What kind of pseudo-journalism is this?
 |
| Kelly Stuart, aka Spider Karen, aka Granny Groomer |
I love my haters.
Kelly Stuart of El Segundo, CA has a long history of defaming, shaming, blaming, and naming common-sense residents, parents, Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists, anyone who wants to do what is right for children and adults alike.
She is decidedly anti-immigrant because she attacks immigrants who love America, who want to secure America's border, and who want to ensure a lawful passage of entry for anyone who wants to become an American.
Worse yet, however, she pushes the LGBT agenda, grooming kids and adults alike to fall into all sorts of perversions. She is a Granny Groomer.
And I live in her head rent free. Kind of creepy, but if that means she is panicking because her hateful games are getting exposed, then so be it.
Check out her latest tweets screaming for "help":
She doesn't understand that I do so much more for MassResistance, first of all. I am not merely in charge of the California chapter. I have been working with pro-family activists all over the country, all over the world. Her Karen crankiness goes further:Arthur Schaper, leader of CA chapter MASS Resistance, a hate group has written about me a few times. I don’t care. It’s the way he targets LGBTQ people and immigrants for hate that alarms me. His blog can be reported. https://t.co/wKKhYHts0F
— Sky Spider (@SkySpider_) July 31, 2022
As usual, she can't help but report the truth about many of the people I have exposed on this blog and in other writings, too. Indeed, any adult who thinks it's OK to push LGBT anything on children or force it into the public square is a groomer, a pervert, and a predator. Spider Karen falls into the category perfectly, or im-perfectly. It's not slander when it's the truth, and as you can see, the truth triggers her bigly.If you read through Arthur Schaper’s blog he targets numerous individuals, slanders them with labels like “ pervert” and “groomer” and incites hatred from his followers. He can be reported here https://t.co/mmNZiIGhYB
— Sky Spider (@SkySpider_) July 31, 2022
She actually admits that she is ugly! She is clearly paying attention to what I write about her.I have zero FTG about chuds posting crazy ugly pics of me. I do care about weaponizing hate towards vulnerable individuals and populations. MASS Resistance deserves more scrutiny- its funding, source of donations and campaigns of harassment against people need sunlight
— Sky Spider (@SkySpider_) July 31, 2022
Kelly Stuart, aka Spider Karen, aka Granny Groomer, is really panicking now!
She doesn't like the fact that people are exposing her abusive hate.
Now she is trying to supress the truth about the LGBT agenda, because she wants hurting people to be groomed and abused.
This is really shameful stuff. Check out her latest tweet:
Telling the truth is not inciting violence, except if you are a perverted liar and abuser like Kelly Stuart.Arthur Schaper uses his blog to incite violence against people. He uses it to drum up hate against LGBTQ people and immigrants. You can report his blog here https://t.co/3GTW7ntwBT
— Sky Spider (@SkySpider_) July 31, 2022
For a long time, I have commented that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful behaviors and destructive ideologies which prop them up and foist them onto others.
Now is the time to confront the men and women who insist on calling themselves allies of the so-called LGBT community.
And for the the record, even openly gay activist Douglas Murray has admitted that there is no such thing as the "LGBT Community":
Born Gay Hoax from highblur on Vimeo.
Every single man in the video above acknowledges that they were not "born that way." Why would you enable them to stay in bondage to a lie?
In 1966, George Takei, then 29, made TV history as an Asian-American actor in a leading role on a TV series, playing Lt. Hikaru Sulu on Star Trek. In October, Takei made history again by telling Los Angeles LGBT magazine Frontiers that he’s gay, in an interview about the East West Players stage production of Equus, in which he stars as psychiatrist Martin Dysart (through December 4).
You and your partner of 18 years, Brad Altman, have been out locally for years. Why did you come out now in the press?
I’ve been out for a long time—all my friends know; my partner, Brad, comes to fund-raising dinners with me. We’re recognized together [as donors to Japanese-American causes]. So we’ve been out in that respect in the Japanese-American community as well. I think it was more the political climate [that convinced me to speak to be out in the press at this time]. Society has been changing. Today gay teens are now feature stories in Time magazine—that generation thinks being gay is just a part of society. The world has changed dramatically. In my teenage days that was the most inconceivable thing. Because of the changes that are happening I see the potential for significant change—[the potential] that I might be able to contribute to the gay community as I have to the Japanese-American community and to the civil rights movement. Because of the changing public and political climate I think we need to get the numbers, and I can play a part in trying to bring some rationality to our society.
