Of Education, Money, and Political Correctness

Fixing education and student performance takes more than money.  It often requires crossing the minefield of political correctness.

My state, like many others, struggles with a less than stellar public-school system.  Educational problems, from failing students to drop outs to low graduation rates to low basic skills upon graduation are all among the issues that need to be dealt with.  So, our (mostly Democrat) legislators every year throw more and more money at the schools.  Yet, our school performance in nearly all categories is well below neighboring states that spend far less money per student.

After years of the same (more money, no better result) one would think that we might stop throwing our tax-payers' dollars down the drain and try to determine what we might actually do to improve students’ educational performance.  The problem is that would require us looking at issues that political correctness has taught us to ignore.

Without doubt, the performance of individual schools, even within the same district, varies depending on the ethnic and economic identity of its neighborhood.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that those factors must have something to do with performance.  And, any rocket scientist (or common citizen) who wanted to fix the education problem would likely want to consider what is it about these differing neighborhoods that makes the performance of their students so different.

A few things come to mind immediately.  Do the teachers’ abilities or qualification differ between schools depending on the sociological makeup of the school’s neighborhood?  Do certain types or quality of teachers prefer to work in one school or area over another and if so why?  Does this affect the performance outcome of the students?  Or is that performance outcome (as distinguished from the students’ actual ability) preordained by the fact that different cultures as well as different economic strata place different values on education?  Or are there other sociological or environmental factors associated with a particular school’s performance rates?

These are all interrelated questions, but their examination and answers likely require one to tread upon the land mine of political correctness.  Thus, the questions and their answers, along with the ultimate answer to the question of how to improve public school education, go unexamined and unanswered.

We have all heard that education begins at home.  This is true in many ways.  A child’s attitude toward learning begins before the child ever enters school.  The parents’ attitudes toward school’s importance and how one should approach learning will affect the students’ approach to their school experience.  Along with this mental preparation, the simple things like diet and basic living conditions will also affect how a student comes to school and how ready he or she is to learn.  All of this will affect the ultimate performance (as opposed to ability) of the student.  Money thrown at a school will not have any effect on what is going on at home.

If a child comes to school from an environment that puts little importance on education, then no matter how much money is given to the school and its programs, that child is not likely to give much meaning or effort toward getting an education or doing well in school.  Even teaching an ESL student in his or her native tongue is not going to precipitate better performance if performance is not valued by the student and the parents.

Note, this essay is about performance and not ability; it does not in any way intend to suggest that ability or intelligence are dependent on a particular cultural, ethnic, economic, or other identifiable background.  That is, while a student might very well have the ability for star academic performance, the student may not perform at that level due to a value system that does not reward or appreciate such performance.

 At the same time, one must acknowledge that it may not be appropriate to demand that a culture or other group place top priority on education when that group may have chosen to place some other value or activity above education.  Moreover, different groups may have different views of the amount or type of education generally needed and the relative benefits of post-high school academics vs. trade school vs. employment or military service.  Those who ask that we appreciate diversity must be willing to accept that among a wealth of diverse cultures some may choose to rank the importance of public-school education at a different level or with a different goal than we (or the government) might choose for ourselves.

These points are of course approaching someplace that the PC police do not want us to go because to discuss them might mean identifying/singling out certain cultures or sub-cultures that place a lower value on formal education.  While we are readily urged to identify victim groups, political correctness prohibits us from pointing out anything that might be a problem that the group itself could work to fix or that they have chosen not to change.  While we have little problem saying that some Asians or other identifiable groups highly value education and thus perform well, to say that, for example, some Hispanic cultures do not so highly value education is taboo.  And, to say that a child’s relatively poor educational performance might be in part due to the child’s cultural background and values would be considered an attack, probably a racist attack, on whatever identity group or sub group was being referenced. 

It is somewhat less dangerous to discuss economic factors affecting school performance.  In poorer economic areas the schools sometimes use the money gifted to them to take on the role of parent – feeding, reading to children, teaching them appropriate behaviors, caring for them as a babysitter when the parent works.  This, however, does not educate the child, which is the job of the schools that the school money should be funding.

