of the electorate.

-2 points for not knowing the difference between ignorant and stupid!
Okay improper adjectives on my part. But that still leaves me with a 98! :p

No, it only rules out the cretins who aren't rich and well-connected. The rich and well-connected voted for Bush out of well-informed self-interest.
I do agree with you here. Which leaves a resounding amount of the population without the right to vote...

Fox News is one thing - Cronkite's hatred of blogs is another. Who appointed him judge of what constitutes news?
You've read a lot of blogs that deal in information rather than prejudice?

And the rest of the people who voted for the chimp last year did so because Fox are so far up the wanker's arse they need oxygen piping in to them. The power elite aren't a huge section of the electorate.

A large percentage of the people who vote are not the power elite, but nor are they the urban poor.

They are the people from the suburbs, who by and large voted for their mutual funds, their 401K plans, their 600,000 house (that's the average price around here - it's higher elsewhere for an ordinary 3 bedroom house), their SUV, etc.

Not the "rich" of America. But far wealthier than the people living in the urban enclaves that held Kerry's only voters.

You've read a lot of blogs that deal in information rather than prejudice?

Yes. I have. And I wonder who appointed Cronkite (or any mainstream media news organization) News Nazi.

Cronkite, in the selection you provided, did not state that the ignorant should not have the right to vote, nor did he state that the blogosphere should be ignored in the other selection you provided. What he did say was that the education apparatus in the United States is failing, which it is -- and education isn't doing very well in other countries, either -- and that journalism is faltering under the weight of opinionated webcasts, newscasts, whatever, instead of offering people the means of making their own decisions or of casting a broader scope on matters.

With regards to journalism, well, it was always opinionated. In terms of education, strides need to be made to improve it -- strides that can't be made by cutting taxes, cutting programs, and then increasing spending on things that damage the economy and social situation.

It is also important to note that Cronkite took a swipe at parents in the first selection, stating that they're not doing their job and are instead counting on the State (or Nation) to do the parenting for them.

He said we're too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy. If you consider that the typical US citizen of the early 1800s probably had far less access to education, literacy, and news, then perhaps Cronkite could explain to us how we managed while being so "ignorant".

I believe that what he means by 'ignorant' is 'not thinking the way he does'. If you don't think like Cronkite, he thinks you're ignorant.

And what better way to gain perspective on a subject than to blog it and comment on it and talk to other people? Or do you like your information spoon fed from the mainstream media - who have been caught lying and fabricating stories by the blogosphere.

That's what he's afraid of. He wants to control the information that people see - control the comments that are mand - and make sure you can't find out that they've lied to you.

He and his generation of journalists have lost control of the world they once ruled.

I read that and I keep thinking he voted Democrat, and he's mad not enough other people did. So he blames the nations schools for cutting civics and leaving "ignorant" kids...

Not that that is what happened, but...

The ignorant SHOULD NOT vote!

I'm amazed so many of you have a big problem with that. Could it be because you yourself are ignorant about many if not most political issues, and tend to vote based on what your friends or family champion? If so you'd be among the majority.

If you don't possess knowledge about your own actions possible consequences, you shouldn't be taking those actions.

Basic, common sense.

Well, it used to be common.

Meanwhile, let's rant about how Cronkite is an elitist, how he's advocating stripping away voting rights, and how blogs r teh uberest thing on the internet ever since AOL fucking chat rooms. Nothing like beating up a strawman, is there?

The ignorant SHOULD NOT vote!

I'm amazed so many of you have a big problem with that. Could it be because you yourself are ignorant about many if not most political issues, and tend to vote based on what your friends or family champion? If so you'd be among the majority.

If you don't possess knowledge about your own actions possible consequences, you shouldn't be taking those actions.

Basic, common sense.

Well, it used to be common.

Meanwhile, let's rant about how Cronkite is an elitist, how he's advocating stripping away voting rights, and how blogs r teh uberest thing on the internet ever since AOL fucking chat rooms. Nothing like beating up a strawman, is there?


I disagree with many of the people on this forum. Does a difference of opinion on a subject make one party or the other automatically ignorant, and therefore not able to vote?

Who will determine who is ignorant?

As an example of where you can get good news on the blogosphere, go try the Belmont Club.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Cronkite, in the selection you provided, did not state that the ignorant should not have the right to vote

This statement deserves a little more attention. Cronkite did not propose taking away anyone's right to vote. He said that many people are too ignorant to make informed decisions about voting. And he's clearly correct on that score.

So why not discuss what he did say, rather than what you imagined him to say?