George Takei was politically active in many respects before his "coming out" about his sexual preferences. He had run for LA City Council in the 1970s, and before that he was invested in civil rights causes, specifically for reparations to Japanese-Americans deprived of their liberty and property during World War II.
Notice that he cloaks his sexual desires in the language of civil rights. Notice also that he positions himself as a champion for children.
However, how did George Takei become gay? We don't get information about his so-called sexual awakening until much later, during an interview on the Howard Stern show in 2006 (discretion advised):
Howard Stern: How were you alone? It’s summer camp.
George Takei: We were in the cabin.
Stern: And where were the other boys?
Takei: They were off hiking or something.
Stern: Do you think subconsciously you stayed behind because you wanted to be alone with him [the 19-year-old-camp counselor]?
Takei: No, there was some kind of reason why I had to be there.
Howard Stern had a guest host, Robin Quivers, and interjected questions, too:
Stern: And he sat down and he touched you… Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?
Takei: No, no. Cause I was kind of, you know—well, I thought he was pretty attractive.
Quivers: And you wanted to know why you felt this way.
Takei: Yes.
Quivers: Now wait a moment. He starts touching you how?
Stern: I don’t know if I need to hear all this.
Quivers: Does he put a hand on your knee? Or does he put his arm around your shoulder?
Takei: He puts his arm around my shoulders.
Stern: Oh yeah.
Takei: Then he started, you know, touching the private parts.
Robin Quivers: Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?
Takei: Oh, he was telling me about, you know, how life works.
Stern: And what did he do, did he perform oral sex on you?
Takei: It was a hand job.
Quivers: Was there kissing?
Takei: Oh, sure!
Stern: Who wants a hand job without kissing?
 |
| Chris Hannan |
However, the first part of his column shows the importance of fighting for life:
In California, the Building Trade, "the Construction Department of the AFL-CIO," has been standing up for workers' rights for more than 100 years.
It seems really strange that private sector unions consider abortion a "worker's right."
The ability to be a member of a union has empowered us to maintain this voice and our place in the middle class. Our country stands for freedom, including freedom to have differences of opinion, religious, and every possible difference imaginable.
Except, it seems, when it comes to defending the rights of the unborn. What really bothers me about this line of reasoning is that discussion is an abstraction. Yes, people can and should be able to discuss differences of opinion and make their points plainly heard without suffering consequences. However, when we are talking about human lives, the issue goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Life is a natural right, and natural law requires that we defend life.
One cannot claim that they can about freedom when in the same sentence they want to maintain the right to take life for any reason.
As the leader of this Building Trades Council, a union member and the father of a wonderful daughter and son, I feel th eneed to address a terrible step backwards for our country.
He is a parent, and he is a proud parent. He would have never been a parent if he had killed his children before they were born.
In 2018, my wife and I were told that our unborn son was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. At times, it seemed like we were encouraged not to bring our into this world.
Later in his column, he affirms that he and his wife put their children first, including their newborn son. They choose life, and that is a good thing.
But then he writes about his son:
David is a wonderful boy who brings joy to my life every day. He inspoires me every moment.
Guess what, Chris: every baby has that power and opportunity if they are allowed to be born!
And yet ...
In June, the United States Supreme Court overturned the law of the land that was codified in Roe v. Wade.
There are so many problems with this one sentence alone, I do not know where to begin. The Supreme Court does not make law, so it could not overturn a law, even if it wanted to. Second of all, because Roe was not a law to begin with, it was never a law in the first place! Third, the repeal of this decision does not strike down any abortion laws, because the Supreme Court rightly restored the legislative authority on this issue back to the states, where it has always belonged.
The ability of women to make their own health care deciscions was stripped away by the Supreme Court.
This is another ludicrous statement. Abortion access is not healthcare. Abortions hurt the mother, as much as they kill another life. This is the most outrageous rhetorical fraud in the whole abortion debate. On top of that, a mother's desire for healthcare is not compromised, even if the mother supposedly believes that includes abortion, because the mother can seek an abortion in a number of states.
When I read this article, I was struck by the lack of logical flow, since he talks about freedom, then he talks about being a parent, he then shares the joy of being a parent, then all of a sudden segues into criticizing the Supreme Court for repeal Roe.