We also demand very little accountability for our money from the administrators or the teachers or even the students.  Teachers are often afraid to discipline students so as to maintain a better and safer learning environment because to do so might be perceived as some sort of racist or other discriminatory act against the student or a group to which the student belongs.   Teachers may also avoid telling their students’ parents that their child is not perfect.  Administrators fail to hold teachers accountable for fear of unions or again for fear of allegations of some sort of discrimination.  And often the school administrative bureaucracy simply expands itself with the new money with little change to what is happening educationally.

If we really want schools to improve, let’s be honest about the students that are enrolled and about the effects that their backgrounds and living environments might have on their performance in school.  Let’s consider whether at least some of the money that we now uselessly send to the schools might be better spent interacting with the community within which the poorly performing school is located. 

We need to admit that there may be cultural and economic issues that money handed to a school will not and cannot fix.  The money might be more useful spent on more detailed information about diverse effects on educational performance, or to help us to understand why a particular group chooses to prioritize differently than we would like, or simply on developing programs that would reach out to various communities to inform them of the value of education to their children in our society.  But, we cannot do this if we cannot even state that culture might have a bearing on educational performance.

We won’t do any of these things, because to do so requires stating things that could be interpreted as less than flattering to one or another group of people and in all likelihood will be viewed by at least some as racist.  Rather than offend anyone’s sensibilities we will just keep throwing money at the problem without doing anything to fix it.  It may make us feel good, make us think we are doing something, but it won’t fix the problem.  

Yet isn’t ignoring these factors, even if for politically correct reasons, more racist than any inquiries or focus on one or another background factor might be?  For it is the children who ultimately suffer; and if we could improve education by focusing on one or another identifiable cultural or group identity trait, wouldn’t that be far less discriminatory than ignoring that factor and in so doing ignoring the potential capabilities of a child from what is now a poor performing group?  In essence, we are denying the children from that group the opportunity to reach their full and true potential, and what could be more racist or discriminatory than that?

If a student is a member of a group that for whatever reason (economics; cultural priorities; etc.) is not as well prepared for or appreciative of learning as other students, then putting money into the school will not fix the problem.  This is not a money to school issue.  It is a cultural, economic, and sociological issue.  That is something that ought to be faced.  To not do so, to not give every student the tools he or she needs to fully live up to his or her learning potential, is far more racist than is ignoring inquiries that might provide insights into how to better allow the student to succeed.  The answers often lie outside the walls of the schoolhouse, its purpose, and what those inside are trained for or capable or charged with doing.  And to simply keep throwing money there when it doesn’t help is an insult and injury to each and every student who attends.

Yes, Maybe They Really are that Dumb!

This morning I was listening to NPR.  They were discussing Democrat voters’ attitudes about whom would be the best presidential candidate for 2020.  NPR reported that the majority of those likely to vote Democrat look to electability – the ability to beat Trump – as the sole or most important factor in the selection of the candidate.  That is far more important than policy.  For many policy is not important at all; rather, it is simply beat Trump, whatever it takes.

What does this say about their understanding of or care about our country?  That they hate Trump enough that they would be willing to destroy this country just to beat him in an election.  Do they not realize that while some policies might be beneficial, other polices (for example socialism) could destroy everything upon which this country was founded? 

Do they care?  Or have they succumbed to the obsessive preoccupation of the Democrat leadership and the main stream media that their single purpose must be to destroy Donald Trump at all costs?

Frighteningly, elections have become simply about the Win, not about selecting the best person for the particular office regardless of the party or other identity group to which they belong.  Has the democratic elective process along with our country been reduced to the level of some sports event or reality show in which it is simply about scoring a check in the Win column and nothing else?  Pick your horse, bet your money, win, and go home. 

Apparently what that winner will do with the win, what that winner will do for the country is not really relevant as long as he or she beats Trump.  That’s it.  The hatred is so great that is all that matters.  Like the cancer that it is, this hatred is eating away at everything else that once did or someday might matter.