:rolleyes:

This statement deserves a little more attention. Cronkite did not propose taking away anyone's right to vote. He said that many people are too ignorant to make informed decisions about voting. And he's clearly correct on that score.

So why not discuss what he did say, rather than what you imagined him to say?

:rolleyes:

If he's saying that people are too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy, he's saying they shouldn't - do you suppose he's saying that it's OK for ignorant people to vote?

If he's saying that people are too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy, he's saying they shouldn't - do you suppose he's saying that it's OK for ignorant people to vote?

Yes, but he's not proposing legislation to keep the ignorant out. He's merely suggesting that if you are indeed ignorant, it might be better to stay home on election day.

we could take away Medicare and Social Security for rich hypocrites like him that don't need it.

Yes, but he's not proposing legislation to keep the ignorant out. He's merely suggesting that if you are indeed ignorant, it might be better to stay home on election day.

Hmm. So, if I was to suggest an arbitrary test that each person could take to determine their level of ignorance, would that be fair?

A literacy test, as a bare minimum of competency? We're going to assume that the voter knows how to read - we're not going to ask what they read.

Who would such a test exclude?

Maybe Cronkite wants to bring back the old Southern tradition of the literacy test.

If you can't read, you obviously shouldn't be allowed to vote (by a minimal version of Cronkite's view).

This would obviously leave out most of the lower economic classes, and nearly all members of some ethnic and racial groups.

If it means that Americans won't have to suffer another mishap like that orange state in the south in 2000, it might be worth it. :rolleyes:

Canada City']If it means that Americans won't have to suffer another mishap like that orange state in the south in 2000, it might be worth it. :rolleyes:

Well, if we established literacy as a minimum level of ignorance, the Democrats would lose most of their non-white voting base.

Hmm. So, if I was to suggest an arbitrary test that each person could take to determine their level of ignorance, would that be fair?

A literacy test, as a bare minimum of competency? We're going to assume that the voter knows how to read - we're not going to ask what they read.

Who would such a test exclude?
I think the general idea is that Cronkite wishes people would examine how much they actually know about their world and make a conscious decision as to whether or not they should go to the polls. That's why I don't like these rock the vote ideas. People should be encouraged to go out and learn about the world around them first, and leave casting an actual ballot as a secondary goal.

He said we're too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy. If you consider that the typical US citizen of the early 1800s probably had far less access to education, literacy, and news, then perhaps Cronkite could explain to us how we managed while being so "ignorant".
Put it this way: in comparison to tests children in the early twentieth-century had to take in both Canada and the United States, education is failing. Access to education is not an indicator of a good or even an adequate educational system. A good educational apparatus means that children and young adults are able to function in the world -- reading, writing, mathematics, general science, operating computers nowadays, etc. -- and are equipped to either continue on or find jobs. A failing educational system is one in which standards are consistently decreased, class sizes continually grow, and more attention is focussed on the mediatisation of education rather than actually teaching the kids.

Quite honestly, modern television media -- whether CNN or Fox News or whatever -- is horribly trite, simplistic, and overblown. This is not to say that Cronkite's glory days were any better or filled with less opinions. Nevertheless, neither Fox nor CNN produce much in the way of information, but do spew a welter of data and opinions. Cronkite might be arguing an elitist point of view, but to argue that people should not strive to be intelligent, informed, and objective, that we should simply accept what's been handed to us like meek little sheep goes contrary to what Benjamin Franklin said about security and tyranny: he who favours security over freedom shall have neither.

I think the general idea is that Cronkite wishes people would examine how much they actually know about their world and make a conscious decision as to whether or not they should go to the polls. That's why I don't like these rock the vote ideas. People should be encouraged to go out and learn about the world around them first, and leave casting an actual ballot as a secondary goal.

Game theory doesn't allow parties to promote that idea.

Tell me, why was it in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War, that most American high schools stopped teaching civics? Not government - but classes that dealt with your individual rights and your RESPONSIBILITIES?

They're going to resume teaching them in Virginia. And guess what party objects to the classes?

Hmm. So, if I was to suggest an arbitrary test that each person could take to determine their level of ignorance, would that be fair?

A literacy test, as a bare minimum of competency? We're going to assume that the voter knows how to read - we're not going to ask what they read.

Who would such a test exclude?

Surely you're not too ignorant to realize that such a test would require legislation to implement...

Surely you're not too ignorant to realize that such a test would require legislation to implement...

Oh, but Cronkite says we have to act to preseve democracy.

You know, here in Virginia, a government commission came to the conclusion that most people had little or no idea of what their rights and responsibilities and privileges were under government - because Civics classes haven't been taught in Virginia high schools since the 1970s - oh yes, we had "government" classes, but nothing like the Civics classes of old.

