stat counnnter

Saturday, December 28, 2013

It's the Principles, Dtroit

I'm re-posting this from The New Clarion in case any of my readers don't read the Clarion.

The Thursday 12/19 Detroit News carried an editorial by Reynolds Farley who once conducted the Detroit Area Study at the University of Michigan. Titled "The often-overlooked roots of Detroit's bankruptcy" it looks at these 'roots' only in terms of details, of concrete particulars as if no underlying principles were involved. This detail caused that detail which in turn led to this other detail. But no one asks the obvious question: "What gave rise to the first detail?"

Mr. Farley declares that "Long term economic and demographic trends brought Detroit to its present condition." After reeling off a plethora of depressing numbers of jobs and people leaving the city, all of which are true, he declares as a cause the fact that: "First, Michigan's system of financing local government and schools is broken. In 1911, the Legislature adopted a Home Rule Law encouraging communities to organize their own governments, generate their own tax revenue and pay for their own services. The law gave local governments no incentives to cooperate with one another in solving common problems and , over the years, the law was amended to make it difficult for communities to annex or merge."

I for one don't believe this to be the case. I have lived most of my 71 years in a Detroit suburb and can testify to the fact that local communities have often got together to solve problems. Nor do I accept the notion that it's the State's fault for not being foresighted enough to see that locals would eventually need incentives to cooperate.

But the point I really want to make is look at the cognitive pattern: the details of'economic and demographic trends' caused Detroit's demise. But what caused those trends? The detail of the 1911 Law we are told. But the 1911 Law is not an economic or demographic entity. It's a political one. Politics is a science that deals with the principles of social organization. Thus what is left out of the discussion is any mention of possible political principles that could have had a causal effect on Detroit's suicide. The 1911 Law is not a principle. It is a concrete law based on a principle, the principle of self government which I believe the 1911 Legislature was acting upon and wanted to encourage.

Detroit's failure to its citizens was not caused by an endless string of details but by the principles that gave rise to all those sad details. The main principle behind Detroit's sorry state is the principle that government--a political entity--should provide economic goods and services instead of the market place--an economic entity of voluntary trade to mutual benefit. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force. It is not an economic entity. Political principles are not the same as economic principles and cannot be mixed. Our Declaration of Independence identified the political principle on which governments at all levels are to operate: "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men." The City (and State) abandoned its role of rights protector long ago and has tried to be the provider of economic services. The mixed economy is Detroit's state. Its real often-overlooked roots are the political and economic principles Detroit has tried to live by. It must now relearn the political and economic principles that actually created a once free and prosperous city. The principles of laissez faire capitalism.

Monday, December 02, 2013

The Real Zombies Are in Washington

It seems to me that Hollywood's creation of modern Zombies has taken on a new life. Not just for horror movies any longer, they are showing up in TV series like The Walking Dead and even on bumper stickers. Recently I saw one such sticker declaring "My zombie child just ate the brains of your honor student." Of course that was in jest, I think. But what is it with Zombies being portrayed as essentially brainless? Where did this idea come from? My 1967 Webster's collegiate dictionary says in part
"In west Indian superstition, a supernatural power through which a corpse may be brought to a state of trancelike animation and made to obey the commands of the person exercising the power.
Wow! Does that ever sound like Washington or what?

Now in most of my 71 years observing politics and human nature, I seriously doubt there is any supernatural power guiding the creatures roaming around Washington (or Lansing for that matter). But a recent movie I was informed of gave me a hint. In that movie, the zombies were created by a virus which killed the thinking part of the brains of otherwise normal people leaving only their automatic bodily functions still alive. Now to me that sounds plausible (almost). Except that in today's real world the virus would not be a physical one but rather a cognitive one, you know like a computer virus. If one of these enters your computer the whole thing dies instantly. Bang! Dead. It won't even add 2 & 2. This seems to support my theory that since it is a cognitive pathogen, then like computer viruses, there are different strains of it.

I think I have detected two different strains of this malady: the programmed and the non-programmed. The programmed virus injects into its victim a program of self destruction whereby its recipient has no choice but to follow a path that will lead to its own demise. It does this by implanting the impulse that destruction and death are good, things to be achieved. This strain is prevalent in humans calling themselves progressive or liberal or leftist. They are found in both political parties but mostly in the Democratic Party. They ignore the past. For example, the fact that no society on fiat money has ever avoided collapse means nothing to them. They stagger on.

