The State of the Union speech, as a practice, lost me long ago, during the presidency of Bill Clinton. His practice was a seemingly endless list of special-interest handouts that couldn’t possibly be funded. No new information emerged, and America wasn’t even receiving a useful indication of the administration’s intended direction. The event was performative and, as entertainment, boring when it wasn’t aggravating.
Because the SOTU is performative one can see the deep bias of the American news media in the fact that Joe Biden’s obvious mental deterioration was on full display. Whether one is following conservative commentators or mainstream news sources, scarcely a clip posted from the speech is free of language errors or marble-mouthed enunciation, as if Biden is incapable of drawing words in his head and then forming them in his mouth. One might forgive this in a White House occupant if somehow some ordinary person rode into office on a populist wave, but this guy has been doing this sort of work for a half century. He was never particularly bright or articulate, but what we’re seeing is a reduction of his limited capacity.
And nobody’s talking about it. Deliberately or not, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did her best to draw attention to herself through downright bizarre behavior and imbalance, but that isn’t the preferred distraction. Rather, the preferred distraction is the moment two conservative Republican Congresswomen shouted out about the 13 servicemembers who died in Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan retreat, and whom he did not mention.
I’m sympathetic to the value of decorum, although I’d insist that it cannot be one way, which it has long been. The most obvious example is Pelosi ripping up President Donald Trump’s speech for the cameras during one of his SOTUs.
I’ve made that point too mildly, however. The reason Representatives Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene are in office — and the reason Donald Trump was — is that large numbers of Americans are simply fed up with politicians’ nicely stabbing them in the backs and undermining their country. In essence, this new group of representatives were sent there to shout out during the SOTU and thereby actually to be representative.
We shouldn’t have such behavior during official speeches, but the solution is not to take the opportunity to solidify everybody in their prior stances — to affirm some in their feelings of superiority and others in their understanding that they have to become more brash in order to be heard. Instead, we should look at the reason our country is where it is and address those causes.
For that project, no better avatar can be found for the problem than the mumbling, dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt husk of a man at the podium.
Featured image from the moment Joe Biden called Ukrainians “Uranians” and Kamala Harris mouthed the correction.
[Open full post]
For a recent episode of his New Discourses podcast, James Lindsay traces “culturally relevant pedagogy” back to a foundational document from the mid-1990s. Lindsay is not known for his understated presentation, but at least as I pause midway through the recording, I’m not sure he goes quite far enough conveying how advanced the infection is or how insidiously it inverts the purpose of education.
The fundamental complaint of the advocates — which may, as Lindsay concedes, have a reasonable point in specific and small-scale contexts — is that our education system has long been structured to appeal to and support a narrow cultural group. So, if I may reframe the process as a series of steps, step 1 of cultural relevance is meeting kids where they are. We want students to learn math, for example, so it behooves us to get any cultural stumbling blocks out of the way. Teachers may find something in an indigenous culture, for example, that can facilitate learning with a tweak to the teacher’s approach. The cultural subtext of traditional lessons may have acculturational value, but that secondary goal should be complementary, not overriding for many academic subjects.
This reasonable consideration quickly becomes overwhelmed. We might say that step 1.5 is the decision to erase all cultural content, starting with things that may not be necessary in, say, a math class, but bleeding out into other parts of the curriculum.
At step 2, activists start to ask whether even the core subjects (even the technical, objective ones, like math) represent, of themselves, indoctrination into an oppressive system. Now, we need to redefine math itself for every group, so each has its own version of math. Furthermore, the principle emerges that it’s wrong to privilege traditionally white math over black or aboriginal maths (whatever those might be).
But, wait a second. At step 2.5, somebody wonders: What if those still being taught white math do better (for reasons of systemic racism, of course)? We can’t have that, which means we must stop teaching white math even to white kids for whom it remains better suited than the alternatives (whatever they might be).
Once step 3 begins to settle into the now-disoriented psyche of the community, another question sneaks in: Why are we teaching anything at all? What’s the point of education if it’s racist to teach minority children how to live in a racist society and it’s immoral to empower white kids to continue to thrive in that same racist society? Well, obviously, the purpose of education must be (in an inversion of the original complaint) to indoctrinate children into the critical-theory ideology of wokism.
So, while we began with the concern that the predominant culture might insinuate itself unnecessarily into everything that schools attempt to do, we end with the overt and aggressive practice of using schools to deconstruct and destroy the predominant culture. Traditional beliefs and approaches become the only perspective it is forbidden to affirm.
