53percenter's Blog

Quoth the great William F. Buckley: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

I’ll say this much about the staff at The Denver Post: At least they were able to countenance John Caldara’s views until he started talking about gender.

Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, was a libertarian voice at a newspaper that doesn’t usually lean that way.

He’s no longer there — a decision that was made, according to him, because he thinks there are only two sexes.

In a column posted to Facebook on Saturday, Caldara, who’s been writing for The Post since 2016, said editorial editor Megan Schrader “found my writing too insensitive.”

TRENDING: Schiff Prison Joke for Senators Falls Flat, Earns Him Ridicule

“And yes, it is,” Caldara said. “My column is not a soft voiced, sticky sweet NPR-styled piece which employs the language now mandated by the victim-centric, identity politics driven media.”

Caldara has been a champion of LGBT rights, he said, but he objects to using gender pronouns different from a person’s biological sex.

“What seemed to be the last straw for my column was my insistence that there are only two sexes and my frustration that to be inclusive of the transgendered (even that word isn’t allowed) we must lose our right to free speech,” he wrote.

“To be clear I am strongly pro-gay marriage, which has frustrated many of my socially conservative friends. I have friends, family and employees from the LGBT community. I don’t care who uses whose bathroom, what you wear, or how you identify. People from this community have rights which we must protect.

“But to force us to use inaccurate pronouns, to force us to teach our kids that there are more than two sexes, to call what is plainly a man in a dress, well, not a man in a dress violates our right of speech.”

Caldara had written two recent stories in which he criticized what he deemed free speech restrictions on transgender individuals.

On Jan. 3, he said that The Associated Press’ style guide, which is used by a multitude of publications, has become a “propaganda guide” on the issue because of a recent dictate regarding language that can be used to refer to transgender individuals.

“The AP has updated its style to say that gender is no longer binary and thus declared a winner in this divisive debate. They ruled that, ‘Not all people fall under one of two categories for sex and gender,’” Caldara wrote.

RELATED: LA Times Reverses Course, Slams Sanctuary City Movement — At Least for Gun Owners

“There are only two sexes, identified by an XX or XY chromosome. That is the very definition of binary. The AP ruling it isn’t so doesn’t change science. It’s a premeditative attempt to change culture and policy. It’s activism.”

Two weeks later, Caldara used his column to discuss a 2019 Colorado law requiring elementary school students to be instructed in “comprehensive human sexuality,” instruction that also touches on transgender issues.

“Some parents weren’t thrilled a couple of years back when during school their little ones in Boulder Valley School District were treated to videos staring a transgender teddy bear teaching the kids how to misuse pronouns or when Colorado’s ‘Trans Community Choir’ sang to kids about a transgender raven,” Caldara wrote.

“What are the protections for a parent who feels transgender singing groups and teddy bears with gender dysphoria might be ‘stigmatizing’ for their kid? How can a parent decide if she wants her kid in that class if the material isn’t transparent and easily accessible?”

The latter column was linked by Caldara in his Facebook post and identified as “the column that got me fired from the Denver Post.”

Caldara’s editor, the aforementioned Schrader, didn’t shine any light on whether it was Caldara’s language on transgender individuals that got him fired, only that he was, in fact, terminated.

“I am writing a job description as we speak to fill his position,” she said in an email to The Washington Free Beacon.

“I hope that conservative Colorado writers will apply knowing that we value conservative voices on our pages and don’t have a litmus test for their opinions,” Schrader said.

Except she declined to say whether she fired him over a litmus test on his opinion on transgender individuals and the language used to refer to them.

There could be a different explanation for Caldara’s firing. If there is, it seems unusual she wouldn’t at least say there was more to this than the fact that Caldara believes (rightly) that gender and the English language are both less fluid than The Denver Post or the AP think.

I wonder what exactly the editors of The Post are looking for in a conservative columnist. No doubt, they want one of the Good Ones™, the kind of Republican who admits of all the tenets of modern liberaldom but protests slightly against some of them.

They may be against a carbon tax but think cap-and-trade is a good idea. They believe in strict constitutionalist judges — along the lines of John Roberts, say. Antonin Scalia was a bit far for them. And more than anything, they talk about bringing civility back to politics — which almost always means giving the pained Bill Kristol smile whenever they’re savaged and then politely trying to explain in the nicest possible terms why they don’t quite see it that way. That civility means they might grumble a bit about the AP’s new rules or Colorado’s “comprehensive human sexuality” education for elementary school students, but they’ll mostly go along with it and hope the issue goes away.

That’s the kind of conservative the media tolerates.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are less likely to countenance them.

In one of his final columns for The Post, Caldara spelled out why.

“It is fascinating how the built-up frustration to the main-stream media carried Trump to victory,” he wrote. “It’s more fascinating that the media has shown absolutely no introspection into their role in the phenomenon. They really think most Americans see them as they see themselves — brave warriors of truth, not torchbearers for progressive ideology.

“One only has to listen to NPR reporters and their pee-your-pants excitement at covering Trump’s impeachment to conclude they still have no idea so much of America considers them the enemy.”

The Denver Post can’t erase biological reality and look askance at anyone who points to it as a regressive relic.

If it’s true that Caldara was fired for saying there are only two sexes, it’s yet another proof of William F. Buckley’s timeless axiom.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Howie Carr suggests Democrats compile a Greatest Hits of their fantasies for getting rid of President Trump, among which we might find:

Jill Stein’s recount (before Hillary was accused of being a Russian asset), faithless electors, emoluments clause, the 25th Amendment, Hillary’s fake dossier, the Russian hoax, firing crooked James Comey, senile Bob Mueller and his 19 angry Democrats, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti (pre-indictments), Stormy Daniels, Brett Kavanaugh frame-up, tax returns, loans guaranteed by Russian oligarchs[.] …

And now, the Ukraine hoax.

What are [Trump’s] high crimes and misdemeanors? Record high numbers of Americans working, the stock market at record highs. Favorable trade deals, ISIS destroyed, millions off welfare and food stamps.

