Monday, April 9, 2018

What happens when political correctness trumps criminal reality


Here's a short, but very interesting interview concerning racial classification issues in schools.  I can attest from personal exposure to schools in such environments that the problem is all too real.





One hopes the present Administration will do something to sort out this mess . . . but what?  Its hands are too often tied by state and local officials who won't budge from their politically correct positions.

All I can say is, if your child is trapped in a school like that, get him or her out as soon as possible!  If there are no better alternatives, think about home-schooling.  It may be the only way to save them.

Peter

12 comments:

skybill said...

Hi Pete,
The dog pulls the curtain back to expose "O,,,,bama!!" Meanwhile, back at the ranch... so he's out of office... the "affect,effect" of his actions will be difficult to "Undo!!!"
skybill

Anonymous said...

"trapped in a school..."

No one is trapped; parents place them their for the convenience of the parents. The most vocal defenders of government schools are conservatives: "Oh no, OUR schools are not like that".

"If there are no better alternatives, think about home-schooling."

Do you know who dissonant it sounds to place home-schooling as a type of last place alternative, instead of a first choice?
What are you thinking? It is the practice of sending children to the government to have them "schooled" that has led to the debacle that is our current culture.

Government schools: "There is no God except the state, good and evil are social constructs, gender is a choice, only the state and criminals possess firearms, etc"

And yet, every day, millions of "conservatives" dutifully send their children off to these brain factories, because "our schools are not like that".

Peter said...

@Anonymous at 1:36 PM: Passionately held sentiments, but how do they square with reality? What of the millions of households with two working parents, or single-parent families? They can't afford to homeschool their children. They can't afford the loss of income, or the time taken out of one parent's day to do that.

It's great to be passionate, but that's got to be tempered with reality.

BFR said...

Here, let me fix it for you:

"What of the millions of households with two working parents"

Learn to live on less since the children are more important than any luxuries. Go to a one car, smaller house/rental, single income family whereby the man works and the mother teaches and nurtures the children. You know, just as was normative not so many decades ago. Just as millions are currently doing in the U.S. Yes, you will live on less and do without. So what. Even the poor in the U.S have better luxuries than Solomon did.

"or single-parent families?"

Love is not romance nor any other sentiment, and never has been. Love is doing what is best for the other person, and in this case that is the children. Do what is best for them, stop playing at life and find a husband or wife. Romance based marriage is a relatively new and false concept based upon the Rousseauean "enlightenment" that was actually an en-darkening. Men and women have entered into utilitarian marriages for the greatest percentage of human history.

"They can't afford to homeschool their children. They can't afford the loss of income, or the time taken out of one parent's day to do that."

Cannot is different that will not. They do not want to afford it. They do not want to make the sacrifices needed to accomplish the objective. That is not can't, that is won't.

Like I said, it is conservatives and similar apologists who come up with all of the specious excuses for the reality that they simply do not want to do what it takes. It is more palatable to them to sacrifice their children (and therefore the future of the culture) than it is to live on less.

It is the subsidy that "conservatives" provide (by participation) to the government school system that enables it. As long as anyone is a willing participant of the atrocities that are being committed against children in the name of "education", they have relinquished any legitimate right to find fault with it.

Peter said...

@BFR: Again, your position ignores the reality that many two-job, two-income families aren't that way to earn excess cash, but enough cash. Wage and salary levels haven't moved much except downward for many people, and inflation (which we've discussed in these pages many times) is several times higher than the "official" figure. In addition, many high-wage-earners lost their well-paid jobs during and after the 2007/08 recession. They may have found other jobs, but those are seldom as well-paid as those they lost. That means two incomes are often enough to support a family at a moderately comfortable level, but not excessively so. Sure, there are those who are richer; but there aren't that many of them compared to the poorer majority.

It's easy to criticize the education system. It's easy to criticize those who don't homeschool their kids. It's not so easy to actually find practical ways to accomplish education in a more effective, more efficient way. Reality bites.

NITZAKHON said...

My kids go to private school, and it takes 1/3 of my take-home pay. Mom is a stay-at-home mom (who goes to school on the side).

It's worth it.

BFR said...

Again, you keep making subjective statements regarding a "comfortable level".

My argument is that comfort is not a priority, and that "conservatives" have artificially made it one. They choose comfort over the the education and nurture of their children. It is their choice to make, but stop avoiding the fact that it is the choice that they are making. It is only different in degree from the sacrifice that was made to Molech; burn your children this year for good crops next year. Remember, it is vitally important to have "a moderately comfortable level".

Also, saying that it cannot be done flies in the face that I have personally witnessed a number of families living modest lives, sacrificing, for the love of their children. That many do not choose to do so does not make it something that cannot be done.

Robert Blair said...

The main point is missing - the taxpayers (you) are paying for those government schools.

Why should you pay twice for your child's education?

FALPhil said...

Peter, I think it is you that is not being realistic. If you love your children and want them to have a good education, you make the appropriate sacrifices. We moved to a low cost area and gave up the second income. We ate a lot of beans, didn't go on vacations, drove a single car till the wheels fell off, and worked two jobs. It was hard work, but I am here to tell you it can be done, you just have to sacrifice.

And, to answer your silly question, Robert Blair, because I don't have the option of not paying my taxes, and I truly love my children.

Charles Gallo said...

Single parent families often aren't a choice
A good friend of mine never met his father. You see, when his Mom was pregnant, his father was coming back from a fighter mission (USAF German) and while steering the plane away from a school didn't get out in time

Kinda makes it hard to be there for the kids

That said, both my kids go/went to a highly selective admission PUBLIC High School. If I brought up the name, and you look at the US News rankings, you'll find it on the "we don't count these schools, because they are too selective" list

McChuck said...

End desegregation now. It's for the children.
Repeal the civil rights acts now. They're blatantly unconstitutional and have done more harm to America than any other law except the 1965 immigration act.

TheOtherSean said...

Most parts of the civil rights acts easily pass constitutional muster, having been passed pursuant to authority granted Congress by the 14th and 15th amendments.