NO EXCUSE LEFT BEHIND: "A lot of people are focused on bettering, so to speak, all the schools!"

FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 2019

Most clueless remark of them all:
In fairness to Slate's Mary Harris and the New York Times' Mara Gay, neither one is an education specialist.

This may explain the 19-minute conversation they recorded for Slate last week.

The conversation concerned the operation of the New York City Public Schools. At no point did either participant offer even the slightest sign of knowing what she was talking about.

Understanding the way the lizards will howl, we'll even suggest that this apparent ignorance might help explain this feel-good comment by Gay:
GAY (3/26/19): At the end of the day, what do we want our specialized high schools, or any of our high schools, to do?

Do we want them to find the kids who are best at taking this exam? Or do we want them to find the most enthusiastic, accomplished, passionate learners around the city?

I guess I'm somebody who believe that there are kids in every single classroom in this city who have high potential.

You know, these schools, like Stuyvesant—they should reflect the city at large.
After launching her latest suggestion that those high-performing Asian-American kids are just a bunch of programmed droogs, Gay sang a song of her own moral greatness with the highlighted, feel-good remark.

As someone who spent a dozen years teaching in Baltimore's public schools, we'll suggest her remark is right and wrong. Let us explain what we mean:

For starters, of course! Of course Gotham's many classrooms all contain good, decent kids "who have high potential." In that blatantly obvious sense, Gay's vacuous comment is true.

That doesn't mean that every eighth-grade classroom in Gotham contains kids who qualify, by any rational assessment, for the high-powered curriculum which is presumably being taught at Stuyvesant High.

We'll guess there are many eighth-grade classrooms in Gotham which contain no such kids. We'd base that guess on these Naep data:
Average scores, Grade 8 math
New York City Public Schools, 2017 Naep

White students: 290.71
Black students: 255.63
Hispanic students: 263.56
Asian-American students: 306.03
We've shown you those data many times. We'll guess that, as of March 26, Gay and Harris has never set their eyes on any such data. Nor would they have any idea how to assess the size of the "achievement gaps" those data record.

In fairness, you can't blame Harris and Gay for not knowing their ascots from their elbow patches when it comes to matters like these. Matters like these are never reported or discussed in the New York Times, an upper-class newspaper which has no education specialist on its editorial board—a newspaper which has produced comically awful public school reporting down through the many long years.

Simply put, the New York Times shows no sign of caring about the good, decent kids who produced that dauntingly low average score for Gotham's black kids on the Grade 8 Naep math test.

To appearances, the Times cares about the relative handful of black kids in Gotham who, based upon rational assessments, could handle the curriculum st Stuyvesant High and might therefore end up at Yale, the only place that counts.

To the kinds of people who peddle the porridge served at the hapless New York Times, these seem to be the only black kids in Gotham who actually matter. This helps explain one of Gay's most clueless remarks during her chat with Harris.

The remark comes late in the groaning discussion—a discussion which focused on the interests of black kids-at-the-top-of-the-heap throughout.

In a typical comment, Harris despairingly said that Eric Adams, Brooklyn's (black) borough president, has rejected Mayor de Blasio's plan for the city's "specialized high schools" because of financial contributions from the Asian-American community.

Once again, listeners were told about the devious conduct of Those People, the Asians, who are using money and test prep to steal seats at Stuyvesant away from more deserving black kids. In a remarkably clueless moment, Gay offered this reply:
GAY (3/26/19): I think that it's a combination of not wanting to anger Asian communities, who have been quite united on this issue. But there's also the issue that, within the black community specifically, there's not a single line of thinking about integration. And a lot of people are focused on bettering, so to speak, all the schools, or maybe integration isn't a priority for them. I feel very strongly about integration, but not everyone does.
Next to "clueless" in the dictionary, that clueless remark should appear. Consider the unintentional comedy lodged in that remark:

As usual, Gay praises her own moral greatness by framing this discussion as a matter of "integration." Along the way, she says that "a lot of people within the black community" don't care about integration all that much.