And what is the hatred about?  The answer is truly troubling.  For, while we have had disliked presidents before as well as presidents whose policies were rigorously opposed, we have never seen anything even beginning to approach the destructive hatred that is fomented and driven by today’s Democrats. 

And, based on what?  It is hard to find support for their level of hatred, for their claims of racism or mental illness or anti-American, or any of the other appellations that they recklessly attach to his name on a daily basis.  Certainly, some disagree with his policies; some do not like his personality.  But, such disagreement and dislike has never before driven such a jihad against a duly elected president.

What that tells me is that this hatred is both personal and immature.  It is a personal hatred for someone who bested them – in the 2016 election and, as President, in his ability to accomplish an enormous amount of positive things for this country and its people, as well as to have a positive impact in many international venues as well.   

These haters wanted to win, not for the country but for themselves and their own egos.  They did not and the result is vitriolic and personal hatred.  And, the long drawn out tantrum that they have been throwing for the last 2+ years is nothing but the behavior of a toddler who doesn’t get what he wants.  It is ego-centric and is about their own power and its loss, and nothing else.

We already knew all this about the Democrat and anti-Trump leadership.  What is so frightening is that the rank and file Democrat voters have been bamboozled and drawn into this cult of hate to the point that they don’t care who is president as long as it isn’t Trump.  How stupid (or perhaps simply brainwashed) can they be?

No, A Distasteful Personality Is Not an Impeachable Offense!

Christina Cauterucci writes today in Slate a piece entitled “Donald Trump’s Personality Is an Impeachable Offense.”  The honesty of this is not so much in her judgment about the President’s personality as it is in the fact that it reveals the truth about the unremitting attacks on this President.  That truth is that the Democrats and other Washington insiders and politicians do not like the personality of the President and, for them, that justifies any and all attempts to remove him from office, declare his presidency illegitimate, attack his family and friends, attack his supporters, and do any and all other acts that we see daily intended to in some way hurt this President and his presidency.

What Ms. Cauterucci and others do not seem to understand is that the presidency is not a popularity contest. The election is not for a prom queen or king.  It is for someone whom the people see best suited to protect America and carry out the duties of the president.  It is not about someone whom you would want for your pastor or someone you’d like to have a beer with.  It is not about whether someone has a personality that, in your opinion, is or is not distasteful .

The office of president is for one who will “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (presidential oath of office, U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1). The President’s duties include serving as commander in chief of the military, making treaties, appointing ambassadors and judges and other officers of the United States (U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2).  He “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed (U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. 3).  The Constitution says nothing about one’s personality; there is no requirement of likability or lack of distasteful (to some) characteristics.

Yet, the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers live in a world in which presidential personality seems to be the only thing that matters.  Ms. Cauterucci, based on her reading of the Mueller prosecutorial report, judges Trump as socially inept, selfish, manipulative, sometimes cruel, and pathetic.  That is her opinion based on her reading; it appears she has never actually met the President.  I suspect others may have other opinions – perhaps a tough leader, perhaps angry about false accusations, perhaps other views.  (And, one ought to recall the old adage that "If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.")  

But none of that matters because the presidency is not a cult of personality; it is that which the Democrats fail to understand.  For Ms. Cauterucci and others, a personality that they find distasteful is more than enough for impeachment. 

Do they not understand how ridiculous and irrational this is?  Yet, Ms. Cauterucci’s piece, by its very focus, reveals why the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers don’t care about the many positive accomplishments of Trump’s presidency (better economy, lower unemployment, improving trade, improving international strength to name a few).  While these things would seem to be those on which we should be judging a president, not whether we like the personality he uses in getting them done, the Democrats and their supporters (often including the media) have lost all understanding of the office of president.  Their judgments are not just clouded but are completely obscured by their dislike of the President’s personality.  For them, personality alone is everything and the only thing that qualifies or disqualifies someone for office. 