The non-programmed virus leaves its victim with complete cognitive dissonance. These are mostly found in the Republican Party. That is why Republicans are often seen wandering around aimlessly, with no purpose, nothing to achieve, making herky-jerky motions and incoherent utterances, having no goal except to eat the brains of Democrats.

Now I want to add that there may be other strains of the virus. I suspect one has infected our news media with a particularly virulent submissive, obedient, unquestioning, pied piper form. But I'll leave that for other investigators to examine. Zombies, like all effects, have a cause and it's becoming obvious that this cause lies in academia. That is where the queen bee of brain deadness resides. They are the powers pulling the strings of media and political corpses.

Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz Right?

I repost this here for those of my readers who don't go the The New Clarion.

Gary North, former staff economist for Ron Paul, has a blog called Tea Party Economist in which he posts links to current political and economic news. His latest posting carries an article on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's claim that the Democrats will win in 2014 because they will stand solidly behind the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare. For those who don't know, Ms. Schultz is the national chairwoman of the Democrat Party.

Judging by the article's comments and other reactions around the web Republicans and conservatives are having knee-slapping guffaws over her announcement. But they shouldn't be in such a hurry to dismiss her words. There is a method to her seeming madness. You see she understands that the moral argument always wins over the practical argument. Her party and its sycophants in the media have been arguing that ObamaCare is a "moral imperative" and other moral platitudes. The Republicans have been confining themselves to the practical argument that ObamaCare doesn't work and in doing so have conceded the moral high ground to the Democrats.

She further knows that Obama will present himself to the voting public in a very presidential way. He will campaign against all the disastrous results of the ACA and promise to fix or get fixed all the problems. The public will vote for his Party because they will still think it cares about them which caring they consider to be of uber importance. They will not see the Republican's claim that ObamaCare is bad because it doesn't work, as having no more moral importance than fixing a flat tire. They will go with the Dems.

Unless that is, the Republicans learn to retake the moral high ground from the Dems. It's not that hard to do. For example, the next time a news anchor or politician or academic confronts a Republican with "you don't care about the needy" or homeless or uninsured or whatever malady is in vogue this week, he should reply with something like "hurting the needy is a strange way to show you care for them" and then back it up with an explanation of how government policies do in fact hurt the needy. There are many variants on this theme, and the evidence for them is all over the place. Republicans must give up the notion that free markets are evil because they are greedy and selfish. To do that Republicans must learn that such concepts (greed and selfishness) are fraudulent concepts designed only to destroy rational self interest.

But before the Republicans can take back the moral argument they must learn that it is theirs for the taking. The Dems never had a right to it. To defend capitalism and free markets is to defend man's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that this is the morally right thing to do.

Saturday, November 02, 2013

Some Citizens Get It.

I normally post on editorials or news stories in the media but today I want to post on an excellent letter to the editor in the Nov 1st Detroit News titled "blame the media" by Walter Konarzevski. It's in response to an editorial by News editor Nolan Finley criticizing the White House press core's way overdue ability to criticize the President. Mr. Konarzevski writes in part:
"You did not cover Sen. Barack Obama objectively; if you did he very well would not have become president. You cheered his campaign, smeared his opposition, hid who he was and what he believed. You in fact support him in his falsehoods.

Now you are reporting on things that should have been reported on years ago. Too late, you should have told the truth to start with. You should have been reporters, not political operatives."
So true. If I knew Obama was a collectivist back in 2008 the News could have known it too. Mr. Obama was sworn in on Jan 20th 2009 and on that day the Detroit News editorial said in part:
"We have serious doubts about and major philosophical differences with many of the new president's idea for meeting those challenges, but debating those differences is for another day.

Today we join the nation in celebrating Obama's historic rise to the White House and are heartily encouraged by the tremendous faith and hope such a large portion of the nation has in him. We can't recall anything in modern politics to match the jubilation over Obama's ignauguration."
Yes there were a lot of high hopes that day. But I didn't have any. I could see jubilation over the first black man as president but skin color and ideas are two different things and I didn't like any of his ideas. The title of the editorial was "Bold leadership will make Obama presidency historic." Why would the editor believe Obama capable of bold leadership when it was common knowledge he had never managed anything?