They used to love Donald Trump, back when they could attribute his success to Daddy plus corruption.  They’re accustomed to guys getting to be high rollers for those reasons.  But on his way to the presidency they realized, to their horror, that Trump’s basically a smart, honest man who figured out how to navigate a corrupt system.  Liberal politicians are suspicious of anyone who isn’t vulnerable to being bought off, blackmailed, or intimidated, and Trump was invulnerable to all three.

A number of factors came together in Trump to build his fortune: ability, intelligence, work ethic, guts, confidence, education.  As a younger man, he was also quite handsome, which, whether we like it or not, does help.  His dad’s name helped him get started, and field experience with his dad from early ages familiarized him with the nuts and bolts of his future career.

Beyond these were what he did with them.  There were three keys: first was to do good work.  He made billions because he delivered excellent, beautiful buildings on budget and on time.  Nobody else could match him.  He subcontracted based on excellence rather than politics.  Second, he avoided public ownership of his organization so that he never had to deal with boards of directors but could make all decisions himself.  That gave him the huge advantage of speedy decision-making that publicly owned outfits couldn’t match.  Third, he supervised all work personally and often.  Workers knew him by first name, and he knew their first names.  Camaraderie developed.  His work sites were enjoyable places to visit because of the high morale that resulted.

This just isn’t the way liberals do things, partly because they’re too lazy to work so hard but also, one suspects, because their confidence fails at key junctures.  Seeking safety in numbers, they play the politics and network themselves into positions where they can command abler people.  This is straight out of Atlas Shrugged, but where Ayn Rand attributed it to moral failure, I think it’s more often due to lack of confidence or courage — psychology as much as morality.

This also underlies the visceral hatred the Left has for the president.  Leftists envy his confidence, which spills over into everything else they hate about him: a gorgeous wife; successful, good-looking kids; no self-doubt; no fear of confrontation; the guts to change course on a dime when something isn’t working as it should.  Donald Trump deals in bottom lines.  If you aren’t adult enough to handle cutting to the point and calling things by their right names, you won’t last long under him, and you certainly won’t like being around him.

And there’s the real rub: liberals in high places know that Donald Trump is superior to them by any measure that matters in the real world.  So they veer off into the surreal, where they can literally make things up to slow or stop him.  Slightly dimming his star might make their pathetic LED light look a little brighter — not make it brighter, but make it look brighter.  With their narcissism, they see everything in black-and-white, zero-sum, win-lose terms, such that if he’s better, they are necessarily lesser.

AT observers have noted before that Washington has become like high school with its gossip and backstabbing.  It’s always been that way, but with noticeably more heat and venom since the advent of Donald Trump.  His very excellence excites hatred among the second-rate.  And nothing describes the Democrat impeachment squad better than “second-rate.”

Image: Donkey Hotey via Flickr.

Howie Carr suggests Democrats compile a Greatest Hits of their fantasies for getting rid of President Trump, among which we might find:

Jill Stein’s recount (before Hillary was accused of being a Russian asset), faithless electors, emoluments clause, the 25th Amendment, Hillary’s fake dossier, the Russian hoax, firing crooked James Comey, senile Bob Mueller and his 19 angry Democrats, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti (pre-indictments), Stormy Daniels, Brett Kavanaugh frame-up, tax returns, loans guaranteed by Russian oligarchs[.] …

And now, the Ukraine hoax.

What are [Trump’s] high crimes and misdemeanors? Record high numbers of Americans working, the stock market at record highs. Favorable trade deals, ISIS destroyed, millions off welfare and food stamps.

They used to love Donald Trump, back when they could attribute his success to Daddy plus corruption.  They’re accustomed to guys getting to be high rollers for those reasons.  But on his way to the presidency they realized, to their horror, that Trump’s basically a smart, honest man who figured out how to navigate a corrupt system.  Liberal politicians are suspicious of anyone who isn’t vulnerable to being bought off, blackmailed, or intimidated, and Trump was invulnerable to all three.

A number of factors came together in Trump to build his fortune: ability, intelligence, work ethic, guts, confidence, education.  As a younger man, he was also quite handsome, which, whether we like it or not, does help.  His dad’s name helped him get started, and field experience with his dad from early ages familiarized him with the nuts and bolts of his future career.

Beyond these were what he did with them.  There were three keys: first was to do good work.  He made billions because he delivered excellent, beautiful buildings on budget and on time.  Nobody else could match him.  He subcontracted based on excellence rather than politics.  Second, he avoided public ownership of his organization so that he never had to deal with boards of directors but could make all decisions himself.  That gave him the huge advantage of speedy decision-making that publicly owned outfits couldn’t match.  Third, he supervised all work personally and often.  Workers knew him by first name, and he knew their first names.  Camaraderie developed.  His work sites were enjoyable places to visit because of the high morale that resulted.

This just isn’t the way liberals do things, partly because they’re too lazy to work so hard but also, one suspects, because their confidence fails at key junctures.  Seeking safety in numbers, they play the politics and network themselves into positions where they can command abler people.  This is straight out of Atlas Shrugged, but where Ayn Rand attributed it to moral failure, I think it’s more often due to lack of confidence or courage — psychology as much as morality.

This also underlies the visceral hatred the Left has for the president.  Leftists envy his confidence, which spills over into everything else they hate about him: a gorgeous wife; successful, good-looking kids; no self-doubt; no fear of confrontation; the guts to change course on a dime when something isn’t working as it should.  Donald Trump deals in bottom lines.  If you aren’t adult enough to handle cutting to the point and calling things by their right names, you won’t last long under him, and you certainly won’t like being around him.

And there’s the real rub: liberals in high places know that Donald Trump is superior to them by any measure that matters in the real world.  So they veer off into the surreal, where they can literally make things up to slow or stop him.  Slightly dimming his star might make their pathetic LED light look a little brighter — not make it brighter, but make it look brighter.  With their narcissism, they see everything in black-and-white, zero-sum, win-lose terms, such that if he’s better, they are necessarily lesser.

AT observers have noted before that Washington has become like high school with its gossip and backstabbing.  It’s always been that way, but with noticeably more heat and venom since the advent of Donald Trump.  His very excellence excites hatred among the second-rate.  And nothing describes the Democrat impeachment squad better than “second-rate.”

