Once again, the progressive socialist democrats appear to be abandoning commonsense and opting for solutions that will worsen the problem.
While most individuals do not have the time nor the inclination to read hundreds of pages of policy position papers or otherwise engage in the day-to-day machinations of the nation's political machinery, it is incumbent on citizens to use common sense when considering political choices.
Forget the mainstream media moguls, the tech tyrants and their social media platforms, and the lying politicians who will say or do anything necessary to feather their own nests. Common sense is the answer, and when you hear the liberals demand you “put in the work,” trust them – it is probably the only time you will hear them suggest that a citizen needs to do something on their own rather than relying on politicians and the government with its humungous bureaucracy.
Could the answer to why the progressive socialist democrats are so malevolent be contained in a 1994 episode of Seinfeld?
George Constanza, the prototypical lose on Seinfeld…
"The Opposite" is the 86th episode of the NBC sitcom Seinfeld, which aired on May 19, 1994.
George remarks to Jerry in Monk's Café that every decision he has ever made has been wrong, and that his life is the exact opposite of what it should be.
Jerry convinces him that "if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right".
George experiments with doing the complete opposite of what he would do normally.
He orders the opposite of his normal lunch, and introduces himself to a beautiful woman who happens to order the same lunch, saying, "My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents." She is impressed and agrees to date him.
With all of their Orwellian traits, where up is down, left is right, and good is evil, could it be that a large cohort of progressive socialist democrats is composed of life’s losers like Seinfeld’s George Constanza? Doing the complete opposite of what is right and good for the country and putting forth their cockamamie ideas as public policy?
Consider the following scenario…
(1) Even if the schools are well-funded by rational standards, given first-priority in funding decisions and consuming a major portion of local and state taxes, the majority of the money is spent on unionized personnel, a disproportionate number of administrators, building programs, and vendor services going to politically-connected entities. The children in the classroom come last. And, the plea “it’s for the children” is a major falsity.
(2) Funding and support are distributed unequally among the schools, with less affluent areas receiving a smaller share of the funding and featuring both sub-standard infrastructure and teaching staff. Affluent parents with disproportionate political power appear to command the majority of the resources.
(3) In disproportionately minority schools, the lack of parental supervision and engagement is a major issue that leads to excessive disciplinary actions. In order to “manage” the factual basis for statistics revealing a disproportionate number of minority children being disciplined for infractions and more serious offenses, school systems have decided to allow minor transgressions to be excused and major transgressions to be swept under the rug. Let us remember that Treyvon Martin was a thug, a thief, and a burglar who was caught red-handed by the school police who declined to inform the community police – leading to his further crimes and eventual death. The best model for school safety replicates New York’s broken window policing model,” where you punish small offenses before the perpetrators can commit larger offenses.
(4) Teacher’s unions are doing little or nothing to improve the situation by demanding funding follow the student, implementing competition through charter schools, abandoning mandatory life-long tenure after a few years, demanding teachers be tested for teaching ability and subject-matter knowledge, demanding adequate infrastructure, restricting parents from assisting in schools and monitoring classroom behavior, and above all, demanding and enforcing personal safety standards.
Yet, we find a Biden nominee for Associate Attorney General wanting to implement national legislation to ban police officers from all schools…
Of course, the federal government should not be interfering in local and state educational activities, but it is an old extortion scheme. Do not follow our federal guidelines, and you will not receive a portion of the tax revenue we have confiscated from your taxpaying citizens. Even worse, we will sue and seek the right to monitor your schools and impose further restrictions. With their massively underfunded pension obligations, the loss of this money would be catastrophic for the unions and the adults concerned.
Nominee Vanita Gupta, the former CEO and president of an activist special interest group, “Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,” was the chief sponsor of a 416-page report, “New Era of Public Safety: A Guide to Fair, Safe, and Effective Community Policing,” that recommended banning all police officers from public schools.
Police officers should have no role in student disciplinary matters, and school districts should limit school requests for police assistance. Antagonistic interactions between officers and students disrupt learning environments and violate the principles of community policing. Moreover, they funnel students into the criminal justice system, which has long-lasting negative consequences for individuals and society.
For these reasons, elected officials should end the use of police in disciplinary matters and instead invest in and prioritize hiring school counselors, mental health counselors, community intervention workers, and restorative justice coordinators to respond to student behavioral problems.
Teachers and school administrators should also receive training in de-escalation, mediation, and crisis intervention so they have the skills and techniques to respond appropriately to student misbehavior.
Immigrant and undocumented youth are especially vulnerable to the presence of police in schools, and many face detention or deportation when police are involved in disciplinary matters. For this reason, communities should ask school districts that retain school police whether they share information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or with state or federal gang taskforces, and they should ensure existing agreements between police departments and schools don’t give officers access to student records.
For those of you who do not know about “restorative justice,” the basic theory is that both the perpetrator and the victim are both victims in need of healing. Of course, the progressive socialist democrats go on to explain that the perpetrator is a victim of their environment and an evil disproportionate political system managed by white supremacists. It often requires a community justice conference where the victims and offenders meet face-to-face in the presence of a trained facilitator to discuss solutions.
One can only imagine the physical and psychological consequences of putting a rape victim together with a rapist or the intimidation of a victim by a thug who has injured them.
Removing police from a school’s disciplinary options only makes sense in George Constanza’s “opposite” world…
What makes sense is that the progressive socialist democrats are pandering to the minority community they need in a coalition of victims to gain or maintain political power. Most of the elite progressives have private security, have protected residences, and do not suffer the consequences of their recommendations.
Perhaps it is time to deny the progressive socialist democrats our vote, punish crime appropriately, build enough facilities to incarcerate the worst offenders in an atmosphere where the inmates do not control the prison population because unionized guards are too lazy to implement common-sense guidelines that protect guards and inmates. And, as we can see, throwing more money at unionized prison guards is not the answer as they milk the system for more and more money. Put prisoners to work, helping to build-out infrastructure – with adequate training that can be used in the future and without requiring trade union membership is one solution. But is opposed by the trade unions who want to maintain their monopoly on labor.
As for schools, hold parents accountable for their children or take harsh disciplinary action against the children.
In the final analysis, one must ask: will the lack of police in a school setting protect students, teachers, and infrastructure, or will it exacerbate the chaos, confusion, and criminal activity that the progressives need in order to bring about their change and political revolution?
We are so screwed, and things are not looking better with Democrats in charge.