Above the headline was a picture of Obama speaking that previous Sunday which was captioned:
Barack Obama has promised to try to build a broad consensus for America's revival. The theme at the Lincoln Memorial pre-inaugural event in Washington that Obama spoke at Sunday was "We are one.""
It wasn't long afterward that "We are one" became "We won." So much for unity. But while the press was all agog over Obama at least some citizens like Mr. Konarzevski and myself could see behind the curtain.

Monday, October 28, 2013

More of the Same Old Detroit

I'm re-posting this from the New Clarion where I posted it yesterday.

Ever since Detroit filed for bankruptcy in July of this year there has been a flood of articles in the media on the suggested causes of Detroit's demise and almost as many on suggested solutions. The solutions invariably call for more of the same poison that made Detroit sick in the first place: a political institution, city government, trying to provide economic services--something the marketplace is supposed to provide if left free to do so.

Let's remember that government is force. It has nothing to offer citizens except the management of force. It is not an economic entity. It cannot provide anyone with economic benefits unless it takes them from some citizens and doles them out to other citizens. On net balance the city does not gain anything.

You would think that someone would stop and say hey, lets re-examine this basic notion that government (force) is the only or at least a good way to provide economic services like roads, lighting, schools, parks, libraries, recreation and others. But no one is even hinting at having that conversation. Instead, judging by the endorsements for Detroit Mayor and city council members in the Detroit Free Press Sunday Oct 27th paper, the candidates are offering more of the same old tonic: a top down control of everything with only minor tweeks in the forced dosage.

According to Freep writer John Gallagher's article mayoral candidates Mike Duggan and Benny Napoleon "Each candidate says he believes that better management of existing city resources will lead to success." In other words same old/ same old just under new management. Mr. Gallagher continues: "Duggan says he will appoint a single Department of Neighborhoods to oversee all service delivery, while Napoleon said a police officer assigned to every square mile of the city will act as an ombudsman for neighborhood needs and complaints, with the mayor's office still responsible for coordinating service delivery."

Wow! That's all Detroit needs is another bureaucracy needing taxpayer funding--this one consisting of little neighborhood czars (evidently following Obama's czarist formula). Folks, this is how the politics of buck passing works in a mixed economy. Duggan will pass the buck to the Department of Neighborhoods and when it fails in a few years (next election) he will call for a better manager. Napoleon will pass the buck to the poor cop patrolling one square mile by himself for which he will need not a squad car but a tank. And when he fails to give the mayor the right data he'll get replaced too.

Other cities in financial trouble have privatized some if not all economic services and have or are returning to balanced budgets. There are benefits to be had from privatization. You see privatization introduces the profit motive. When people are free from the initiatory force of regulations they will offer the best quality for the lowest prices. It is in their interest to do so. Politicians and their bureaucrats have no skin in the game. They have nothing to lose for doing a bad job and, because of that, have no point in doing a good one.

If Detroit had a laissez faire economy the Detroit Institute of Arts would be privately owned and there would be no need to sell off its priceless works of art. Selling off such art is just one example of the unintended bad consequences of politicians with allegedly good intentions. Just look at the cell phone and iPod industries which are only lightly regulated. The quality keeps going up while prices keep falling. Detroiters can have that for their city services. How?

Whichever of these two men, Duggan or Napoleon, become mayor, it is up to the citizens of Detroit to demand he privatize, privatize, privatize. It won't be easy because the desire of politicians to be the providers of our daily bread (crumbs) is irresistible to them. It is the citizens who must tell them they no longer want their daily bread from them but rather, the political and economic freedom to provide their own.

Monday, September 30, 2013

Used Car Salesmen Wouldn't Try to Sell Me This

On the editorial page of the Sunday 9/22 Detroit Free Press is a local commentary purporting to show "6 conservative reasons for Common Core" by two conservatives. They are identified as "Chester E. Finn jr. and Michael J. Petrilli are, respectively, president and executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-of-center education policy think tank. Finn served in the Reagan administration. Petrilli served in the George W. Bush administration. Both are affiliated with the Hoover Institution."

Obviously these gentlemen are neocons, liberals who couldn't stand the consistency of the leftists in their political circles. But that is beside my main point. The entire article is based on the premise that the responsibility for education lies with the government instead of the market. This in turn is based on a more sinister premise: that your child belongs to the state. It talks about how "Michigan has been lauded for its education reform efforts..." "Michigan" here means Michigan government not Michigan citizens. Let's remember government is force. It forces kids to attend and forces citizens to pay for the education of their kids as well as the kids of others.