Image: Donkey Hotey via Flickr.

One of the constants in 2020 is that we’re deluged by videos. Actual news videos, worrisome deep fake videos, political ads, product ads, and artistic videos. All of them, in one way or another, shape how we view our world and, often, how we view ourselves.

Because videos have such a profound effect on the way in which we perceive things, it’s noteworthy that two videos dropped today, both of which are getting positive buzz and both which make statements about what America is or what it could be.

On the serious side, the GOP released a video entitled “For Democrats, It’s All About Power.” The video is a compilation of all those moments when Democrats said something that made conservatives think, “Oh, my! The commercials practically write themselves.” The ad intercuts power-hungry Democrat statements with Trump’s warning to voters about the freedoms the American left wants to take from the American people.

The Daily Wire helpfully assembled a list of the top moments included in the video, all highlighting the way in which Democrats want raw power:

• Audio of news reports talking about ANTIFA violence.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying the world will end in 12 years.
• Beto O’Rourke saying that Democrats are going to confiscate American’s guns.
• Elizabeth Warren saying she wants to eliminate cars and electricity.
• Bernie Sanders saying that “you cannot go too far” on pushing radical climate agendas.
• Joe Biden saying he wants to shut down coal-burning plants
• Bernie Sanders saying it’s a good thing when people line up in bread lines
• Beto O’Rourke saying he will have law enforcement go to people’s homes to confiscate guns.
• Joe Biden agreeing that “a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns.”
• Ted Lieu saying “I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech, but the First Amendment prevents me from doing so.”
• Beto O’Rourke agreeing with the statement, “religious institutions should lose tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”

The ad also takes on the Kavanaugh hearing, the push to destroy the Electoral College (without a constitutional amendment, of course), third-trimester abortion, the Democrats’ driving need to strip Americans of their hard-earned money through higher taxes, and Rep. Al Green’s famous warning that, if the Democrats failed to impeach Trump, he would win in 2020.

At periodic intervals, we hear Trump saying, “They would strip Americans of their constitutional rights . . . use the power of the law to punish their opponents . . . they would shut down your free speech . . . the governor of Virginia, he stated he would execute a baby after birth . . . our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage. They want to destroy you. They only care about their own political power.”

The tag line is Lindsay Graham, speaking at the Kavanaugh hearings: “Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” It is a powerful ad and one that deserves to be shared.

On the lighter side, there’s a great new ad from Budweiser, which used to be an American company (started in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1876). Although it’s now just a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev, which is headquartered in Belgium, it clearly found itself a wonderful pro-American ad agency. We see that in Budweiser’s newest Super Bowl ad, which it released Friday on Twitter. It’s clearly aimed at an audience disgusted by ads demeaning men or smugly denigrating Americans. It’s always refreshing to see an ad capture who Americans really are. (Hint: They’re not the evil, hate-filled people that Democrats paint them as being.) Watch and enjoy:

America, look beyond the labels. You might be surprised by what you find.

Watch Budweiser’s #SuperBowlLIV commercial now. #ThisBudsForYou pic.twitter.com/2AlOnciyUi

— Budweiser (@budweiserusa) January 23, 2020

One of the constants in 2020 is that we’re deluged by videos. Actual news videos, worrisome deep fake videos, political ads, product ads, and artistic videos. All of them, in one way or another, shape how we view our world and, often, how we view ourselves.

Because videos have such a profound effect on the way in which we perceive things, it’s noteworthy that two videos dropped today, both of which are getting positive buzz and both which make statements about what America is or what it could be.

On the serious side, the GOP released a video entitled “For Democrats, It’s All About Power.” The video is a compilation of all those moments when Democrats said something that made conservatives think, “Oh, my! The commercials practically write themselves.” The ad intercuts power-hungry Democrat statements with Trump’s warning to voters about the freedoms the American left wants to take from the American people.

The Daily Wire helpfully assembled a list of the top moments included in the video, all highlighting the way in which Democrats want raw power:

• Audio of news reports talking about ANTIFA violence.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying the world will end in 12 years.
• Beto O’Rourke saying that Democrats are going to confiscate American’s guns.
• Elizabeth Warren saying she wants to eliminate cars and electricity.
• Bernie Sanders saying that “you cannot go too far” on pushing radical climate agendas.
• Joe Biden saying he wants to shut down coal-burning plants
• Bernie Sanders saying it’s a good thing when people line up in bread lines
• Beto O’Rourke saying he will have law enforcement go to people’s homes to confiscate guns.
• Joe Biden agreeing that “a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns.”
• Ted Lieu saying “I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech, but the First Amendment prevents me from doing so.”
• Beto O’Rourke agreeing with the statement, “religious institutions should lose tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”

The ad also takes on the Kavanaugh hearing, the push to destroy the Electoral College (without a constitutional amendment, of course), third-trimester abortion, the Democrats’ driving need to strip Americans of their hard-earned money through higher taxes, and Rep. Al Green’s famous warning that, if the Democrats failed to impeach Trump, he would win in 2020.

At periodic intervals, we hear Trump saying, “They would strip Americans of their constitutional rights . . . use the power of the law to punish their opponents . . . they would shut down your free speech . . . the governor of Virginia, he stated he would execute a baby after birth . . . our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage. They want to destroy you. They only care about their own political power.”

The tag line is Lindsay Graham, speaking at the Kavanaugh hearings: “Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” It is a powerful ad and one that deserves to be shared.

On the lighter side, there’s a great new ad from Budweiser, which used to be an American company (started in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1876). Although it’s now just a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev, which is headquartered in Belgium, it clearly found itself a wonderful pro-American ad agency. We see that in Budweiser’s newest Super Bowl ad, which it released Friday on Twitter. It’s clearly aimed at an audience disgusted by ads demeaning men or smugly denigrating Americans. It’s always refreshing to see an ad capture who Americans really are. (Hint: They’re not the evil, hate-filled people that Democrats paint them as being.) Watch and enjoy:

America, look beyond the labels. You might be surprised by what you find.

