The Democratic Party and the liberal left’s obsession with disparate impact race politics crept into K-12 public education. Their latest social engineering experimentation uses black and Hispanic kids in poor urban classrooms as pawns for political power. Education is secondary.
Liberals believe they can artificially wipe away serious behavior problems that are cultural in nature. They do this by labeling reasonable standards of classroom discipline as racist or discriminatory. When urban schools with predominantly black and Hispanic students enacted protocols that create an environment where learning can take place, more suspensions and expulsions resulted, accompanied by a widening of the achievement gap between black students and their white counterparts.
The knee-jerk reaction from liberals was to claim that school disciplinary policies that disproportionally affected black and Hispanic kids were culturally insensitive, discriminatory and evidence of racism. The liberals were confusing correlation and causation. School officials were even discouraged from calling police even in cases of violent assaults – that could also be considered racist.
Social engineers in colleges and universities began drawing up untested experiments using black and Hispanic kids as laboratory rats. They wanted to show that leaving disruptive kids in the classroom, instead of removing them for serious behavior violations including assaults on teachers, would improve scholastic performance.
Instead, disruptions and scholastic performance both got worse. Leaving disruptive kids in a classroom is a danger not only to the teacher but to other students as well. The university professors are nowhere near the classrooms to see the disaster they created with their inane idea, nor are they held accountable.
Not surprisingly, no amount of cultural sensitivity training of school officials will negate the culturally dysfunctional baggage brought to school every day by students.
Too many black kids today do not come to school in a state of readiness to learn. They have not been read to by parents. They are not socially adjusted for a group environment like a classroom, nor have they been reasonably disciplined for unwanted behavior. This emotional baggage is then thrown into the lap of a teacher who does not have the education or skills for handling these serious emotional and behavioral problems.
Kids have an excuse because of their age, immaturity and bad parenting. The parents of those disruptive kids have no excuse. Long ago, parents were absolved of their responsibility to raise their kids effectively. Liberal social dogma told them racism was at the root of their inability to raise kids who were ready for the demands of a school classroom.
Poverty was to blame too. Now liberals had a reason for not just government but economic intervention as well. This gave the left a two-for-one moment to enact expensive government-run tax-supported programs. They could spend more money not just on unproven education experiments but also on new anti-poverty programs.
K-4 programs have become K-3 programs. This further absolves mainly black and Hispanic parents from their rightful responsibility of raising their kids.
We are on our way to kids being taken immediately from the maternity ward to a government school. They are already being fed three meals a day and provided for by taxpayer-funded after-school programs. Why not just start them on the road to government dependency, not to mention indoctrination and exposure to leftist dogma, as early in life as possible?
GOP politicians in Congress have been reluctant to challenge the efficacy of these expensive programs lest they are accused of not caring about black and Hispanic children, or being outright racist. Nothing makes a white Republican politician run like their hair is on fire faster than being accused of not caring about black kids.
Education has always been the traditional vehicle for upward mobility in America. It is even more important in today’s knowledge-based economy.
Blacks who have embraced education are less likely to have kids who drop out of school, commit crimes, join gangs or make other flawed lifestyle choices like drug and alcohol abuse and having children they are ill-equipped to raise.
One of the hallmarks of slavery was criminalizing the education of black children thus keeping them ignorant. I would argue that many of today’s public school policies achieve the same results – they keep kids ignorant.
The goal of social activists is not to fix education problems but to fix the statistics. They are focusing on the wrong thing. Statistics can be exploited not only to make school problems (seem to) disappear, but also to demonstrate the need for the continuation of government programs. The kids who fail in school today are the population that tomorrow will fill jails and prisons and be in need of government assistance.
Former President George W. Bush called these low expectations “soft bigotry.” He was right. Now the left wants to back up the soft bigotry with faulty statistics.
ABC News announced Saturday that Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay over a botched “exclusive” about former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
During a live “special report” Friday morning, Ross reported that Flynn would testify that Donald Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while he was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump’s impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.
Later in the day, ABC issued a “clarification” to Ross’s report, saying that Trump’s alleged directive came after he’d been elected president. Ross himself appeared on “World News Tonight,” several hours after the initial report, to clarify his error.
In a statement, ABC News said Ross’ report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”
“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience,” ABC’s statement added. “These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”
A Philadelphia lawmaker wants to ban bulletproof glass at convenience stores in the city.
Philadelphia, PA – Philadelphia councilwoman Cindy Bass has introduced a controversial bill that would require business owners to take down any bulletproof glass they have in their businesses, and not allow future installation.
Let Ray-Ray and Pookie Rob You Fool: Can You Say Thug-Life?
The bill, known as the Stop and Go bill, is moving through city hall, and reads “No establishment shall erect or maintain a physical barrier.”
Broad Deli is a local business on the corner of the 2200 block of North Broad. It has a wall of bulletproof glass separating its employees from customers.
“The most important thing is safety and the public’s safety,” Rich Kim, the owner of Broad Deli, told WTXF. His family has run the deli, which sells soda, snacks, meals, and beer by the can, for 20 years.