The article then makes the claim that "The Common Core arose as a state initiative..." Umm, not really. From a website

"Just because states "agreed" to adopt these standards does not mean they were state-led. The federal contractor-National Governors' Association, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation & the Chief Council of State School Officers sign-off on CCSS gives the appearance that they were state-led, but national standards have been pushed by special interests, for decades, since the Clinton era."

So who might these special interests be? From Michelle Malkin at
"Can you spell b-o-o-n-d-o-g-g-l-e? Remember: Bush’s educational foundation, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, is tied at the hip to the federally funded testing consortium called PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), which raked in $186 million through Race to the Top to develop nationalized tests “aligned” to the top-down Common Core program.
One of the Bush foundation’s behemoth corporate sponsors is Pearson, the multi-billion-dollar educational publishing and testing conglomerate. Pearson snagged $23 million in contracts to design the first wave of PARCC test items. The company holds a $250 million contract with Florida to design and publish its state tests. Pearson designed New York’s Common Core-aligned assessments and is also the exclusive contractor for Texas state tests.
And in Los Angeles this summer, Pearson sealed a whopping $30 million taxpayer-subsidized deal to supply the city’s schools with 45,000 iPads pre-loaded with Pearson Common Core curriculum apps. That’s $678 per iPad, $200 more than the standard cost, with scant evidence that any of this shiny edu-tech will do anything to improve the achievement bottom line.
As with all political posers who grab power under the guise of doing it “for the children,” don’t read their lips. Follow the money."
Ms. Malkin has several articles on the nature of Common Core and I recommend you read them.

Now the gentlemen give us their 6 conservative reasons for Common Core. The first is:
Fiscal responsibility. "The Common core protects taxpayer dollars by setting world-class academic standards for student achievement--and taxpayers and families deserve real results for their money." This is laughable. While this last phrase is true, families deserve real results for their money, government has never made anything cheaper than the market place nor given taxpayers their money's worth on anything. Amtrack, the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Public education just to name a few, are all broke and massive failures. But we're to believe Common Core will help the government get it right this time? Conservative reason #2:

Accountability. "Common core demands accountability, high standards,and testing--not the low expectations and excuses that many politicians and the establishment have permitted. The Core standards are pegged at a high level, which will bring a healthy dose of reality to the education reform conversation." Nowhere in the article is it explained exactly how these high, more rigorous standards will achieve all these desirable goals. We are to trust that it just jolly well will. Good luck getting the teacher unions to kneel down to these stricter standards imposed by such well meaning bureaucrats. Conservative reason #3:

School choice. "Doesn't it force a "one-size-fits-all approach onto schools? The short answer: no. Standards describe what students are expected to know and be able to do. Written correctly [according to what standard? MN] they do not dictate any particular curriculum, or pedagogy. Plus, the information that comes from standards-based testing gives parents a common yardstick with which to judge schools. In the end Common Core is not a national curriculum--the standards were written by governors and local educators." It's nice that CC gives parents a common yardstick by which to judge schools. Evidently parents have never had one before! Truth is, parents, watching their kids fail to learn to read, write and do simple math have used a common sense standard to determine that public education has been a colossal failure. Nor is having a choice between bad schools a desirable goal. Conservative reason #4:

Competitiveness. "If we don't want to cede the 21st Century to our economic and political rivals--China especially--we need to ensure that many more young Americans emerge from high school truly ready for college and a career that allows them to compete in the global marketplace." While it's true that students need to be able to compete for global jobs, Common Core is not going to achieve that. Common Core is nothing more than the government stamping its feet demanding that kids learn and teachers teach or else. Or else what? Where's the teeth? Where is enforcement? By whom? No mention in the article or any other I've seen. Conservative reason #5:

Innovation. "The core standards are encouraging investment from states, [our tax dollars-MN]philanthropic groups and private firms--which is producing Common Core-aligned textbooks, e-books, professional development, online learning and more." I'm all for more online learning. But textbooks is where curriculum lives. The curriculum in those pages will have to be re-aligned to meet CC testing standards. What's going to be added? Subtracted? What is this re-alignment going to look like? No answers. This gives the lie to the claim that CC won't affect curriculum. Conservative reason #6:

Traditional education values. "Common Core standards are educationally solid. They are rigorous, they are traditional--one might even say they are "conservative." [This sales pitch is really stretching it.-MN] "We see the Common Core as a great conservative triumph.[???] They don't give in to moral relativism, blame-America-first, or so many other liberal nostrums that have infected our public schools." That is fantastic!!! I'm ecstatic! It means multiculturalism, egalitarianism, diversity, equality of outcome, all of which are based on moral relativism, will be finally banned from our public schools!! Pinch me. I must be dreaming. Ouch! I guess I am dreaming. Sigh.