Watch Budweiser’s #SuperBowlLIV commercial now. #ThisBudsForYou pic.twitter.com/2AlOnciyUi

— Budweiser (@budweiserusa) January 23, 2020

Although the National Park Service has not issued its official crowd size estimate for this year’s March for Life in Washington, D.C., which took place Friday morning, the crowd easily numbered in the tens of thousands and may even have topped 100,000 people. After all, last year’s March for Life drew between 100,000 and 300,000 people, depending on who was estimating, and it didn’t have the big speaker this year’s March offered: President Donald J. Trump.

Speaking before the enthusiastic crowd, Trump hit all the right notes for those in the nation who are tired of the wholesale slaughter of babies. While the Clintons in the 1990s chanted the mantra “Safe, rare, and legal,” we’ve learned over the years that none of that is true.

We know that abortion is unsafe for women, whether they’re at Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors or suffering, and even dying, from RU-486. For the babies, of course, abortion is always unsafe, to the point of death.

We know that abortion is anything but rare. Since the Supreme Court found an imaginary federal right to abortion in the Constitution, almost 61,700,000 babies have been aborted – and a disproportionate number of them (almost 18,506,000) have been black babies. Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist, would have been proud.

And we know that, while abortion is legal, it’s become completely untethered from morality. Currently, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, and Washington, D.C. all allow third trimester abortion. Thanks to modern science, we can easily keep alive babies born early in the second trimester. Governor Ralph “Grab the Gun” Northam, a Virginia pediatrician, explicitly approved of post-birth abortions (although he currently limits it to “severe deformities” or a “non-viable” fetus):

[T]he infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

The discussion, obviously, would be whether to un-resuscitate that infant. I attended school with a kid who had been born with “severe deformities.” That kid is a successful psychiatrist.

The lie of “safe, rare, and legal” is what is turning Americans against the abortion industry. While the pollsters like to say the majority of Americans are “pro-choice,” the reality is more nuanced – and the nuance goes against the Democrat party’s demand for unbounded abortion:

The latest annual, nationwide Marist/Knights of Columbus pollshows most Americans, 70 percent, desire significant restrictions on abortion, such as limiting it to the first trimester, permitting it only in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life, or prohibiting abortion altogether. In fact, even 47 percent of people who identify as “pro-choice” want some form of these restrictions.

The poll finds most Americans also want to vote for a candidate who supports significant restrictions on abortion, including more than 60 percent of independents, and even 44 percent of Democrats.

President Trump spoke to those Americans at this year’s March for Life. It’s a short speech and worth listening to in its entirety:

#MarchForLife https://t.co/5Yg09dOoJd

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020

While Trump talked about his administration’s efforts to limit abortion in America — such as strict constructionist judges, a promise to veto pro-abortion policies, and a greater focus on religious liberty — it was the occasional moments of soaring rhetoric, as well as the strong attacks against the pro-choice Democrats, that caught the crowd:

When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation. When we hold a newborn in our arms, we know the endless love that each child brings to a family.  When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul.  One life changes the world.  From my family — and I can tell you, I send love and I send great, great love.

[snip]

Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.  And as the Bible tells us, each person is “wonderfully made.”

[snip]

Together, we are the voice for the voiceless.  When it comes to abortion, Democrats is a — and you know this, you’ve seen what’s happened — Democrats have embraced the most radical and extreme positions taken and seen in this country for years, and decades — and you can even say “for centuries.”

Nearly every top Democrat in Congress now supports taxpayer-funded abortion, all the way up until the moment of birth.

Last year, lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb right up until delivery.

No matter Trump’s views before, when he was a Democrat, his language and his policies show that this is a man who truly supports every American’s Right to Life, whether born or unborn.

 

 

Although the National Park Service has not issued its official crowd size estimate for this year’s March for Life in Washington, D.C., which took place Friday morning, the crowd easily numbered in the tens of thousands and may even have topped 100,000 people. After all, last year’s March for Life drew between 100,000 and 300,000 people, depending on who was estimating, and it didn’t have the big speaker this year’s March offered: President Donald J. Trump.

Speaking before the enthusiastic crowd, Trump hit all the right notes for those in the nation who are tired of the wholesale slaughter of babies. While the Clintons in the 1990s chanted the mantra “Safe, rare, and legal,” we’ve learned over the years that none of that is true.

We know that abortion is unsafe for women, whether they’re at Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors or suffering, and even dying, from RU-486. For the babies, of course, abortion is always unsafe, to the point of death.

We know that abortion is anything but rare. Since the Supreme Court found an imaginary federal right to abortion in the Constitution, almost 61,700,000 babies have been aborted – and a disproportionate number of them (almost 18,506,000) have been black babies. Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist, would have been proud.

And we know that, while abortion is legal, it’s become completely untethered from morality. Currently, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, and Washington, D.C. all allow third trimester abortion. Thanks to modern science, we can easily keep alive babies born early in the second trimester. Governor Ralph “Grab the Gun” Northam, a Virginia pediatrician, explicitly approved of post-birth abortions (although he currently limits it to “severe deformities” or a “non-viable” fetus):

[T]he infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

The discussion, obviously, would be whether to un-resuscitate that infant. I attended school with a kid who had been born with “severe deformities.” That kid is a successful psychiatrist.

The lie of “safe, rare, and legal” is what is turning Americans against the abortion industry. While the pollsters like to say the majority of Americans are “pro-choice,” the reality is more nuanced – and the nuance goes against the Democrat party’s demand for unbounded abortion:

The latest annual, nationwide Marist/Knights of Columbus pollshows most Americans, 70 percent, desire significant restrictions on abortion, such as limiting it to the first trimester, permitting it only in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life, or prohibiting abortion altogether. In fact, even 47 percent of people who identify as “pro-choice” want some form of these restrictions.

The poll finds most Americans also want to vote for a candidate who supports significant restrictions on abortion, including more than 60 percent of independents, and even 44 percent of Democrats.

President Trump spoke to those Americans at this year’s March for Life. It’s a short speech and worth listening to in its entirety:

#MarchForLife https://t.co/5Yg09dOoJd

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020

While Trump talked about his administration’s efforts to limit abortion in America — such as strict constructionist judges, a promise to veto pro-abortion policies, and a greater focus on religious liberty — it was the occasional moments of soaring rhetoric, as well as the strong attacks against the pro-choice Democrats, that caught the crowd:

When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation. When we hold a newborn in our arms, we know the endless love that each child brings to a family.  When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul.  One life changes the world.  From my family — and I can tell you, I send love and I send great, great love.