They have not liked Donald Trump’s personality since the beginning – he is a successful business man, not a political insider; he is brash and speaks directly rather than using their refined and often senseless political-speak; he wants action and would rather get things done than have endless meetings and studies; he has a vision of America that resonates with the American people and he is working hard to do what he said he would do if elected; he is accomplishing things that political insiders have only talked about for years, and he tweets and brags about all this.  

All of this seems to have irritated the anti-Trumpers to the point that they are now living in a world far removed from the people of this country, a world where someone with a personality they find distasteful not only should not be president, but must be completely destroyed.  And destruction of our country along with that is something they see as merely some sort of necessary collateral damage.

This irrationality might be humorous if it were not so dangerous.  But this monomaniacal focus on destruction of the President to the exclusion of everything else is eating away at not just the President himself, but at the presidency, the government, and our country. 

If a likable personality is a qualification for a president, then not only would many of our past and some great presidents have been excluded from holding office, it also means that in the future one’s ability to lead or to get anything done, to protect our country from both foreign and domestic threats, the ability to actually carry out the duties of the office, become unimportant and secondary.  Qualification and ability will mean nothing while likability will be the gold standard.  Yet likability does not mean that one can actually do the job.

Likability is subjective.  Of course it plays into one’s opinions about whom they support, but it is not a qualification for office.  And lack of likability is not an impeachable offense. 

It is well past time that the Democrats acknowledge this and return to the real world where they perform their duties to the American people rather than act out their hatred against a personality they do not like.

In a well-written piece in The Hill titled “The Mueller report concludes it was not needed” (LINK ), Kevin Brock writes: “A cabal of politicians and bureaucrats frivolously and cynically manipulated the levers of government to further their own political greed and lust for power by trying to exploit a falsehood. It cost us over $30 million and needlessly pitted Americans against one another.” 

Those of us left in the reality where there are far better things to do with our tax dollars than spend it to gratify an obsession against a disliked personality need to say “Enough!”  And if that call is not heard, then let us say it a different way – at the polls.  For if we do not end this insanity,  it will likely end our country as we know it.

Can We At Least Try to Approach the Mueller Report With Some Common Sense?

Just drop all the political posturing for a moment and use basic common sense:

               Imagine you are hired for a job, a job for which both you and the people who hired you believe  that you are someone who can accomplish great things and turn around what you and those who hired you saw as a movement in a wrong direction.  The day you begin you are told that you are being accused of a terrible crime that will not only affect your reputation but also interfere with your ability to perform your job duties. You know you did not commit this crime, yet you are under daily attack by those who wanted someone else to get your job.  Your friends and family are slandered.  The investigation of you for something you know you are not guilty of heats up more and more every day.  

               Wouldn’t you be both frustrated and angry with this daily barrage of interference with your ability to perform the job you were hired to do?  Wouldn’t you wish and then verbalize your desires that the investigation stop so you could just do your job?  Wouldn’t you even perhaps think about actually stopping it? 

So, in the above scenario, are you nonetheless guilty of obstructing the investigation when, while you wished and verbalized desires to do so, in the end you did not actually obstruct the investigation?  The Democrats think so.  Not because it makes sense, common or otherwise, but because they must condemn the President.  That seems to be the only thing for which they live – not to do their jobs as elected officials, not to work for the good of the country, not to support our system of government, not for any other reason than to destroy Donald Trump and hopes and dreams of all those who believe in him, in our country, and in a strong and proud America.

I have now read the Mueller report, though in reality it will take more than one reading to fully understand all of it.  But here are some comments on the obstruction issues (Volume 2 of the report).

First, one must understand that Mueller is a Prosecutor who was charged with developing a case against Donald Trump.  His job is to look at evidence and develop the strongest case that he can against the subject of his investigation.  So, here is what he does:  He looks at the law and what he must prove to make a case against Trump under that law.   If the law is ambiguous, he develops the best argument he can for an interpretation of the law that is favorable to his position.  That argument/interpretation might or might not prevail in court.   Then he looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to him (and most unfavorable to Trump) and develops the best possible argument against Trump that the evidence can support. Again, that might or might not be an argument that would be successful in court.   He then determines whether this best prosecutorial case is actually strong enough to indict.