So they're making the Civics courses mandatory next year. And in order to graduate from high school, you'll have to pass a test on Civics.

Of course, there's a certain party in Virginia that objects to this class. The Democratic Party. I wonder why.

Game theory doesn't allow parties to promote that idea.

Tell me, why was it in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War, that most American high schools stopped teaching civics? Not government - but classes that dealt with your individual rights and your RESPONSIBILITIES?

They're going to resume teaching them in Virginia. And guess what party objects to the classes?
I know it's unrealistic to expect otherwise, as I would imagine Cronkite does, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Also, it would be worth examining exactly how effective Civics classes were. They might have been discontinued for reasons other than ideological disagreement.

I disagree with many of the people on this forum. Does a difference of opinion on a subject make one party or the other automatically ignorant, and therefore not able to vote?


No, and 'able to vote' applies not at all to what I was saying OR what Cronkite was saying. Strawman, like I said.


Who will determine who is ignorant?

Knowledge or lack thereof determines what ignorance is.

I think you're missing the point, the point is not that ignorant people should be stripped of the right to vote, but that people shouldn't be fucking ignorant!

I think you're missing the point, the point is not that ignorant people should be stripped of the right to vote, but that people shouldn't be fucking ignorant!

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the new Civics classes in Virginia.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the new Civics classes in Virginia.

And these particular classes in the state of Virginia have what exactly to do with what I or Cronkite said?

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the new Civics classes in Virginia.
Sure, as long as they're real classes and not some rubberstamp joke so the state can say it's doing its part.

And these particular classes in the state of Virginia have what exactly to do with what I or Cronkite said?

They are attempting to address the problem of "ignorance". Or did you miss my post?

I think you're missing the point, the point is not that ignorant people should be stripped of the right to vote, but that people shouldn't be fucking ignorant!

HEAR HEAR!!

They are attempting to address the problem of "ignorance". Or did you miss my post?

Just because I agree with a general principle doesn't mean I have to agree with every specific, proposed solution that follows from that general principle. That would mean I would have to agree that said solution is in fact a solution to the problem of ignorance. I'm not prepared to delve into Virginian state politics just because you say I should agree, or disagree on some specific.

They vote no on state question whatever because they saw a sign on the way to a polling place and are really just in it for thier sticker, and besides they get all thier political news from SNL and "The Daily Show".

Very few of the people who actually vote based on a sign they see on their way to vote watch the Daily Show. It is impossible to get political news from that show - you have to already know something about the news to enjoy it.

Agreed- the stupidity can be rectified through education. Ignorance is harder to beat- it is apathy combined with a lack of effort to learn.

You got that backwards my dear. Ignorance simply means a lack of knowledge. It implies nothing at all about apathy or lack of effort - it simply means that someone is uneducated on the particular topic.

Stupidity, on the other hand, is something that cannot be changed. Level of intelligence won't change with any amount of education - the level of information you have can, and those who are less intelligent have to work harder to gain the same amount of information.

Kronkite is not saying that those who are truly slow should not be able to vote. In fact, he didn't say that anyone shouldn't be able to vote. He is saying that those who are uninformed - aka. ignorant - should not vote.

I am with Cronkite. American history is not Government or Civics.

Very few of the people who actually vote based on a sign they see on their way to vote watch the Daily Show. It is impossible to get political news from that show - you have to already know something about the news to enjoy it.
you would be surprised. I actually know a few people who voted for a state question recently who had no idea what it was about but saw a billboard that said "vote yes on state question for the children" if they had known what it was about they wouldn't have voted for it.

and I do know a lot of people who get their news from monologues on late night tv and the daily show and SNL, it is sad, but very true....

If he's saying that people are too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy, he's saying they shouldn't - do you suppose he's saying that it's OK for ignorant people to vote?

Not necessarily. He might have been talking about the value of education. After we give everyone a decent and equal chance to learn, then maybe we can talk about restricting the franchise to those who do learn. But if he didn't have anything to say about education then I guess he's just a buffoon.

I disagree with many of the people on this forum. Does a difference of opinion on a subject make one party or the other automatically ignorant, and therefore not able to vote?

Ignorance has to do with knowledge of the facts of a situation, and nothing at all to do with what opinion you form out of them.

Let's take an example on which most people form opinions, but are incredibly ignorant: Embryonic stem cell research. This has become a political issue. It is something that people and legislatures are voting on around the country, but most people are completely ignorant of what it is and what is involved. More than one person who has voted one way or another will tell you that embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses - a completely incorrect "fact." Many will tell you that adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are equivalent - again, completely incorrect. Many will tell you that no useful research has come out of the use of embryonic stem cells - again, completely incorrect.