[snip]

Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.  And as the Bible tells us, each person is “wonderfully made.”

[snip]

Together, we are the voice for the voiceless.  When it comes to abortion, Democrats is a — and you know this, you’ve seen what’s happened — Democrats have embraced the most radical and extreme positions taken and seen in this country for years, and decades — and you can even say “for centuries.”

Nearly every top Democrat in Congress now supports taxpayer-funded abortion, all the way up until the moment of birth.

Last year, lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb right up until delivery.

No matter Trump’s views before, when he was a Democrat, his language and his policies show that this is a man who truly supports every American’s Right to Life, whether born or unborn.

 

 

Picture a neighborhood composed of low and middle income families, each with two parents, no homeless people, no street drugs, safe to walk the streets at night. Is this the figment of an overactive imagination? Well, it is in fact a peek at a neighborhood in New York City where the son of immigrant parents read The New York Times every morning in high school, before orchestra rehearsal. Me. The principal, strongly authoritarian and well loved, opened a weekly assembly of highly diverse youngsters by reading a psalm from the Bible. Tough-as-nails, yet tenderhearted teachers passed on a tradition of excellence in thought, expression, and civility while preparing us for a wide range of careers in a free and independent America. 

This typical school of 1940s New York City had higher standards and grade profile than any counterpart today and operated on a budget far smaller in equivalent dollars than any current public school budget. In these “backward” times, the schools were free of substance abuse problems, sexual promiscuity, and identity problems. There was an abiding respect for the authority of teachers and parents and for the dignity of every person regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. There were clubs in my school for religion, for foreign languages (including Latin). A Reporters’ Club recorded significant events for the school paper. There were toy drives for a local hospital . . . The list of extracurricular engagements was long.

I think it’s revealing that dictionaries in these “retrograde” times did not prefix definitions of words referring to high moral standards, such as virtue, with the phrase “regarded as.” It did not have to be stated that opinion or “point of view” is not a valid basis for morality.

Where were we coming from? Where was I coming from? Well it was not from vengeance against America’s “sins,” real and imagined – the basis for any ideology that dismisses the human flaws in every person, including saints and heroes. The journey I took – we took – was down-to-earth and mindful of the power that gave us life, known worldwide as God by people of every degree of intelligence.

A childhood flashback and reflection will perhaps help bring some focus to a past that still speaks to the present. This was before World War II . . .

At a street in Brooklyn that was closed to traffic for several blocks, archways with curlicue designs were raised on wooden posts . Bunting and lights trimmed a parade route for a feast. At twilight the ornate arches burst into sparkling color, as the lights entwining them went on. The smell of roasted nuts, sweets, and sundry aromas of Italian cuisine floated through the air in eddies, as curb-side vendors turned the street and sidewalks into a mile-long buffet of deli-grade food. People thronged and milled along the chain of  carts and tables, ate, drank, and gabbed in block-party style.

Before long there was a boom of drums, a splash of cymbals, a blare of brass and woodwinds from the direction of the church and la processione began. Musicians in white shirts played robust marches, while men in shirtsleeves carried la Madonna di Pompei along the route. When the preciously sculpted symbol of the Holy Mother returned to the front steps of the church, fireworks filled the sky with brilliant streaks of light and volleys of artificial thunder that thrilled little Tony (me) to his core.

Festa – a unity of faith, family, friends, food, and fun – was to these 1940s Mediterraneans in Brooklyn as natural as breathing. And equally natural to these “backward” folk making their home in America was a freedom of thought and action within limits trespassed only by the mad. As a child, when you took a turn that way, you were brought back with appropriate corrective action. Any moppet philosopher thus checked, who asked why, was perhaps secretly admired but it was made clear that what is right and what is wrong was not for him or her to decide. You questioned established wisdom like you questioned the need to eat.

It was the job of parents to transmit time-honored wisdom and the job of children to learn it. Later, after completing the needed study on matters of vital importance, the child thinker could discover for himself the ironic truth, missed by many an intellectual, that in order to move freely in life’s journey, one must heed restraints imposed by fundamental constants of life – regardless of who we are and where we come from. This is the break-off point, from which so many stray, to be gathered by activists for movements that lack genuine concern for those they pull into their fold.

Mid-20th century saw a rapid loss of understanding regarding timeless constants relating to the fundamentals of life. “We are living at a time when the status of man is undergoing profound upheavals,” observed Igor Stravinsky in 1947. “Modern man is progressively losing his understanding of values and his sense of proportions. This failure to understand essential realities is extremely serious. It leads us infallibly to the violation of the fundamental laws of human equilibrium.” [1]

What this composer touched on, and what has occupied the minds of philosophers and theologians throughout human history, is the vital importance of achieving a harmony between what is changeable and what is not changeable, which is well expressed in the plea: “God, grant me the grace to accept with serenity the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” [2]

Although the childhood experiences mentioned above prove nothing regarding the cultural health of America in the first half of the twentieth century, they point to a co-relation between family-with-faith-in-God – linked to eternal constants of life – and the attendant wellbeing. As I grew into an adult, during the war-ravished 20th century, I became more than ever aware of the need for a harmony between what belongs to the state and what belongs to the people or, as scripture codes it,  “what is Caesar’s” and “what is God’s” [3].

In 1950, as I entered a classroom before the start of a college class session, I saw on a blackboard the words “Damn the Absolute!” Was the student insane, I thought? Was he not cursing himself? Can you do away with what makes you tick? In my mind this was an implicit death wish, for if you break away from what got you here in the first place and made it possible even for you to breathe, you are in essence committing suicide, spiritual if not physical. 

It would not be long before radical distortions of reality, dressed in endearing language, would be fed the public in the news, on campus, even in church, in order “to demolish beyond hope of repair the engine of Western metaphysics” – to use the words of J. Hillis Miller, an outspoken academician of the political Left.