He gives considerable attention to his joy in becoming a father, and he stands by he and his wife' decision to have their third child, even though he faced a significant health deformity. This line of reasoning would suggest that he is pro-life.
And yet, he believes that the Supreme Court was anti-freedom for requiring the states to enact codes allowing abortion. The court expanded freedom, and many states are taking a stand to protect life, which makes the expression of freedom possible.
I wonder how the members of the Building Trades Council feel about their current executive director. He is inarticulate, partially incoherent, politically obtuse, and greatly misinformed. Perhaps we can understand why so many union leaders throw in with the Democrat Party, and at the same time when many union members feel increasingly disenfranchised by their own leaders. Once again, what does pushing for abortion rights have to do with fighting for worker freedoms on the jobsite?
 |
| Time to move on from Reagan, wrote George F. Will as far back as 2007 |
Right before President George W. Bush's administration ended, George F. Will told conservatives that they needed to move on from Reagan.
Sadly, he didn't accept that the movement voters wanted meant Trump: a nationalist, populist, more isolationist foreign policy which focused on American citizens, stopped mass immigration (legal and illegal), and stopped with the reckless, globalist agenda-setting spending.
Will's call to move on from Ronald Reagan was published in 2007:
George F. Will:Conservatives must temper worship of Reaganism
WASHINGTON — In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis — gratitude decaying into idolatry — is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.
Reagan is dead, and Reaganism is dead. He met many of the challenges facing the country during the 1980s, and he scored a significant win in consigning international communism to the ash heap of history.
Today, the United State is looking at a harsher fate if We the People do not tackle the domestic marxism infecting our schools, universities, and other institutions.
That is one lesson of John Patrick Diggins' new book, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History." Diggins, a historian at the City University of New York, treats Reagan respectfully as an important subject in American intellectual history. The 1980s, he says, thoroughly joined politics to political theory. But he notes that Reagan's theory was radically unlike that of Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, and very like that of Burke's nemesis, Thomas Paine.
Burke believed that the past is prescriptive because tradition is a repository of moral wisdom. Reagan frequently quoted Paine's preposterous cry that "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."
This notion of "beginning the world again" would re-emerge with Barack Obama. Sadly, the change that he thought he would bring would be nothing more than corporate elitism spitting on the needs of everyday Americans. Reagan cared about America, he loved the American people, but the domestic issues we face today cannot be solved by the Reaganism of yesterday.
Diggins' thesis is that the 1980s were America's "Emersonian moment" because Reagan, a "political romantic" from the Midwest and West, echoed New England's Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Emerson was right," Reagan said several times of the man who wrote, "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature." Hence Reagan's unique, and perhaps oxymoronic, doctrine — conservatism without anxieties. Reagan's preternatural serenity derived from his conception of the supernatural.
George Will depended way too much on quotes. What a distraction!
Putting aside the stylistic problems, Will does drill down a deeper issue: conservatism without anxieties. The truth is that every human being should be in tune with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. This repository of natural law defines and embeds the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
We want the Laws of Nature to be crystal clear to every American. Then would they be restored to the cultural and legal heritage of this country. So, for this part I find Will's criticism a little unfounded.
Diggins says Reagan imbibed his mother's form of Christianity, a strand of 19th-century Unitarianism from which Reagan took a foundational belief that he expressed in a 1951 letter: "God couldn't create evil so the desires he planted in us are good." This logic — God is good, therefore so are God-given desires — leads to the Emersonian faith that we please God by pleasing ourselves. Therefore there is no need for the people to discipline their desires. So, no leader needs to suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination.
I disagree with this take. The Scriptures could not be clearer regarding human direction and will in conjunction with God's will and desires:
"12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)
Diggins thinks that Reagan's religion "enables us to forget religion" because it banishes the idea of "a God of judgment and punishment." Reagan's popularity was largely the result of "his blaming government for problems that are inherent in democracy itself." To Reagan, the idea of problems inherent in democracy was unintelligible because it implied that there were inherent problems with the demos — the people.
Human nature is flawed as well as fulsome, no doubt about that. Human nature does need to be limited, not expanded upon. This notion of human expansion and cheery optimism led to higher spending during his administration, with no real interest in tackling the massive debt that has only grown much, much worse over the last forty years.
There was nothing — nothing — in Reagan's thinking akin to Lincoln's melancholy fatalism, his belief (see his Second Inaugural) that the failings of the people on both sides of the Civil War were the reasons why "the war came."