Instead, those people care about this—and yes, she actually said it:
"A lot of people are focused on bettering, so to speak, all the schools."
Imagine that! Instead of focusing on the talented two percent who might end up going to Yale, a lot of people in the black community "are focused on bettering, so to speak, all the schools" in New York!

How strange! They're focused on addressing the lives and the interests of the vast majority of Gotham's black kids, the kids who won't be going to Yale.

Presumably, those people are focused on the K-8 schools from which those brutal Naep data emerge, data in which the average black kid is more than three years behind his or her white counterpart. perhaps as much as five years behind the average Asian-American.

Harris and Gay don't seem to care about those kids. Their bleeding hearts bleed for the very top kids, the ones who might get into Yale.

Along the way, Gay seems to suggest that there are top kids in every classroom in Gotham. Remarks like these have pleased pseudo-liberals for at least the past fifty years. But if we're talking about academic achievement, Gay's notion, however good it may feel, is almost surely wrong.

When we read feel-good comments like those, we tend to think back to some of the kids we taught in Baltimore's public schools. In particular, we think of NAME WITHHELD 1 and the late NAME WITHHELD 2, a pair of girls we taught in Grade 5 and Grade 6.

Even after all these years, those girls stick in our mind as two of the finest people we have ever known. NAME WITHHELD 2 died at the age of 50, after a long illness, and after a lifetime of service to others as a Baltimore health care worker.

When they were children in grades 5 and 6, those girls did indeed show "high potential." They showed high potential to be among the very best people found anywhere in the world.

That said, they, like most people of every "race," weren't on track to tackle the high-powered curriculum at an "elite" high school like Stuyvesant. Neither was anyone else in the class.

Today, their counterparts in New York City seem to be years behind their white and Asian-American peers. It isn't clear that Harris and Gay know this or care to discuss it. We pseudos have been ducking this topic since the dawn of time.

Tomorrow, we're going to show you the plan Gay endorsed in the course of this conversation. For today, we'll marvel at the cluelessness of her remarks to Harris, given how bright and free-thinking she was as an undergraduate journalist at the University of Michigan (class of 2008).

How did such a bright young person end up peddling upper-class pap for the Times? Cummings may have explained it long ago:
Humanity i love you
because you would rather black the boots of
success than enquire whose soul dangles from his
watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both

parties and because you
unflinchingly applaud all
songs containing the words country home and
mother when sung at the old howard
In Cummings' day, the Old Howard was Boston's best-known vaudeville house. Noting the way his fellow citizens were inclined to "black the boots of success," Cummings further observed the way they would "unflinchingly applaud all songs containing the words country home and mother."

Today, the upper-class liberal applauds all songs containing the words "desegregation" and "test prep." Such people may not understand why many in the black community would rather focus on "bettering, so to speak, all the schools."

Gay spoke well of de Blasio's plan, saying the New York Times has endorsed it. In our view, it's a terrible plan.

Tomorrow, we'll discuss how the plan works. It's a plan with major winners and losers. You may be able to guess who gets shown the door as the mayor insists on booting The Others instead of just adding more seats.

Tomorrow: Ways to show children the door

61 comments:

  1. Another post about achievement gaps, another failure by the blogger to discuss causes and solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gay: “there are kids in every single classroom in this city who have high potential.”

    Somerby: “they, like most people of every "race," weren't on track to tackle the high-powered curriculum at an "elite" high school like Stuyvesant. Neither was anyone else in the class.”

    Of course there are students of all races who do poorly on tests and couldn’t perform well on the SHSAT. But the whole point is that, because achievement gaps are so large, there are far fewer black students as a percentage of their total number who can compete compared to white students.

    It’s still not clear whether Somerby even believes the gaps can actually be erased. But if you *do* believe that, then it would seem to be the point that there may very well be brilliant black students who would otherwise be able to score high on the SHSAT or the NAEP *given different opportunities*, both at home and in school. The fact that they score poorly on tests is thus due to an opportunity gap and isn’t set in stone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "A lot of people are focused on bettering, so to speak, all the schools."