The Absolute that was being condemned (“demolished”) is – let’s face it – the very Absolute raised  by liberals themselves who have said, “If there were no God, one would have to be invented.” Well, there is no need to invent God or even to “prove” the existence of God with rationales that manage only to prove what one already believes. What is really needed, especially among those who would govern people or improve their lives, is to wake up.

A sober comparison between life in America before and after mid-20th century shows what has been lost and what has been gained at the hands of Leftist agents of “change,” raising necessary questions not asked or answered by most people of influence in America. How, for example, has the “progress” pushed by Leftist activists improved life for all of us today? Is it possible that loving, not hating, one another (a Christian constant), in an atmosphere of freedom and independence  – so despised by the Left – is an important clue to why living in America was better before than after the “progress” thrust on America? Is it possible that swinging a wrecking ball against “the West,” in pursuit of a world populated with virtual zombies instead of real human beings, was not such a good idea, after all?

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

[1] Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons.

[2] Reinhold Niebuhr, 1892-1971]

[3] Implied in the injunction “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Luke 20:25)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Anthony J. DeBlasi is a veteran and lifelong defender of Western culture.

Graphic credit: Public domain vectors

Picture a neighborhood composed of low and middle income families, each with two parents, no homeless people, no street drugs, safe to walk the streets at night. Is this the figment of an overactive imagination? Well, it is in fact a peek at a neighborhood in New York City where the son of immigrant parents read The New York Times every morning in high school, before orchestra rehearsal. Me. The principal, strongly authoritarian and well loved, opened a weekly assembly of highly diverse youngsters by reading a psalm from the Bible. Tough-as-nails, yet tenderhearted teachers passed on a tradition of excellence in thought, expression, and civility while preparing us for a wide range of careers in a free and independent America. 

This typical school of 1940s New York City had higher standards and grade profile than any counterpart today and operated on a budget far smaller in equivalent dollars than any current public school budget. In these “backward” times, the schools were free of substance abuse problems, sexual promiscuity, and identity problems. There was an abiding respect for the authority of teachers and parents and for the dignity of every person regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. There were clubs in my school for religion, for foreign languages (including Latin). A Reporters’ Club recorded significant events for the school paper. There were toy drives for a local hospital . . . The list of extracurricular engagements was long.

I think it’s revealing that dictionaries in these “retrograde” times did not prefix definitions of words referring to high moral standards, such as virtue, with the phrase “regarded as.” It did not have to be stated that opinion or “point of view” is not a valid basis for morality.

Where were we coming from? Where was I coming from? Well it was not from vengeance against America’s “sins,” real and imagined – the basis for any ideology that dismisses the human flaws in every person, including saints and heroes. The journey I took – we took – was down-to-earth and mindful of the power that gave us life, known worldwide as God by people of every degree of intelligence.

A childhood flashback and reflection will perhaps help bring some focus to a past that still speaks to the present. This was before World War II . . .

At a street in Brooklyn that was closed to traffic for several blocks, archways with curlicue designs were raised on wooden posts . Bunting and lights trimmed a parade route for a feast. At twilight the ornate arches burst into sparkling color, as the lights entwining them went on. The smell of roasted nuts, sweets, and sundry aromas of Italian cuisine floated through the air in eddies, as curb-side vendors turned the street and sidewalks into a mile-long buffet of deli-grade food. People thronged and milled along the chain of  carts and tables, ate, drank, and gabbed in block-party style.

Before long there was a boom of drums, a splash of cymbals, a blare of brass and woodwinds from the direction of the church and la processione began. Musicians in white shirts played robust marches, while men in shirtsleeves carried la Madonna di Pompei along the route. When the preciously sculpted symbol of the Holy Mother returned to the front steps of the church, fireworks filled the sky with brilliant streaks of light and volleys of artificial thunder that thrilled little Tony (me) to his core.

Festa – a unity of faith, family, friends, food, and fun – was to these 1940s Mediterraneans in Brooklyn as natural as breathing. And equally natural to these “backward” folk making their home in America was a freedom of thought and action within limits trespassed only by the mad. As a child, when you took a turn that way, you were brought back with appropriate corrective action. Any moppet philosopher thus checked, who asked why, was perhaps secretly admired but it was made clear that what is right and what is wrong was not for him or her to decide. You questioned established wisdom like you questioned the need to eat.

It was the job of parents to transmit time-honored wisdom and the job of children to learn it. Later, after completing the needed study on matters of vital importance, the child thinker could discover for himself the ironic truth, missed by many an intellectual, that in order to move freely in life’s journey, one must heed restraints imposed by fundamental constants of life – regardless of who we are and where we come from. This is the break-off point, from which so many stray, to be gathered by activists for movements that lack genuine concern for those they pull into their fold.

Mid-20th century saw a rapid loss of understanding regarding timeless constants relating to the fundamentals of life. “We are living at a time when the status of man is undergoing profound upheavals,” observed Igor Stravinsky in 1947. “Modern man is progressively losing his understanding of values and his sense of proportions. This failure to understand essential realities is extremely serious. It leads us infallibly to the violation of the fundamental laws of human equilibrium.” [1]

What this composer touched on, and what has occupied the minds of philosophers and theologians throughout human history, is the vital importance of achieving a harmony between what is changeable and what is not changeable, which is well expressed in the plea: “God, grant me the grace to accept with serenity the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” [2]

Although the childhood experiences mentioned above prove nothing regarding the cultural health of America in the first half of the twentieth century, they point to a co-relation between family-with-faith-in-God – linked to eternal constants of life – and the attendant wellbeing. As I grew into an adult, during the war-ravished 20th century, I became more than ever aware of the need for a harmony between what belongs to the state and what belongs to the people or, as scripture codes it,  “what is Caesar’s” and “what is God’s” [3].

In 1950, as I entered a classroom before the start of a college class session, I saw on a blackboard the words “Damn the Absolute!” Was the student insane, I thought? Was he not cursing himself? Can you do away with what makes you tick? In my mind this was an implicit death wish, for if you break away from what got you here in the first place and made it possible even for you to breathe, you are in essence committing suicide, spiritual if not physical. 