It's essential for a president to rally and cheer up the citizenry, certainly, so I do not believe that a president should beat down on the national electorate exclusively. There is room, and much need, for course corrections among the people, no doubt. There is a fallen aspect to human nature which cannot be ignored, of course, for for that reason the United States Constitution instituted so many checks and balances on political power.
As Diggins says, Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding." To the founders, and especially to the wisest of them, James Madison, government's principal function is to resist, modulate and even frustrate the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires.
See above.
"The true conservatives, the founders," Diggins rightly says, constructed a government full of blocking mechanisms — separations of powers, a bicameral legislature and other checks and balances — in order "to check the demands of the people." Madison's constitution responds to the problem of human nature. "Reagan," says Diggins, "let human nature off the hook."
"An unmentionable irony," writes Diggins, is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism. "Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it." Unless people have a bad conscience about demanding big government — a dispenser of unending entitlements — they will get ever larger government.
There is a great deal of truth to this indictment. Reagan did not cut the spending, and he only slowed the growth of government. Today, forty years after the last inflation crises under President Jimmy Carter, the American public is enduring the long-term cost and consequences of printing money ad libitum.
But how can people have a bad conscience after being told (in Reagan's First Inaugural) that they are all heroes? And after being assured that all their desires, which inevitably include desires for government-supplied entitlements, are good?
Barack Obama would echo similar sentiments during his 2008 campaign and into this first and second inaugural. The cheery optimism that treats human beings as basically good, while the government and the environment are the truly flawed features, will create nothing but problems for true constitutional governance.
Similarly, Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do. But the Balkans reached a bloody boil because of the absence of effective government. Which describes Iraq today.
George Will was a vocal opponet of the War in Iraq, as was John McLaughlin and a number of other paleoconservatives. Strangely enough, George Will hated President Trump, who was the first President in thirty years to keep the United States out of war and scale back American military commitments around the world!
Because of Reagan's role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Diggins ranks him among the "three great liberators in American history" — the others being Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — and among America's three or four greatest presidents. But, says Diggins, an Emersonian president who tells us our desires are necessarily good leaves much to be desired.
It depends on what the desires are, and it depends how individuals push to realize those desires. If people want to use the government to fulfill their desires, they will find and create nothing but frustration. After Reagan, we have yet to see a Republican President who has been committed to cutting the spending and shrinking the size and scope of the state.
Will Trump follow through, should he get re-elected in 2024?
If the defining
doctrine of the Republican Party is limited government, the party must move up
from nostalgia and leaven its reverence for Reagan with respect for Madison. As
Diggins says, Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they
want to hear; the Madisonian persuasion tells them sobering truths that they
need to know.
The American people have many sobering truths to face, like the fact that demographic demise, via births and mass immigration, is hurting the structure of the country. The excessive spending due to the reckless entitlement promises must come to an end.
Reagan said that government is the problem, but he never stopped growing that problem. The next generation of leaders and representatives in Washington DC and around the world will have to get used to saying NO to lobbyists, grifters, and consultants, and say NO to growing government.
Human nature needs a heavey dose of NO at this time, now more than any other, and Reaganism cannot provided that needed check and balance.
On Sunday, July 10, 2022, I attended my first political meeting in over six months.
I was underwhelmed, to put it mildly.
There were not very many people attending (about 15 tops, and that included the speakers, and two of them had to leave early for another engagement). The youngest person there was 37 years old, and that young person was not me, either.
The main speaker was a candidate for the United States Senate, who is campaigning to run against Dianne Feinstein. We have to wonder if she even has a chance, since Feinstein is pushing 90 years old, with advanced evidence of dementia hampering her basic ability to move around the US capitol or engage in daily business.
She probably will not survive until the 2024 election.
At any rate, during the question and answer period, I asked the candidate if she would sponsor a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman. She was not open to doing that, but she would support legislation for that effort, and she made it very clear that she recognized marriage between one man and one woman.
While I was pressing her on this issue (as a US Senator, she could help start the movement to codify natural marriage in the United States Constitution), one of the older guys in the front of the audience shushed me: "People who pursue that are wasting their time."
It was really rude, and completely uncalled for. There was no reason for that guy to shame me.
After the meeting, I confronted that guy, and I told him off. "You had no right or reason to shut me down. That was totally uncalled for."