Conservative triumph? An Owellian term for sure. But before closing I want to point out that CC calls for psychometric testing. This in my view will test students as they go through school to see what they are best suited to do in the work place. Their education will be tapered to an occupation designed for them by the educational bureaucrats. That is the real future goal of CC.

Sunday, August 04, 2013

In the Macomb Daily, a county newspaper in the northeast suburbs of Detroit, blogger Chad Selweski has an article on two Republican politicians who seem to have good luck in raising money. The title is "Macomb lawmakers rake in the campaign cash."

It's an informative article and I have no qualms with any of the facts presented. But I did notice the way the facts were presented. First let me say I've read many articles by Mr. Selweski and he does like to use metaphors. But metaphors can be used for purposes other than colorful writing. Sometimes they are used to slant facts in a certain way.

For example, the phrase 'raking in' can be a propaganda technique that I call image mongering. The idea is to bypass the reader's reasoning mind and appeal to his emotions. It does this by invoking the image of a person raking leaves from his lawn. The leaves just fell on his lawn through no effort of his. All he has to do now is rake them in. This implies that his leaves were unearned and thus undeserved. This in turn is meant to invoke in the reader an emotional response which could range from disgust to contempt to disrespect etc. The hope by such propagandists is that the emotional response will translate into an action by the reader that is favorable to the writer. This action could be anything on the order of 'don't vote for these guys' to 'vote for someone else' or to just implant in the reader's mind something like 'republicans don't earn their way' or 'are not trustworthy' etc. The favorable possibilities are almost endless.

This metaphor 'raking in' is often used by the left to demonize big business, banks and Wall Street as an evil from which only the leftist intellectuals and politicians can save us. Don't fall for it.

Now I'm not saying Mr. Selweski is using this metaphor deliberately in this way. He may not be. He may have this 'unearned money' sense regarding all politicians. So I will set this article aside and see if he uses the 'unearned money implication' in the future when referring to Democratic politicians. We'll see.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Liberals for Gun Rights?

I posted this yesterday 6/24 at The New Clarion and am putting it here on my own blog.

"I almost fell off my chair yesterday 6/23 when I read an oped by James Hill, the politics editor at the left wing Detroit Free Press titled "Why I Carry: why having a firearm is like having insurance." This is strangely unlike the usual editorial policy of the Freep. Normally the paper is teeming with editorials, opeds and LTEs calling for more gun control, a euphemism for people control.

But this article was well written even pointing out that just carrying is not enough; that one needs to practice and train often especially with a professional trainer. He's also right about the fact that we buy insurance for our houses, cars and other belongings hoping we never have to use it. So it is with guns. We carry hoping we never have to use it.

But Mr. Hill focuses exclusively on the practical argument leaving the moral argument for the gun banner advocates to seize and use against him. I wish he would have tied his practical argument to the moral principle of individual rights in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So I fired off this letter to the editor:
"Like Mr. Hill I too carry a firearm for insurance reasons, to insure that I have at least a chance to defend my life if needed. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the job of police to protect citizens from criminals but to apprehend them after the fact. That's why our founders established individual rights as our founding principle. They understood that if the individual is to have a right to life then it logically follows that he must have the right to defend it and that to deny the right of self defense is an immoral act."
I don't know if it'll get printed but stranger things are happening. I signed it Mike in Roseville. Also, this supports an idea I had about how gun control will not happen for a while because a lot of Democrats, liberals and leftists see the value in self defense."

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Evading the Premises in Detroit

I have spent most of my 70 years living in and outside of Detroit. I've watched it go from a booming town to a near ghost town with jobs and people and of course money, leaving for greener pastures. In its earlier years if there was a problem, there was no problem. Somebody would step up examine the problem and fix it. Detroit's leaders never feared facing a dilemma and tackling it.

But what can be said about leaders who look right at the problem then turn their heads away evading the obvious? Who even correctly identify the problem in concrete terms as Editorial Page Editor Stephen Henderson did in his Sunday 3/24/13 editorial "Revenue and spending all out of balance" but fails to examine the premises underlying the malady. Mr Henderson correctly cites in a nutshell the obvious concretes: Detroit government can no longer afford to provide economic services that it used to provide.