Kim said that he had the bulletproof glass installed after a shooting, and that it saved his mother-in-law from a knife attack.
“If the glass comes down, the crime rate will rise and there will be lots of dead bodies,” he said.
Bass was more concerned about customer’s feelings, and said her constituents shouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of shopping through bulletproof glass.
She said that she is trying to put some type of control on these small stores, which she claimed sell booze, very little food, and caused a lot of trouble in her district.
“Right now, the Plexiglas has to come down,” she said.
Kim disagreed with Bass’s characterization of businesses like the one he owns, and said when he called police about people loitering, the response time was usually slow.
He said he believed that he was being targeted as a Korean-American. Business owner Mike Choe agreed with him.
Choe, who runs a non-profit that supports Korean-owned businesses, said that he planned to raise $100,000 to fight the bill.
“I do think it’s a bad bill that will endanger Korean Americans,” he said.
Bass said that she is fighting for her constituents.
Choe responded to Bass, and said the “bill targets Korean Americans.”
Bass denied Choe’s allegation.
“Absolutely not. I find that offensive,” Bass said.
Do you think business owners should have the right to choose whether they want to install bulletproof glass in their businesses to protect employees? Tell us what you think in the comments below!
Critics of a jury’s verdict Thursday in the trial of Kate Steinle’s killer have taken to Twitter to #BoycottSanFrancisco.
The hashtag was trending in the wake of a controversial trial in which defendant Jose Inez Garcia Zarate was found not guilty of murdering Kate Steinle on a pier in San Francisco in July 2015.
Steinle was walking with her father and a family friend when she was fatally shot, collapsing into her father’s arms.
Zarate, an undocumented immigrant, claimed the shooting was an accident. The bullet, fired from a stolen gun Zarate found, ricocheted off the pier’s concrete surface before hitting Steinle.
However, prosecutors argued Zarate intentionally shot the gun toward Steinle.
Zarate was acquitted of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of assault with a semi-automatic weapon. He was found guilty of possessing a firearm by a felon.
In a Twitter rant early Friday, President Donald Trump called the decision “a complete travesty of justice” and seized upon the ruling as another reason to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
“The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court,” Trump tweeted. “His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”
Be careful what you let your children watch. Everything is now being used by the left to corrupt young minds
Disney Debuts ‘First Boy Princess’ in ‘Star vs. the Forces of Evil’
I’m sorry, but what the heck has happened to cartoons? Not only are they hideously ugly to look at and filled with vulgar humor, but they all seem to be spewing some sort of leftist ideology. I mean, seriously, what’s wrong with slipping on banana peels and having anvils fall on your head? Is that not funny anymore? Why does everything have to have a sanctimonious message?
Take Star vs. The Forces of Evil, which airs on Disney XD, for example. The latest episode of this show is being lauded all over the internet for depicting Disney’s “first boy princess.”
HuffPost says it’s “a beautiful moment” that “could be incredibly influential for kids who are soaking up social cues about what it means to be a boy or a girl.” But really, as with so many of these misguided, preachy “feminist” statements, the whole thing doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. It’s just a mash-up of generic “feminist” phrases and ideas that make no internal sense whatsoever.
Now, I have no idea what this show is actually about. I found it hard to even watch the clip in order to write this article. There’s a chainsaw-wielding torso with one severed arm and no legs, a disembodied unicorn head, and a variety of animal-headed, gruff-voiced “princesses.” It’s truly disturbing. But, according to IMDb, the show is about “intergalactic warrior” Star Butterfly who battles villains throughout the universe. Whatever. Who cares?
In the episode, Marco Diaz (Star’s friend) dresses up as a princess in order to save a bunch of (really weird) princesses from an evil headmistress named Ms. Heinous. But, when he’s outed as a boy, the other princesses love him so much that they suddenly decide that boys can be princesses too.
The logic of the episode seems to be that “princess” is a set of attributes rather than an entity which is specifically feminine. As such, a boy could be a princess just as much as a girl could. But, as far as I can tell, the episode doesn’t actually express what those attributes are. It certainly doesn’t outline any “traditionally female” behaviors or inclinations that Marco still possesses even though it turns out he’s actually a boy. In fact, it’s his male clothing and even the crude revelation that he has chest hair, that reveal him as a boy.
Is Marco a princess because he has a secret desire to play with girl toys, or wear dresses, or express his emotions, or be taken care of by someone stronger than himself? Nothing in the episode suggests this. So, he’s not a feminine male who needs to be accepted for who he is. Are the other princesses more “traditionally male” and therefore we should rethink the girly-ness of princesses? Nothing in the episode suggests this either. He’s just a boy who dressed up as a girl to in order to forward the plot.
The thing is, male cartoon characters dress up as girls all the time. Bugs Bunny constantly dressed in drag — usually to outsmart whoever was trying to kill him. It was a gag that worked on a bunch of levels. It was funny to see Bugs dressed in women’s clothing (a boy dressed up as a girl makes us laugh because it’s absurd), it was funny to watch the bad guy falling all over himself because Bugs was so pretty, and it was funny to see Bugs hit the bad guy over the head when he leaned in for a kiss.