Another guy walked up to me, and he told me that we should just focus on California, and not worry about national issues. I could not believe that two people were wasting my time arguing with me about the desire for a constitutional amendment.
More to my credit, there were two people in the audience sitting near me who agreed with me. We need our elected officials to make the effort to move the cultural norms in the right direction in this country, even if they cannot succeed right away. One man sitting right next to me said, "You can't win if you don't try!"
Exactly.
And that's when I realized that this whole meeting and the club had turned into a complete waste of time. It seems like political conservative groups have no influence, no interest in doing anything, in getting anything done. All they want to do is bicker about internecine political conflicts about which club should represent which part of the South Bay in Los Angeles County.
There is no plan to win elections. There is no plan to register voters. There is no means or desire to raise money. It's just a bunch of old people who want to occupy their time on a Sunday afternoon. What is the point of going to these clubs, when there are no policy changes working in our direction?
I wonder how many of the members in that meeting even walked precincts to help elect local candidates? Did any of them do anything? Anything at all?!
Probably not. They had one dinner to give the candidates a chance to speak to the members, and even then that meeting was a dude. About twenty people showed up, and that was it. It was really disappointing.
To this day, I am not sure what is the point of these meetings, and I have stopped attending them. I am committed to not wasting my time with those meetings, too. The candidates do not have a chance, and there is no party apparatus, on infrastructure to guarantee any kind of victory for any candidates. All of it is a gross waste of time.
They don't want to win. They just want to whine.
They want to sit around and feel sorry for themselves because their candidates do not have a chance, and they believe that any effort is not worth the effort. There is too much gossip, too much hand-wringing, lots of complaining, but no interest in working.
I have had enough. For the time being, just count me out. I am so done with this waste of time and energy.
Why are teachers quitting the teaching profession?
Is it the money? NOPE!
I can tell you first-hand, that all the money in the world would not entice me back into the classroom. A six-figure salary is not enough for me, even with all the benefits. 60 Minutes did a report on an innovative charter school in New York City, where the teachers received considerably generous salaries (yes, six figures), but the workload was beyond intense. They were expected to be on call for the students, the school, the parents, the support staff all throughout the week. It was almost as though the teachers did not have a life of their own.
That was the feedback from some of the teachers, at least.
Don't take my word for it. You can hear it from them:
Recent studies have been released trying to figure out what teachers are quitting, and this report sheds some serious light on the issue:
REPORT: 615Midwestern Teachers Reveal Why They’re Really Leaving the Classroom
Data Contradicts Unions' Reasons for Shortage
Countless
education advocates have spent the last few months warning of the approaching
teacher shortage—myself included. Voices from the left have warned of every
reason from low teacher pay to COVID-19 policy to parents at school board
meetings, while closer colleagues of mine in the center and on the right have
suggested a behavioral crisis.
I set out to confirm a regional understanding of why so many teachers have announced their departure from Midwestern classrooms this year—either abandoning the field altogether or switching school districts.
Only K-12
teachers were invited to complete this seven question survey (three
introductory questions with four content/core questions). Limiting factors via
survey distribution and internal mechanisms functioned as an endeavor to keep
the data safer from the taint of political advocacy—though I will admit there
is no way to keep something like this sterile. Most likely, a different set of
615 qualified responders would yield a different result, therefore I only pose
that this is the best data I could collect independently, at the current time.
Of the 682 total responses, only 615 qualified to participate in the survey. 67 of the responses answered question two, “What is the staff email assigned to you by the district you currently/previously worked in?” with an email address not verifiable as a school email.
Additionally, teachers were asked if they were leaving their position as a K-12 teacher and what Midwestern state (Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio) they worked in. While the definition of what Midwestern means culturally is up for debate, this was a cultural region I had experience with—far more than either U.S. coastal corridor, for example.
Once past the initial three framing and introductory questions, four questions were presented to responders:
1. Given the
reasons below, what is the largest reason you’re leaving your position?
Salary is
insufficient
Student behavior
is poor and left unchecked.
Progressive
political activity (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, Critical Race Theory, Gender
Identity, etc.) required by administration.
Parental
concerns with your classroom (Demands from parents about curriculum,
instruction, etc.)
COVID-19
Policies
Safety concerns
about school shootings
Lack of
materials to teach effectively (self-financed classrooms, etc.)
Standardized
Testing
Licensure
Expiration or Professional Development requirements
Other
2. If salary were
considered an ancillary reason, i.e. “I’m not being paid enough to deal with
_______”, what would you suggest is the largest reason you’re leaving your
classroom?