So, what we see in Volume 2 are a lawyer’s presentation of the argument that could be made against Trump on 10 specific allegations of obstruction.  This is a one-sided presentation – the strongest view that the prosecution can come up with.  One must remember that there is also a view and arguments that can be made in favor of the other side.  Law is an adversarial profession; lawyers represent one side or the other and make the best argument they can for their client.  Lawyers are not the judge or the jury.

Mueller and his team are good lawyers and they write arguments that sound convincing.  But, remember, there can be even more convincing arguments written for the other side.  And that is likely why Mueller was unwilling to make an up or down call on obstruction.  He did the investigation and left it to his superior to take a more objective look and make the final call.  As was appropriate under the law, his superior, the Attorney General, did so.  (And, as the Attorney General noted, it was for him and not for Congress – we don’t use our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go on investigatory (and sometimes witch) hunts to gather information that Congress can use for political purposes).

Everyone will have their own reaction (largely based on their political leanings) to the evidence set forth in the Mueller report.  The main thing I see in Volume 2 (the obstruction portion of the investigation) is that Donald Trump was very human in his anger and frustration of being wrongfully accused of collusion.  He was angry and frustrated that the political climate allowed the investigation to become so overtly hateful of him, his policies, and his supporters.  He was angry and frustrated that this was all interfering with his ability to focus fully on his job as President of the United States.  And, he was not a political operative and was less savvy in handling this political witch hunt than would be a seasoned politician.

I think it is time for everyone to let this go.  As did the Attorney General, look at the evidence objectively and in context.  Put the evidence into the larger context of the collusion investigation which it is clear that Trump felt, and rightfully so, was a witch hunt.  So, the President did some things, made some statements, that may be interpreted negatively; he was not perfect in the face of the false allegations against him.  But, that does not amount to obstruction.  And, the greatest argument that there was no obstruction is that the investigation went forward to its end, Trump gave unprecedented access to the investigators, and at no time claimed executive privilege.

While I, and most others who care about this country, may think that it is time to let this go, sadly, the Democrats and the Left-biased media do not.  Instead, they double down on their attacks against the President and now, also, the Attorney General, and even Mueller (their yesterday hero when they thought he was the one who would “get Trump”).  Some now see the Mueller report as presenting a plan for their impeachment of the president.  They want to unveil grand jury testimony, something protected by law (protected so that people will not fear testifying in the future).  They are issuing subpoenas against any and all who might give them some scrap that they can chew into some sort of allegation.  Meanwhile, the rest of the country’s business that they should be attending to goes unattended.

Above I explained my overall reaction to the Mueller report.  My overall reaction to the Democrats' responses is that they do not have any understanding whatsoever of the law, of our country and its government, of their role as elected representatives of the people, or of human nature in general.  They would rather continue their campaign of hate and anger against the President who, even despite their daily attacks against him, is accomplishing more for this country than they have been able to do in many years.  Perhaps they might look, instead of at how next to attack the president, at how they can applaud the low unemployment and growing economy, the improved international respect that we see.  Perhaps they could try to support instead of interfering with Trump’s efforts around the world and within America.  Hey, maybe they could even try to solve the immigration crisis instead of denying its existence.  (But, sadly, for many Democrats the only crisis is that Donald Trump and not they are in power; that Donald Trump and not they are getting things done.)

As I watch the Democrats react to the Mueller report my (diminishing) hope is that they might at some point come to their senses.  They are destroying themselves with their overwhelming and irrational hatred.  The danger is that they will take this country with them in their destruction.  I pray that, even if their leaders do not, the rank and file Democrats will come to their senses and demand more than hatred from their party.

Investigating the Investigators

Have you ever seen such monomaniacal focus and hate?

The Democrats have demanded and continue to demand every possible investigation of Donald Trump, regardless of whether there is any credible evidence to support the charge, let alone the investigation.