Now, some people do know the facts. Out of those people, some agree with the research proceeding and some do not. Neither set are ignorant, because both are informed of the facts. Those who are ignorant are the people I described above, who don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion that means anything at all.

Who will determine who is ignorant?

The facts of the matter determine this. It has nothing to do with any specific person or persons.

If he's saying that people are too ignorant to vote, or to maintain democracy, he's saying they shouldn't - do you suppose he's saying that it's OK for ignorant people to vote?

I think that people shouldn't drink until they black out, but I'm not trying to tell them they can't. I don't think that most women should have abortions, but I'm not trying to tell them they can't. Kronkite thinks that the ignorant should not vote. I agree. But he isn't trying to say that they can't vote - only that they shouldn't. There is a difference.

Luckily, ignorance is something that can be rectified. The ignorant can find the information they need to be informed - and then can make an informed decision on an issue. All it takes is a little effort.

Luckily, ignorance is something that can be rectified. The ignorant can find the information they need to be informed - and then can make an informed decision on an issue. All it takes is a little effort.

If this is true, then why does Cronkite only trust his version of the mainstream media for that information?

When I read a blog like the Belmont Club, I feel far, far more informed about certain issues than by watching CBS. Even more than reading the New York Times on the same issues.

Why would Cronkite be against that? My attempt to learn the details behind stories?

Hmm. So, if I was to suggest an arbitrary test that each person could take to determine their level of ignorance, would that be fair?

Of course an arbitrary test wouldn't be fair. What kind of idiotic question is that?

A literacy test, as a bare minimum of competency?

Since when do you have to know how to read to find out the information you need to make an informed decision? It is certainly easier if you can read for yourself, but there are other ways to get information.

I know it's unrealistic to expect otherwise, as I would imagine Cronkite does, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Also, it would be worth examining exactly how effective Civics classes were. They might have been discontinued for reasons other than ideological disagreement.

Indeed. Or perhaps they were discontinued because so many civics classes over the years haven't been about what the rights and responsibilities of a citizen are so much as, "Ra Ra Ree! Go America!! America, Fuck Yeah!"

A class that truly covered the structure of the governmental system, the right to vote and what it entails, the responsibilities taken on by being a citizen, etc. would be useful. Some states cover those things (usually rather nominally) in a government class, and it it something that needs vast improvement.

and I do know a lot of people who get their news from monologues on late night tv and the daily show and SNL, it is sad, but very true....

Then they don't get news at all.....


If this is true, then why does Cronkite only trust his version of the mainstream media for that information?

Beats me. I'm not Cronkite. Do we know for sure that he only trusts "his version of the mainstream media"?

When I read a blog like the Belmont Club, I feel far, far more informed about certain issues than by watching CBS. Even more than reading the New York Times on the same issues.

I'm not familiar with the Belmont Club. I think it is very important to realize, however, that while there may be well informed people out there writing blogs, they are buried in a lot of ranting and garbage. Blogs don't generally deal in fact - they deal in opinion, much like the "news" shows like Crossfire (thank God it's gone) and others like it. I don't expect that people think they will get all the facts from CBS or the NY Times either. There are more sources of information than the nightly news, the newspaper, or even blogs.

Why would Cronkite be against that? My attempt to learn the details behind stories?

Just based on what he said here? No, I don't think he'd be against you trying to learn details at all. Of course, I'm not him, so how would I know?

Cronkite is an elitist little ****. They're gonna start with taking away the voting rights of the "stupid," and then everybody's after you know it.....

Actually, you seen to be missing the actual POINT of what Cronkite is saying.... Though in your second point, the same people he is talking about, would likely end up doing that... but that's another issue.

Cronkite is speaking as one refferencing the a principle POINT of how a republican democracy is supposed to function (in a reliable and healthy, beneficial manner)... For the system to work (as Jefferson said), it RELIES upon an informed and intelligent AUDIENCE (sic Voter) to make valid decisions persuant to the vote in the first place.... Instead, we have a relatively un-informed audience, incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion... The issue of the sad state, is not only is it continuing... but NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT! When a major concern should be informing people of facts and operations, and educating people on producing their own opinions, the general media, and internet is feeding them OPINIONS for them to regurgitate.

In the end, we should be seeking to ensure that our children are educated and well-informed when they finally reach the voting age (not removing voting rights from anyone)...