But instead of calling for a discussion on the question "What is the proper role of a city government? What services are it Constitutionally required to provide? Which ones are not so required? Mr Henderson and most other leading intellectuals are calling for new ways to raise money in order to keep doing the same old thing. In fact, on the same editorial page professor George Galster calls for a regional solution. Translation, hit the suburbs up for more money. But no one is asking the question why does the City have to provide all these economic services? Most are not political services like police and courts which are constitutionally required. So why not let others provide them?

What do us ordinary folk do when the paper boy keeps throwing the paper in mud puddles or worse, or when the auto repair shop has fixed our car 4 times in the last two weeks, or the trash pick up guys keep destroying our cans, throwing them around like cardboard? Well, if complaining doesn't work, most of us start looking for someone else to provide these services. This I submit is what Detroit must do to keep from sinking lower on the desirability scale: get someone else to provide these economic services. Let competition and a freer market provide them.

Look at the Information Technology industry like cell phones, I pods and such. The IT industry is one of the least regulated industries in what's left of our semi-free market. Thus people are still free (relatively) to come up with new ideas, market them and enjoy the rewards. Almost daily the quality of smart phones, I pads and such goes up while the costs fall. Isn't this what we all want for our schools, roads, EMS and other services? Quality rising and prices falling?

But Detroit can't get there from here by following the same failed policies of the past or by evading the consequences of its adopted premises. If city economic services can be sold or auctioned off and deregulated to the level of IT, Detroit will once again explode with prosperity.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

LTE in Detroit News

I had this short letter printed in the Detroit News on March 4th.

"News editor Nolan Finley in his 2/28 editorial "Abortion focus will cost GOP Michigan" is right on. I would only add this is also true of the National Party. The GOP needs to learn that abortion rights are here to stay, that deporting 11 million illegal aliens isn't going to happen and that gays living together violates no one's rights.

President Obama's re-election was not so much an endorsement of his policies as it was a slap in the face to a GOP myopically focused on social issues instead of the only winning issues nobody else is championing but which Americans desperately need and want: the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."


Friday, January 04, 2013

The Dec 28th 2012 Detroit News carried two opeds on gun control, one by Charles Krauthammer and one by Clarence Page. While Mr. Page blames the NRA and Mr. Krauthammer blames Hollywood, neither gentlemen focus on a mindless injustice that certainly contributed to such horrific events as Sandy Hook. I'm talking about the absurd practice of putting up signs that read 'gun free zone.'

The existence of such signs I contend, stems from modern progressive educations' focus on trying to develop students' self esteem in the wrong way. Instead of teaching kids that self esteem must be earned through productive effort and the achievement of goals, many teachers take a shortcut around such effort and attempt to instill self esteem directly by telling youngsters that they are automatically and causelessly special, great, good, awesome etc.

But what happens to a child taught to believe his self esteem--which is how humans experience their moral worth--doesn't have to be earned, that it comes from the smiling faces and approval of others without any effort on his part? What happens if that sanction is not forthcoming? What is he to think of a reality that is supposed to make him happy but doesn't? Will he withdraw from it or strike out at it?

A third and proper option would be to check his premises but Prog Ed makes sure no one develops that ability. Several generations of adults have gone through Prog Ed. Many have survived this aspect of today's public schools having learned that true self esteem must be earned. Others will be affected in some way but few will be totally unscathed. Some of these will get together and decide to declare their schools to be gun free zones. This they think will show others how much they care about children and thus how morally good and noble they are. Some such people will find posting such attention getting signs to be nearly irresistible.

There is of course, nothing wrong with enjoying the approval of others between rational people as long as said approval is based on some earned values. But I want to urge that we purge from our schools the insane practice of instilling in children a false sense of self worth. It's my understanding that a push in this direction has already started. Recently a teacher gave a commencement address to a graduating class telling them "No, you are not special." This is a baby step in the right direction.

But the real solution is easy enough to see. All we have to do is look at the constantly rising quality and falling prices of Information Technology like cell phones and I-Pads and so on. We should all want this paradigm for our kids' education. So, lets place education on the free market by taking it out of the hands of government, getting rid of regulations while retaining rights protecting laws and watch the ensuing explosion in quality and plummeting costs affordable to everyone.