    Of course schools can be improved to no end, but the existing schools work fine for some, Bob.

    Families reproduce themselves; underclass families reproduce underclass, working class children grow up to become working class, and professional Chinese immigrants reproduce as professionals.

    The only way the schools could end this process is if you were to remove the children from their environment at a very young age. Babies. And place them into a tightly controlled environment with meticulous indoctrination, a-la Brave New World. Fordism, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In addition to the eight specialized high schools, 37% of New York City’s middle schools (grades 6-8) use some form of competitive screening.

    Should public schools be screening students at all? Does that not violate the whole idea of “public” schools?

    ReplyDelete
  5. “they, like most people of every "race," weren't on track to tackle the high-powered curriculum at an "elite" high school like Stuyvesant. Neither was anyone else in the class.”

    Perhaps Bob failed to identify students in his classroom who might have gone further if they had been properly challenged and motivated. Was he too busy judging them on the basis of their test scores, and lowering his and their expectations accordingly?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry but society is not relying on the output of NYC's specialized schools; their graduates are not saving the world.

    Average scores, Grade 8 math, NY
    White, 1990: 273
    Black, 1990: 234
    Black, 2015: 264

    Blacks are closing in on 1990 Whites, run for the hills!


    Absolute Reptile Betsy DeVos Rescinds Student Civil Rights Protections


    ReplyDelete
  7. After quoting Gay saying this:
    “I feel very strongly about integration, but not everyone does.”

    Somerby says:
    “Gay praises her own moral greatness by framing this discussion as a matter of "integration."

    Is that really what Gay is doing? She acknowledges that not everyone (including within the black community) feels strongly about it. She doesn’t actually say she finds those others morally inferior.

    However, in Somerby’s view, apparently even *talking* about integration is virtue signaling or “praising one’s own moral greatness”. So by that definition, well, guess what? She is “praising her own moral greatness.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is that really what Gay is doing?"

      Yes.

      Delete
    2. And what Somerby is doing is called epistemic closure. Just so you know.

      Delete
  8. mm - regarding your comment yesterday. There are situations where it's mandatory to lie. Maybe Harvard's President was right that Warren got no benefit from her alleged Native American ethnicity. But, in any case, it was mandatory for him to deny that possibility. It would have been unthinkable for him to say that she did get such benefit.

    BTW there's no way he could be sure of what he said. Many people contributed to hiring and promotion decisions (as I well know from my wife's academic career.) There's no way to know what each of them was thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In how many situations was it mandatory that Trump lie? All 9,000 of them, or just a significant subset of that?

      Delete
    2. "There are situations where it's mandatory to lie."

      That's how we get people denying the Republican Party is anything other than a criminal conspiracy.

      Delete
    3. Hmmm. Makes me think of a fellow named Barr...

      Delete
    4. You know what David, just because you and your merry band of Nazis think that way, you should not project your lack of morals onto others, jackass.

      The fucking nerve of you guys is astounding. Where Donald j Chickenshit, Acting President, has been shown to have used at least 3 aliases - at least once since becoming president - you have to fucking nerve to question anybody and their rightful identity? You just don't get it, do you jackass. Donald Fucking Chickenshit. That's the only response you are entitled to.

      You are making the fucking accusation. You and your racist president, Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, King of Cowards. Put up or shut up, you fucking wretched morally bankrupt piece of shit.

      You got anything buddy, other than your racist suspicions?


      ******
      David in CalMarch 23, 2019 at 10:07 PM

      This is the new Democratic talking point, but it won't last long. First of all, just about nobody opposes releasing the Mueller Report - not even Trump.
      *****


      Senate Republicans can’t explain why they keep blocking a resolution calling for the release of the Mueller report

      Their unspoken reasoning: They’re doing it to protect Trump.


      Delete
    5. mm - the Democratic resolution is for something illegal. It's not legal to release grand jury testimony. The Democrats keep repeating this resolution to fool the rubes. You are much to smart to fall for this.

      Delete
    6. Every fucking word of the GJ from the Starr report was released. You know why fuckhead? Because all Starr had to do was get a judge to release it in the greater public interest. Just like they did in the Watergate.