It would not be long before radical distortions of reality, dressed in endearing language, would be fed the public in the news, on campus, even in church, in order “to demolish beyond hope of repair the engine of Western metaphysics” – to use the words of J. Hillis Miller, an outspoken academician of the political Left.

The Absolute that was being condemned (“demolished”) is – let’s face it – the very Absolute raised  by liberals themselves who have said, “If there were no God, one would have to be invented.” Well, there is no need to invent God or even to “prove” the existence of God with rationales that manage only to prove what one already believes. What is really needed, especially among those who would govern people or improve their lives, is to wake up.

A sober comparison between life in America before and after mid-20th century shows what has been lost and what has been gained at the hands of Leftist agents of “change,” raising necessary questions not asked or answered by most people of influence in America. How, for example, has the “progress” pushed by Leftist activists improved life for all of us today? Is it possible that loving, not hating, one another (a Christian constant), in an atmosphere of freedom and independence  – so despised by the Left – is an important clue to why living in America was better before than after the “progress” thrust on America? Is it possible that swinging a wrecking ball against “the West,” in pursuit of a world populated with virtual zombies instead of real human beings, was not such a good idea, after all?

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

[1] Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons.

[2] Reinhold Niebuhr, 1892-1971]

[3] Implied in the injunction “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Luke 20:25)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Anthony J. DeBlasi is a veteran and lifelong defender of Western culture.

Graphic credit: Public domain vectors

Two threads of educational reform can be discerned during the past 25 years. Both miss the need for real reform and have contributed thereby to the further dumbing down of our public schools. One involves greater federal involvement and funding through No Child Left Behind legislation followed by Common Core initiatives extending federal involvement even further into the realm of standardized testing. The other thread of reform blames racism as an underlying cause of educational failure, and through busing and various regulatory requirements seeks more racial balance in neighborhoods and in schools.

The increase in federal control of educational policy is unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment relegates control of all powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution to the several states.  Common Core got around this with a deceitful strategy. Common Core says the federal government is not telling the states what to teach, only that the federal government will supply the standardized tests that will give the states greater feedback about whether they are meeting “standards.”  Thus, states would begin teaching to the tests, the tests would be controlling, but the federal government – not requiring curriculum x, y, or z — on a technicality would not be literally “in control” of state education.  

At the same time as anti-constitutional forces in the body politic are attempting to federalize education via control over the mechanisms of standardized testing, another movement is striving to “desegregate” public education, especially in our cities. The civil rights movement fought against de jure segregation in the 1950’s and 1960’s, that is, segregation required by state laws, as being unconstitutional.  The modern progressives are fighting to end de facto segregation, that is, segregation resulting from heavily black neighborhood-based schools which generally are showing poorer scores on standardized exams than schools with majority white or Asian students.

But this thread of educational reform implies that whites are systematically avoiding blacks and Hispanics.  However, some of that “segregation” is the result of self-segregation by the minority communities. I have a black friend whose son told her he wanted to go to a high school with an almost 100% black student population because, “I want to be in high school with my people.”  This is a reflection of the same mentality of black students at some of our elite colleges and universities. There, we find many black college students are self-segregating in dormitories and in graduation ceremonies, so the integration paradigm is being challenged in the black community and is not simply a “lily white” institutionalization.

The assumption that institutional racism is holding back the advancement of all students or even the majority of students in New York City is questionable.  Seth Barron has pointed out that “The student body of New York City is overwhelmingly ‘minority,’ so how meaningful is it really to talk about ‘racially segregated’ schools?” He further noted, “But white kids comprise less than 15 percent of the city’s entire student population….  Absent a massive program of busing, or forced population transfer, there aren’t enough white people to satisfy the progressives.”

Both threads of educational reform are unsound. Neither addresses the issues of curriculum reform and philosophical reform of the educational process.  We must turn away from the Deweyan social justice models begun over 100 years ago to develop a “common faith” (Dewey’s rubric) in democracy, and, in our present context, the values of leftism and “social justice.” 

Social justice is inherently unjust.  It is a communist ideal in sheep’s clothing.  Social justice denies the inherent worth of the individual as the end-all and be-all of a just and free society.  The success of the individual to maximize his or her potential and to enjoy the fruits of a productive life within a context of Judeo-Christian morality should be the goal of public education. But social justice advocates place various “collectives” (sub-group identities) as taking primacy.

Modern classrooms using social justice concepts tend to emphasize cooperative learning rather than individual students trying to memorize and figure out how to do this or that piece of work. Cooperative learning teaches to small groups of students who engage in “discovery” of the truths of the subjects through projects.  If one or two of the students in, say, a group of five do all the work, all the group members will receive an A, not only the one or two that did the work and demonstrated ability. This is the communist ideal reflected in education. Often, projects are dumbed down so that in high schools students are pasting pictures on colored construction paper and calling that a group research project.

Teachers are not teaching a body of knowledge, but are called “facilitators” who are catalysts or assistants as the students try to navigate learning at their own pace and in cooperation with their fellow students. Student dependency on the teacher has become diluted.

Bruce D. Price offers an incredible “Bill of Rights For Students 2020” which will shock the modern progressive sensibility as it so filled with common sense and clarity. These are ten “rights” which apply mainly to the elementary grades, including the ability to read based upon the proven phonics method by the end of grade one, the right to master arithmetic, the right to  literature, and the right to know correct spelling. Mr. Price’s Bill of Rights For Students will be the perfect starting point for real educational reform for all ethnicities and national backgrounds.

At the secondary school levels, study of the body of knowledge of great works in literature, history, biography, and traditional math rather than the new math which give students credit for trying even if they don’t come up with the right answer. Knowledge, analysis, synthesis, concern with definitions of terms, guided research in history, ability to work with charts and graphs, less concern for contemporary relevance and more emphasis on universal principles and ideas should take precedence.

Classroom behavior should be controlled and strict. The high-five mentality between teachers and students should be discouraged and a more formal tone set.  Teachers should not encourage students to call them by their first names. That which might be considered uptight should become normalized.  Commercial and vocational tracks should be re-instituted in our middle schools to meet the needs of students who are not aspiring to higher education but are in need of more practical development consistent with their talents. And, lastly, teacher evaluation should emphasize content competency. Does the teacher truly have mastery of his or her subject, and are they communicating this mastery?  Is their presentation slipshod, superficial, and simplified to a point where only a shadow of the subject is being taught.