As it happens, I came across a clear example as I searched for the “land acknowledgment” that government bodies in South Kingstown and elsewhere are beginning to recite at the beginning of meetings. Consider this line from the school committee’s “student equity policy“:
Incorporate the voice, culture, and perspectives of students, staff, families, and communities that reflect student demographics to support and enhance student success
One needn’t look far to discover that this is a lie, or at least that it only applies to cultures and perspectives the woke administration endorses. In contrast, a nearby “Non-discrimination Transgender and Gender Expansive Policy” gives details on how teachers and administrators must lie to students’ parents about their children’s identity confusion (emphasis added):
District staff may not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation to others, including, but not limited to, parents, students, volunteers, or other district staff, unless legally required to do so, or unless the student has explicitly authorized such disclosure. When contacting the parent or guardian of a student who is transgender or gender non-conforming, District staff should use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s gender assigned at birth, unless the student, parent, or guardian has specified otherwise. …
In some cases, notifying parents/guardians carries risks for the student, such as family rejection or physical abuse. Prior to notification of any parent/guardian regarding the transition process, school staff should work closely with the student to assess the degree to which, if any, the parent/guardian will be involved in the process and must consider the health, well-being, and safety of the transitioning student. Upon notification by a student, parent/guardian, or representative that a student is undertaking, planning to undergo, or has completed a gender transition, the school will promptly inform the notifying individual and the student of the right to request a support team, consisting of appropriate school staff such as the school principal or designee, counselor, social worker and teacher(s), and members of the school point team. When a student transitions during the school year, the school team shall hold a meeting with the student and parents/guardians, if they are involved in the process, to ascertain their desires and concerns.
If you’re wondering what “the transition process” might entail, the policy notes that it might involve “social, legal, or physical” changes. Meanwhile, “well-being” is infamously vague when it comes to government cultural policies and can easily be interpreted to mean avoiding any uncomfortable clash with the family’s traditional culture.
So, if the “voice, culture, and perspective” of the student’s family might not be entirely affirming of a child’s decision to take steps to permanently change his or her body, the school will not “incorporate” that view, but will actively deceive the parents to further their radical experiment on the child.
North Americans of European ancestry rightly lament the more-extreme steps our ancestors took to make indigenous populations like us, yet too many are now standing by as progressives use taxpayer-funded schools to facilitate biological changes to minors behind the backs of their moral and legal guardians.
Featured image by Arisa Chattasa on Unsplash.
[Open full post]
Democrat Governor Dan McKee’s letter to Joe Biden expressing our state’s willingness to house refugees from war in Ukraine raises many questions. For instance, why is this particular offering worthy of a prominent, grandiloquent pronouncement while accepting midnight flights of illegal immigrants (mostly young men) is not?
Separately, one wonders what it means to welcome Ukrainian refugees “with open arms.” How soon after they arrive will we begin educating them about their white privilege?
[Open full post]
Much has been debated about the effectiveness of the recently-defused Canadian Truckers Convoy. One thing is for certain, the collective efforts and voice of Canada’s trucking industry, galvanized by frustration over far more than vax mandates, essentially exposed the agenda of and brought to his knees the once powerful Justin Trudeau. Trudeau’s actions in refusing to even speak to the aggrieved truckers exposed his elitist traits and disdain of the working class. His emergency declaration, actions to arrest peaceful protestors and willingness to crush business owners by freezing and paralyzing the finances and operating authority of those entities, proved direct evidence that his thirst for power and control had no room for commoners who “detracted” from his ambition. He will forever be remembered in the history books for these actions.
And in the end, it was the truckers who stood firm and delivered an everlasting and epic blow that exposed one of the world’s most recognized leaders as nothing more than a “distant, political cousin” to brutal autocrat Vladimir Putin.
Chris Maxwell is President of the Rhode Island Trucking Association
[Photo courtesy The Canadian Press via AP.]
[Open full post]
On WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM, John DePetro and Justin Katz discuss:
- Socialists vs. national socialists in Providence
- Progressive fearmongering on trans issues
- Magaziner the Tourist losing lock on CD 2
- The governor brings out his neglected dogs and ponies.
Featured image by Jose Clemente Orozco on WikiArt.
[Open full post]
As an emboldened Vladimir Putin causes mayhem on the global stage, it’s important to remember how much our own government is harming the prospects of the United States, as if deliberately humbling our country to bring us down:
Upcoming federal oil and gas lease sales will be delayed as the Interior Department figures out how to weigh the climate impact of those sales without using a key tool for measuring those risks, according to a court filing issued on Saturday evening.
The length of the delay was not specified, but it stems from a Feb. 11 decision by a Louisiana federal district court judge that blocked the Biden administration from using the “social cost of carbon” – an interim estimate of $50 per ton of greenhouse gases emitted – to factor the risks of climate change into federal decision-making for permitting, investment and regulatory issues.
This whole thing feels like a deliberate performance between an administration that doesn’t want to allow Americans to be energy independent and judges who are happy to abet the subversion of the laws that permit our freedom.
[Open full post]
For the cost of taxes and the cost of living around here, why do Rhode Islanders tolerate this sort of thing?
For the third time in the last four years on national television, the Dunkin’ Donuts Center has served as a national embarrassment, as games have had to be canceled or delayed because the management of the facility can’t maintain the building properly.