      Congress doesn't want this publicly released they are asking for the full report to be given to the intelligence committees who work with highly classified information every day of the week.

      Interesting how when republicans were running things in the House they forced the FBI to turn over to them multiple times information on ongoing investigations.

      We are not even going to see the answers Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, gave to his take home open book limited questions.

      This is fucking outrageous you fucking hypocrite. When Comey finished every fucking FBI everything was released, even the FBI 302's.

      What is Donald J Chickenshit afraid of? It's crazy because even if Mueller had caught him fucking a dead boy you and your fellow trumpbots would still support him, UNCONDITIONALLY.

      Delete
    7. By the way, David, you morally bankrupt bullshit artist, the very same bill was passed by a vote of 420 - 0 in the House more than a week ago.

      Are you claiming every fucking republican in the House voted for something illegal? is that your bullshit story?

      Delete
    8. Well, mm, that was so last week. New GOP marching orders have arrived. Who knows what they will be tomorrow?

      Delete
    9. The reality is that the GOP morons in the House were premature with their vote. They thought the report was going to be all sunshine and roses. Now that it is looking more and more like a damning document, they will now dutifully disappear their vote. “Who, me? I never voted to release the report. “ (remember, sometimes you just gotta lie).

      Delete
    10. What are you sweating about, dembot? No one is preventing you from performing your ORANGE MAN BAD act, with or without the bullshit report.

      And needless to say, we're all enjoying your zombie hate-mongering. It confirms that Donald The Greatest is doing fine.

      Delete
    11. Here is the actual text of the H.Con.Res.24

      Whereas the allegations at the center of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation strike at the core of our democracy, and there is an overwhelming public interest in releasing the Special Counsel’s report to ensure public confidence in both the process and the result of the investigation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senateconcurring), That Congress—


      (1) calls for the public release of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and
      (2) calls for the full release to Congress of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General.

      Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 2019.


      You notice that little clause in there, David?


      ******
      David in CalMarch 23, 2019 at 10:07 PM

      This is the new Democratic talking point, but it won't last long. First of all, just about nobody opposes releasing the Mueller Report - not even Trump.
      *****

      How's my fucking "talking point" holding up, jackass?

      "You have already provided an interpretation of the Special Counsel’s conclusions in a fashion that appears to minimize the implications of the report as to the President," Nadler said in a letter to Barr on Thursday. "Releasing the summaries — without delay — would begin to allow the American people to judge the facts for themselves




      Delete
    12. Yeah, Mao, Trump is doing just fine. He wants to find out about the oranges of the investigation, right after he tries to locate the city in Germany where his father was born.

      Delete
    13. And he's closing our border with Mexico, you hear me. This time he means it, seriously, no fooling around, he really, really means it. He's gonna do it, I'm warning you, just you watch. He's serious. He's gonna get right on it as soon as he finishes writing he super duper new health care plan that's gonna put the republican party on the map as the great party of health care. Hey Mitch, get on it, you here, Donald J Chickenshit has spoken.

      Delete
    14. mm - Thank you for posting the text of the resolution. I stand corrected.

      Barr and Mueller are in the process of doing just what that resolution calls for, with a promise to release the legal portion within 10 days or so. Thus, the Congressional resolution is just window dressing. But, I again acknowledge that I was wrong about it calling for something illegal.

      Delete
    15. Cat got your tongue, Mao? Or are you unable to fathom the level of dementia your hero exhibits?

      Delete
    16. mm - It's easy to mock Trump for vacillating over the border closure. But, it's a lot harder to say what he SHOULD do.

      I invite all commentators to take a whack at this question: Illegal immigrants are pouring over the Mexican border. They're overwhelming the US agents there. It's the President's job to enforce the law. If you were President, how would you handle this challenge?

      Delete
    17. I'd go spend a 3-day weekend playing golf at my resort in Palm Beach Florida.

      Delete
    18. Poor Donald. And here we all though that “he alone could fix it.” You know, that massive brain of his. His superior knowledge, etc. We peons just have to let Donald the Magnificent figure it out. Or are you saying he is clueless?