An un-informed decision, is a bad decision.... (not to say making the decision is wrong)... And things need to be done to rectify the situation whereby people are kept educated and informed (to reliably, and acurately make those decisions)... Effectively our un-informed society is entering a realm whereby when we make a poor-decisions, we end up (being still uninformed) of assuming we did not take our bad-decision far enough, impliment an even larger poor-decision, and then wonder the fuck why everything keeps going more wrong...

Hey look! A fire....

Did you put it out?

I poured gasoline on it, and it got larger! What should I do?

Hmm, sounds like you have a problem.... What do you think it is?

Hmmm, I think I need to use more gasoline.... Opps, it's even bigger...

I guess you need more gasoline then....

(And anyone who says, we need to use water; as it used to work just fine, is labled "archaic" and dismissed)

This is much akin to the "standardization" found in education in my own state (which still pisses me off)... When the system was implimented, the viability of the system got worse..... So, to improve the viability, it was decided they needed more standardization.... Which sent everything tumbling more.... So they impliment more standardization.... Instead of looking at the system to decide what went wrong... They decided that they merely didn't do it "enough" and went further... And when it gets even worse, they decide they need to do it more... No one in power even thinks... Hey, maybe this is a bad idea, and we need to look at something else.... Or go back to the old way, and start from scratch..... And it doesn't just occur in education, but is occuring in a lot of other areas...

How do you improve children's education? Pay teachers less...
How do you improve employment rates? Outsource...
Hey, SBO's in my area are failing because of the new walmart, what do I do? Open up comercial space for a Target...

Hey, this gasoline won't put out the fire! What should I do? Use more gasoline...

Welcome to the United States of America.... please keep all appendages inside the car at all times...

Then they don't get news at all.....
that's my point, but they think they know, however they are quite ignorant.

A large percentage of the people who vote are not the power elite, but nor are they the urban poor.

They are the people from the suburbs, who by and large voted for their mutual funds, their 401K plans, their 600,000 house (that's the average price around here - it's higher elsewhere for an ordinary 3 bedroom house), their SUV, etc.

Not the "rich" of America. But far wealthier than the people living in the urban enclaves that held Kerry's only voters.
I like your suggestion that I'm saying the poor are the only pig ignorant fuckwits in your country. I like it an awful lot.

Of course, there's a certain party in Virginia that objects to this class. The Democratic Party. I wonder why.

Oh, they do? That must be why Govenor Mark Warner (sitting as Chairman of ECS) was the one who made the intital proposal TO ALL STATES (through the ECS/ELC) in the first place? And why Lt. Govenor Kaine's platform backs funding such systems in the state schools, while Kilgore wants to cut it...

Of course, there is little opposition out side of NOVA to the civics class issue.... But then again, most of the NOVA population is borderline dysfunctional (Republic and Democrat alike) [being so close to Washington; and so disconnected with the rest of the state (or planet for that matter)]...

I like your suggestion that I'm saying the poor are the only pig ignorant fuckwits in your country. I like it an awful lot.

I like the completely ignorant suggestion he made that only those who live in poor urban areas voted for Kerry. LOL.

I like the completely ignorant suggestion he made that only those who live in poor urban areas voted for Kerry. LOL.
No bastard else voted for Kerry. Just listen to what they say on Fox and Clear Channel.

That rules out the cretins who voted for Bush, so the idea can't be dismissed out of hand.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, besides your blanket statements, don't say anything at all.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, besides your blanket statements, don't say anything at all.
In this context, that's a pretty laughable statement.

Cronkite is an elitist little ****. They're gonna start with taking away the voting rights of the "stupid," and then everybody's after you know it.....
No, he wants civics returned to the classrooms. There's nothing in there about taking away voting rights. In fact he brings up a Jefferson quote about being free.

Maybe Cronkite wants to bring back the old Southern tradition of the literacy test.

If you can't read, you obviously shouldn't be allowed to vote (by a minimal version of Cronkite's view).

This would obviously leave out most of the lower economic classes, and nearly all members of some ethnic and racial groups.
That's not true. The USA has 97% literacy rate.

Who would such a test exclude?
Almost no-one. Again, look at the literacy rates.

Well, if we established literacy as a minimum level of ignorance, the Democrats would lose most of their non-white voting base.
What, and you don't support this? ;)

Whispering Legs, do you think that someone who doesn't know what a cell is should be allowed to vote on stem cell research? I don't see why they should.

The Education system is awful and that's exactly the way the politicians want it. If you are Bush or Kerry or anyone on Capitol Hill, do you want an educated and informed America that can critique all of your rhetoric, or an ignorant mass that believes whatever you tell them? Probably the latter.