Twice before, concerns about players’ safety forced games to be stopped, and in one case, a game had to be shifted to Providence College’s Alumni Hall. The Friars lost that game.
It’s a great analogy. A private organization (with a Catholic foundation) has some amazing success, and our government insider system does nothing but leach and tarnish. Lest you forget, The Dunkin’ Donuts Center is managed by the Convention Center Authority, which is very much part of RI’s insider system.
[Open full post]
South Kingstown parent advocate Nicole Solas has been, let’s say, having words with Met School special education teacher Emily Bowden. The back-and-forth is mainly social media snark shooting, so we shouldn’t assume that Bowden’s bombast is evidence of the school’s operation, but she does facilitate an important point that isn’t often made in these arguments.
As far as I can tell, the whole thing started when Bowden chimed in on a Twitter reply thread to a tweet in which Solas calls out a teacher at Blackstone Valley Prep calling parent advocates “mediocre white people.” In the heat of antagonizing people for whom she obvious has no basic respect or sympathy, Bowden posted an image suggesting that nothing individual white people can do will change their white privilege, and she made the following reference to activities in her own school:
Btw, here’s a link to our website. You can find out surveyworks data there- it’s pretty impressive! We are also SUPER proud of the anti-racism work that our entire staff has been engaged in over the past years. I encourage everyone to check us out.
One massive problem with this whole cultural argument is that nobody defines their terms, so it’s important to remember that Bowden does not specify what that “anti-racism work” has entailed or whether it’s been limited to teachers or has roped in the students. Still, her provocation raises a point that’s easy to forget.
Thus far, much of the talk of “equity audits” has been in districts that are majority white (e.g., Portsmouth), where at least advocates can claim they don’t want a minority students to be poorly served by their schools. But as the People’s Data Armory shows, Met School students are 80% non-white:
So, to the extent that the school is making concepts like “anti-racism” and “white privilege” part of its curriculum or the way it interacts with students, it’s targeting a minority of its students, who may already feel as if they don’t belong. Without investigating, this is speculation, but it’s conceivable that a hostile environment created by “anti-racism” helps explain the fact that the number of white students in the school just about halved in less than a decade.
Whatever the specifics at the Met School, these concepts are poison, and when they target children who are a minority in their communities, they are pure abuse.
Featured image from the Rhode Island Department of Education.
[Open full post]
Election Year 2022 (2/14/22) from John Carlevale on Vimeo.
Rhode Island GOP Chairperson Sue Cienki discusses a variety of issues and concerns from her political party’s perspective. She also addresses that which should be of concern of all Rhode Islanders regardless of political affiliation. The discussion includes redrawing of voting district boundaries, prison inmate voting, state of emergency powers of governor, unilateral change of mail ballot requirements by Secretary Gorbea and the consequence of “ballot harvesting,” the citizenship requirement for voting, the size of state budget, management of the Joint Commission on Legislative Services (JCLS), and much more.
[Open full post]
A very interesting article from Tamara Sacharczyk, of WJAR, puts a spotlight on an aspect of the people’s interaction with government that doesn’t get enough attention: lawsuits:
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent defending state agencies in Rhode Island in recent years, and the NBC 10 I-Team uncovered taxpayers are oftentimes picking up the legal fees.
When a state agency is sued, you’d probably assume the attorney general is defending them for free, but we went through dozens of legal cases, non-tort suits, and appeals from 2016 to fall 2021 and learned that’s not always the case.
In fact, the NBC 10 I-Team found $11 million in tax money has been spent on state legal fees in that time frame.
Government officials don’t really face much downside from spending money on lawyers (and stand to reap a cut back around as political donations). The money doesn’t come out of their pockets, and it’s easy to sell as necessary — even to turn into a weapon with which to hit the people who are bringing the complaints.
It’s win-win. The government steps all over people’s rights. Those people go to court to defend their rights. The government agents spend the people’s money on lawyers and then blame those whose rights it violated in the first place.
Under the worst town solicitor Tiverton has ever had, Michael Marcello, this has become a central operating principle of municipal government. Because he treats them like corporate clients, meaning his job is not to interpret the law accurately so they might better represent the public’s interests, but to help the individuals who hired him do whatever they want, municipal officials turn to him for thin legal cover to completely ignoring what everybody knows to be the local law under our town charter. This leaves residents with no option but to go to court, for which he charges copious amounts of money, thus setting up those officials to malign their political opposition for costing taxpayers so much money.
Meanwhile, it isn’t free for those residents to bring the suits.
In the case of Sacharczyk’s article, I think we’re more likely to see government officials malign, for example, the truckers suing over Raimondo’s tolls than anybody in government face consequences for racking up the invoices with legally questionable policies. To some of us, it seems obvious that, if government officials need intricate legal arguments to determine whether they have the power to do something, they probably shouldn’t do it.
Unfortunately, the political philosophy that has infected our state and local governments is that government should be activist and always pushing its actions farther.
[Open full post]