      Delete
    19. Well, back when your scenario was actually happening in the 80's Reagan, not much was done, eventually they got around to passing the 86 law. Currently illegal entry through the southern border is on a decade long downward trend to the point where certain business are suffering due to lack of finding employees. Presidents should not whip up paranoia over a fake issue in a sad attempt to remain relevant.

      Delete
    20. Barr and Mueller are in the process of doing just what that resolution calls for,..

      No, David, Barr is doing a lot more than that, he keeps adding to his list of things he is going to redact. And he apparently is now acting as Trump's shadow exec deciding out of hand what he thinks might be executive privilege.

      You know exactly what's going on, David, don't play stupid. You would never have stood for this with the Comey email investigation. Never.

      Delete
    21. mm -- Mueller is working with Barr on preparing a version of the Report to be made public. I don't think Mueller would go along with hanky-panky.

      Delete
    22. There's already been hanky-panky, traitor. I realize you couldn't give a shit, but it's been two fucking weeks. The report already included summary which was cleared for public release, yet Coverup-General Barr decided to do his own summary/ oops I mean non-summary, and then unilaterally decide the obstruction of justice issue which Mueller specifically said he did not exonerate Donald J Chickenshit on.

      Delete
    23. Mueller effectively cleared Trump of obstruction of justice by not indicting him. Furthermore, Rod Rosenstein worked with Barr in creating the summary that they released.

      BTW mm, I recommend reading this column, Dems Have Vastly More to Fear from Full Mueller Report than GOP https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/dems-have-vastly-more-to-fear-from-full-mueller-report-than-gop/

      Don't know whether Roger L. Simon is right, but it's something to think about.

      Delete
    24. Oh good grief. Barr came into office saying the president basically can’t be indicted for obstruction. Mueller wasn’t ever going to indict the fucker. He did say that Trump was not exonerated. And Congress is the one with the power to remove a president.

      Delete
    25. I see, David. So a life long republican SC, appointed by a republican DAG, who watched Donald J Chickenshit screw another DOJ republican vindictively screwed out of his pension by your lunatic president, defers to a republican hack with a history of covering up republican misdeeds, after the previous AG was fired because he pissed off your lunatic acting president gets handed a report prepared by a republican and decides unilaterally to clear Donald J Chickenshit- a republican - of obstruction, which the report clearly did not do. fuck you, you treasonous bastard. You guys are so fucking corrupt you don't even try to hide it.

      Delete
    26. mm - do you think Trump committed obstruction of justice? If so, can you please explain your conclusion?

      Delete
    27. Why don’t we wait and see what Mueller said about obstruction?

      If we ever find out, that is.

      Delete
    28. Trump fired the head of the FBI to stop an investigation into his corruption. There are other acts of obstruction of justice, but not quite as bald-faced.

      Delete
    29. David, are you one of Donald J Chickenshit's "tough guys"? Are you one of the guys with guns like in the military or a cop? Or are you in the "bikers for Donald J Chickenshit"? You know, the fucking coward sissy boy who needs 3 hours every morning to arrange that birds nest he wears on his head? Is it going to get "very very bad" if we all don't support Donald J Chickenshit? Please, give me a warning, I know you're my friend.

      Delete
  9. How can an aptitude test be racist?

    There used to be a thing called the “poll tax”, meaning you had to pay a fee to vote. Couldn’t pay it? Then you didn’t vote. Nothing racist about a sum of money, right? It’s just an objective thing.

    And often, an aptitude test was given. Pass it, you vote. Fail it, you don’t vote. Simple. And the test itself wasn’t biased or racist. Nope.

    Fast forward to circa 1971. What we know is that that is when the SHSAT test was instituted. Prior to that, the specialized high schools did not use it. The literature has consistently stated that the purpose of the test was to keep out “undesirable” students. The test itself isn’t racist, but perhaps the intention was.