But, now, upon quite credible evidence, the Attorney General states that “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign and is going to review the role of a key informant.  In addition to assembling a team to investigate the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence campaign against Trump, the AG stated, “More generally, I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all of the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016.”

AG Barr further noted that "spying on a political campaign is a big deal."  He stated that “Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane." 

Yes, Mr. Barr, usually.  But not when they are out to get President Trump.  Then it is all out warfare and anything goes.  The ends justify the means and the end which the Democrats seek is to not only remove the President from office but to completely destroy him.

So, now the Democrats are raging against the Attorney General.  How dare he investigate.  They accuse him of acting in collusion with the President and only on his behalf.  But here is what Barr also stated about his investigation:  "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred; I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.”

And, every American should also be concerned about it.  Even the possibility that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were weaponized for political gain is troubling in the least and indicative of treason at the worst.  We do not want foreign countries interfering in our elections, but neither should we tolerate one political party using its power and governmental agencies to interfere in those same elections for their own power and political gain.

If the Democrats had even one iota of common sense or care about this country and its people left within them, then they would be cheering on this investigation as they did the investigation for Russian collusion, and let the chips fall where they may.  That they are instead attacking the Attorney General for being concerned and doing his due diligence and investigating says all that needs to be said about who the Democrats are and whom they care about (and it is most certainly not the American people!).

What’s Beneath the Hair?

Times change and sometimes things that were once accepted behavior are no longer OK.   As such, I don’t think that someone should be held accountable by today’s standards for something that was considered normal, conventional, or customary at the time it occurred.  However, I do hope that someone who justifies past behavior on the basis that it was OK when done, would also review that behavior, realize that it may not have been appropriate, even if acceptable at the time, understand why, and perhaps feel some remorse for the past behavior.

This is how I am looking at the alleged, videoed, and admitted past acts of Joe Biden that seem to encroach on the personal space of a variety of women. 

First, let me say that in my experience and observation over the past 70 years, smelling someone’s hair has always been something considered a bit creepy, so I’m not sure how that could ever be justified as something that was once accepted.  Personally, my reaction to the photos and videos I have seen is that his touching and encroachment have probably not been acceptable since at least the late 1950s. 

But, assuming that Biden’s behavior was in some way acceptable at the time the actions were taken, his justification video today show that he does not get that there was, or even is, anything wrong with what he did or that the women might have felt uncomfortable.  He justifies it by saying politics is “hands-on” and that it is the way he “comforts” people.  He says he realizes his way is no longer accepted, that personal space rules have changed, so he will try to follow those rules, but will not change his belief in the necessity of politics being “hands-on.” 

There is no recognition, let alone any apology for causing at least some of the women who suffered his “hands-on” style to be uncomfortable or to feel in some way invaded.   He simply says times have changed and he’ll do better now.   That is not an apology.  That shows no understanding of why the behavior was or is offensive.

I don’t think anyone considers Biden’s actions to be overtly sexually motivated.  But what they reveal is that he saw (and still sees) himself to be somehow the One that could comfort and save these women (the traditional “weaker sex”) when they were in a situation that he assumed was difficult or stressful for them.  That is, he saw himself as somehow superior; he saw the women as individuals who could not make it through without him.

That belief, that women needed him to get through a moment that he thought would be too tough for them belies everything he says about his belief in women’s equality.  Has his proclaimed work for women’s causes been because he believes women are his equal, or because he believes they are inferior and therefor need him to survive?  That, I believe, is the more important question that people should be asking when they discuss whether smelling hair and invading personal space should quash his run for president.

That is, it is the underlying reason for his repeated acts that is key here.  Clearly the acts are not OK now.  Maybe the invasion of a woman’s personal space was more acceptable at the time.  But the real question is why was Biden repeatedly doing this – what does it tell us about what he really thinks of women?  And, does his response telling us he’ll try to be a better boy now indicate that he in any way understands why the actions might be offensive, both on the surface and for what they say about his real belief in women’s equality?  For me, I am not seeing Joe Biden as someone who views women as his equal.