Once, when teaching ancient history in a high school, this writer used photos of Roman coins to have students draw conclusions about Roman society from observing the coins.  The principal observing the lesson commented that I had a good sense of humor and had a lot of energy. He said nothing about the value of studying the coins or of the historical analysis that followed.

Education can be saved.  But we need to get off the hobby horse of blaming race relations or disparities in educational priorities among the 50 states as the reason for our failures.

Graphic credit: Pxhere

Two threads of educational reform can be discerned during the past 25 years. Both miss the need for real reform and have contributed thereby to the further dumbing down of our public schools. One involves greater federal involvement and funding through No Child Left Behind legislation followed by Common Core initiatives extending federal involvement even further into the realm of standardized testing. The other thread of reform blames racism as an underlying cause of educational failure, and through busing and various regulatory requirements seeks more racial balance in neighborhoods and in schools.

The increase in federal control of educational policy is unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment relegates control of all powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution to the several states.  Common Core got around this with a deceitful strategy. Common Core says the federal government is not telling the states what to teach, only that the federal government will supply the standardized tests that will give the states greater feedback about whether they are meeting “standards.”  Thus, states would begin teaching to the tests, the tests would be controlling, but the federal government – not requiring curriculum x, y, or z — on a technicality would not be literally “in control” of state education.  

At the same time as anti-constitutional forces in the body politic are attempting to federalize education via control over the mechanisms of standardized testing, another movement is striving to “desegregate” public education, especially in our cities. The civil rights movement fought against de jure segregation in the 1950’s and 1960’s, that is, segregation required by state laws, as being unconstitutional.  The modern progressives are fighting to end de facto segregation, that is, segregation resulting from heavily black neighborhood-based schools which generally are showing poorer scores on standardized exams than schools with majority white or Asian students.

But this thread of educational reform implies that whites are systematically avoiding blacks and Hispanics.  However, some of that “segregation” is the result of self-segregation by the minority communities. I have a black friend whose son told her he wanted to go to a high school with an almost 100% black student population because, “I want to be in high school with my people.”  This is a reflection of the same mentality of black students at some of our elite colleges and universities. There, we find many black college students are self-segregating in dormitories and in graduation ceremonies, so the integration paradigm is being challenged in the black community and is not simply a “lily white” institutionalization.

The assumption that institutional racism is holding back the advancement of all students or even the majority of students in New York City is questionable.  Seth Barron has pointed out that “The student body of New York City is overwhelmingly ‘minority,’ so how meaningful is it really to talk about ‘racially segregated’ schools?” He further noted, “But white kids comprise less than 15 percent of the city’s entire student population….  Absent a massive program of busing, or forced population transfer, there aren’t enough white people to satisfy the progressives.”

Both threads of educational reform are unsound. Neither addresses the issues of curriculum reform and philosophical reform of the educational process.  We must turn away from the Deweyan social justice models begun over 100 years ago to develop a “common faith” (Dewey’s rubric) in democracy, and, in our present context, the values of leftism and “social justice.” 

Social justice is inherently unjust.  It is a communist ideal in sheep’s clothing.  Social justice denies the inherent worth of the individual as the end-all and be-all of a just and free society.  The success of the individual to maximize his or her potential and to enjoy the fruits of a productive life within a context of Judeo-Christian morality should be the goal of public education. But social justice advocates place various “collectives” (sub-group identities) as taking primacy.

Modern classrooms using social justice concepts tend to emphasize cooperative learning rather than individual students trying to memorize and figure out how to do this or that piece of work. Cooperative learning teaches to small groups of students who engage in “discovery” of the truths of the subjects through projects.  If one or two of the students in, say, a group of five do all the work, all the group members will receive an A, not only the one or two that did the work and demonstrated ability. This is the communist ideal reflected in education. Often, projects are dumbed down so that in high schools students are pasting pictures on colored construction paper and calling that a group research project.

Teachers are not teaching a body of knowledge, but are called “facilitators” who are catalysts or assistants as the students try to navigate learning at their own pace and in cooperation with their fellow students. Student dependency on the teacher has become diluted.

Bruce D. Price offers an incredible “Bill of Rights For Students 2020” which will shock the modern progressive sensibility as it so filled with common sense and clarity. These are ten “rights” which apply mainly to the elementary grades, including the ability to read based upon the proven phonics method by the end of grade one, the right to master arithmetic, the right to  literature, and the right to know correct spelling. Mr. Price’s Bill of Rights For Students will be the perfect starting point for real educational reform for all ethnicities and national backgrounds.

At the secondary school levels, study of the body of knowledge of great works in literature, history, biography, and traditional math rather than the new math which give students credit for trying even if they don’t come up with the right answer. Knowledge, analysis, synthesis, concern with definitions of terms, guided research in history, ability to work with charts and graphs, less concern for contemporary relevance and more emphasis on universal principles and ideas should take precedence.

Classroom behavior should be controlled and strict. The high-five mentality between teachers and students should be discouraged and a more formal tone set.  Teachers should not encourage students to call them by their first names. That which might be considered uptight should become normalized.  Commercial and vocational tracks should be re-instituted in our middle schools to meet the needs of students who are not aspiring to higher education but are in need of more practical development consistent with their talents. And, lastly, teacher evaluation should emphasize content competency. Does the teacher truly have mastery of his or her subject, and are they communicating this mastery?  Is their presentation slipshod, superficial, and simplified to a point where only a shadow of the subject is being taught.

Once, when teaching ancient history in a high school, this writer used photos of Roman coins to have students draw conclusions about Roman society from observing the coins.  The principal observing the lesson commented that I had a good sense of humor and had a lot of energy. He said nothing about the value of studying the coins or of the historical analysis that followed.

Education can be saved.  But we need to get off the hobby horse of blaming race relations or disparities in educational priorities among the 50 states as the reason for our failures.

Graphic credit: Pxhere