    But, something instituted in 1971 must never be changed. Otherwise, you are “virtue signaling” if you support changing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Specialized High Schools Admissions Test is not an aptitude test. It's more like an achievement test.
      "The SHSAT assesses knowledge and skills. These skills consist of the ability to comprehend English prose, to demonstrate understanding of revising and editing skills central to writing in English, and to use problem-solving skills in mathematics. The test measures knowledge and skills students have gained over the course of their education. Keeping up with schoolwork throughout the year is the best possible preparation."

      Delete
    2. Well, then call the test what you want. It doesn’t change the original point. The test at the poll was also a knowledge-based test. Way to quibble.

      Delete
    3. There's no reason to think that the SHSAT is racist. It tests the stuff students should have learned. Also, minority races outperform whites on these tests.

      Delete
    4. Hey, David, have you ever heard of the SAT? Yeah, that one? What does S A T stand for? Oh that’s right...Scholastic APTITUDE Test.

      Jesus.

      Delete
    5. The test itself isn’t racist. The intention can be. That was my point. Minority races outperform whites? You mean Asians? But other than that, no.

      And yeah, it tests the stuff “students should have learned”, but didn’t or couldn’t because of factors either at home, at school, or in their community, ie factors not completely under the control of those students. Similarly, if blacks just had had enough money, why they could vote. Or if they had just known stuff they should have known, they could have voted. It’s a catch-22.

      Why should public schools screen out students anyway?

      Delete
    6. @5:47 You got it. The SAT is an aptitude test. The SHSAT is not an aptitude test.

      Delete
    7. @5:55 Why should public schools screen out students anyway? Because the teaching goes at a level and speed that most students couldn't keep up with.

      Delete
    8. "Because the teaching goes at a level and speed that most students couldn't keep up with. "

      This is false.

      Delete
  10. "The test itself isn’t racist, but perhaps the intention was."

    Yes, definitely. Also, the bar exam, any tests for doctors' electricians', plumbers' licenses -- they are all racist plots. As well as the test for a driving license, obviously.

    Anyone from the ethnic group universally voting for the zombie cult must immediately become a surgeon, if they want to. It's in the liberal Bible.

    Brain-decomposed zombies against testing, what a comedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The original intent of the SHSAT was to exclude “undesirable” students from the specialized high schools, which, by the way, are supposed to be public schools, not elite private academies.

      The professions you list are not relevant. They represent specialties where licensing is essential. Public education, especially through high school, is about providing a broad-based education to all students.

      Delete
    2. "Public education, especially through high school, is about providing a broad-based education to all students."

      I completely agree. That's why illiterate deadbeats (the “undesirable”, in your lingo) should be sent to advanced classes. But only if they belong to the ethnic group most loyal to the liberal cult.

      Delete
  11. heal from broken heart" Love spell from dr.Unity brought my husband back"contact Unityspelltemple@gmail.com to help you get your Ex lover back urgently after breakup/divorce"
    After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he could come back to me, I was really worried and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 11hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity is real spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your ex lover back or save your marriage fast. Do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster Dr.Unity now. Here’s his contact: Call/WhatsApp him: +2348071622464 ,Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com , Website:https://unityspelltemples.blogspot.com ,Your kindness will never be forgotten.

    Natasha Wanderly form USA.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Biden doesn't think his behavior is a big deal. But, he is dividing Democrats and that is a problem:

    https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2019/04/biden-is-now-sowing-division-among.html

    Most Democrats are unwilling to fully confront the issue with Biden. They are staying far away from the complaints about his touching of children, focusing only on non-sexual touching of adults, mostly women. But the right has been circulating composite videos (some doctored but others not) of Biden caressing young girls while parents try to disengage him from their children. These are more disturbing than his pat-downs of women because the kids are mostly very young girls and because they are clearly uncomfortable and don't know what to do about it, and because there are so many unique instances of him doing this.

    Why is it OK for Biden to fondle children, simply because he is VP? He caresses their hair, places hands on their bodies, in much the same way as he touches women. He seeks them out to do this to them. He rearranges photo groupings to do this. And it is blatantly obvious from the videos that exist and have been rolled into montages by conservatives.

    But Democrats are saying nothing, pretending these don't exist, perhaps hoping they will go away. They really don't want to open that can of worms because it should end Biden's prospects as a candidate.

    So while folks like Bill Maher complain that this is a hooey, the rest of the Democrats are keeping mum about the bigger issue of his behavior with young children. And that is very wrong for a party that is supposedly against such abuses. Do we, as liberals, really think it is OK for adult men to touch other people's children in ways that make those kids clearly uncomfortable, simply because the men hold political power (or are smiling and affable and pretending to be grandfatherly)? Why are the needs of Joe Biden being placed ahead of the needs of kids (most of whom are there because of parent political activities and not on their own volition)? Kids are no more objects than adult women are. It is not OK for Biden to touch them at will, and Democrats should not be avoiding this issue and pretending this is all a trivial disagreement about hugging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When one woman comes forward, others with the same experiences are encouraged to do the same. It doesn't take an orchestrated takedown for women to bring their issues to public awareness. It is problematic when men such as this columnist assume that women have no agency and cannot be concerned about this themselves without it being orchestrated by some man or political entity planning a campaign.

      It is a giveaway when someone suggests that Clinton is meddling in the left's primary. The only folks who worry about Clinton's participation are on the right, since they think she is involved in some giant conspiracy to rule the globe. She is no longer running for anything and is not a source of these attacks on Biden, especially since they are not political opponents. So this suggestion only makes sense to conservatives, for whom Clinton is a generic boogeyman.

      Delete
    2. "It doesn't take an orchestrated takedown for women to bring their issues to public awareness"

      Sure it does. The giveaway here is that these wimmin with agencies suddenly come out of the woods en masse when the guy becomes the most likely nominee. One does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce it.

      Delete
    3. When Milgram did his study of people's willingness to inflict shocks on a peer, he found that if only one person stood up to the investigator and refused to give the shock, others would refuse too. But if no one went first, the others remained compliant.

      When one woman speaks up, others follow because they find safety in numbers, especially if that first woman is taken seriously and doesn't get shut down by ridicule or retaliation. This phenomenon doesn't have to be organized by anyone. It happens because people take courage from the behavior of others.

      The reason why so many woman come forward all at once is because Biden has done this to so many women. They all have been sitting with their own experiences, keeping them to themselves. If Biden didn't do this so much, there wouldn't be so many complaints once women have "permission" to speak out.

      Note: this is not aimed at Mao, who is a troll, but at anyone lurking who doesn't understand why there seems to be a piling on whenever an accusation appears like this.

      Delete
    4. First of all, the so-called "Milgram experiment" was a hoax.

      And second, your "safety in numbers" hypothesis doesn't make any sense, imo.

      These days, with the "me too" phenomenon hyped beyond any reasonable measures, what one should expect is a bunch of fabricated or greatly exaggerated accusations...

      This is a 'aimed' at you, dembot.

      Delete
    5. Eat shit faggot Jap.

      Delete
  13. Some Sanders supporters are apparently upset over the 2016 primaries and are saying they will vote 3rd party (again) if Sanders isn't the nominee. Stories are noting the need for Democrats to deal with lingering issues from 2016.

    They will need to do more than placate Sanders supporters. Although Clinton did win the nomination, many Clinton voters consider Sanders to have undermined Clinton's campaign and failed to support her as nominee, resulting in her losses in WI, MI, and PA. This defection by someone who is considered to be less than a Democrat in spirit, was one factor contributing to Trump's win, which Clinton Democrats believe they have never acknowledged or taken responsibility for. Now Sanders is repeating his spoiler role.

    The Democratic party does need to deal with this, but not by placating progressives who place themselves ahead of party loyalty or even defeating the Republican nominee. Meanwhile, Sanders does nothing to prevent his supporters from doing damage to liberal interests, just as he did very little bring together the left after his primary losses (which were legitimately lost).

    Obama and Clinton healed their party after Obama's primary win. There is a model for such cooperation. Sanders needs to be motivated to do the same, as he was not in 2016.

    ReplyDelete