Student
behavior is poor and left unchecked.
Progressive
political activity (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, Critical Race Theory, Gender
Identity, etc.) required by administration.
Parental
concerns with your classroom (Demands from parents about curriculum,
instruction, etc.)
COVID-19
Policies
Safety concerns
about school shootings
Lack of
materials to teach effectively (self-financed classrooms, etc.)
Standardized
Testing
Licensure
Expiration or Professional Development requirements
Other
3. If the present
administration could provide evidence that this specific problem is being dealt
with satisfactorily, would you return to this classroom?
Yes, this year
Yes, after a
year or more of proof
No
Not sure
Were you a
member of a local or national teachers union at some point during the previous
academic year?
Yes
No
Of the responders with salary as an included primary reason, 319 of the 615 responders listed student behavior as their biggest reason to leave the classroom, followed by 138 for “progressive political activity” and 134 for “salary is insufficient”.
When pay is listed as an ancillary reason in contribution to another factor, the numbers shift dramatically. 447 of 615 responders listed unchecked student behavior as their primary reason for leaving the classroom. 128 listed “progressive political activity”, while only nine listed parental harassment.
Students are getting away with all kinds of abusive behavior in the classroom. It's really bad.
In California, teachers are no longer allowed to remove students from a classroom for defiance. Can anyone imagine trying govern a classroom, when students know that there will be no repercussions for their misconduct? In Torrance Unified, where I live, one student told me that he had teachers who would "rage quit" frequently because of student outrages and abuses. He didn't fill in the blank on one issue, which was that mostly like the teacher did not have the authority to remove a student who was disruptive or disrespectful.
There is no way for a teacher to teach a classroom if the student does not respect the teacher. It's not going to work. In many cases, most teachers just give up on trying to teach real content, and instead the focus on pushing political activism. It makes them feel good, and it gives the students an outlet to act up.
Given this,
it’s beyond incredible that Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of
Teachers and Becky Pringle of the National Education Association would cite
Republicans’ and parents’ “politicization” of the classroom as the reason for
the teacher shortage. It’s not even a secondary or tertiary issue—it’s
forty-nine times less important to teachers than the behavioral crisis.
The "behavioral crisis" is precisely the way to put it. Parents are not disciplining their own children, and trial lawyers go to great lengths to intimidate school boards and administrators about discipline in the classroom. Add to this mess the proliferation of Critical Racist Theory, in which black and Hispanic students are taught to see themselves as perennial victims at the hand of white opppressors, and these kids can milk the system, act up any way they please, then shout "Racism!" if anyone tries to hold them accountable.
Furthermore, 356 of the 615 teachers reported that they were a member of a teachers union this previous year. It’s not just non-union teachers that are reporting these issues.
In other words, the teachers unions are not doing their jobs to protect the teachers! Wow, I am shocked-shocked!
I was surprised to see that only 21% of responders answered “yes” to returning to the classroom of the district if their complaints were reported to have been dealt with.
The numbers are that low, because there is no real hope that school districts wil implement effective policies to back up the teachers. They have seen "The Blob" that dominates school districts, in which the inertia of warring interest groups frustrates any meaningful reform.
In this first survey, I conclude that it’s reasonable (at the very least) to cast extreme doubt on union and education advocacy organizations claiming that pay and parental harassment are the primary issues for teachers leaving.
When salary is listed as a contributing factor, 93.35% of Midwestern teachers claim that their resignation is due to student behavior and progressive political activity required in their classrooms.
It's not about the money. It's just not. Time for politicians to stop lying to the public and stop demanding more money.
Personally, I had assumed that teacher licensure and professional developments would be a greater share of the responses.
One of the teachers who responded they were resigning due to fear of school shootings submitted their response May 25—the day after the Uvalde, Texas shooting.
One self-criticism of note is that I didn’t separate “Conservative/Republican education legislation” from “parental concerns.” Though the GOP legislative action was a direct derivative of parental distress beginning during the COVID-19 lockdowns, I should have split those. Also, I should have provided a text submission option for “If you selected ‘other’, why?” I’m rather curious as to what those responses represented.
I also should have added resignation options like, “I’ve reached retirement-age” and “inter-personal staff disagreements.” There are several others which come to mind; the options listed were found in a major publication (NPR, NEA, AFT, Chalkbeat, EdWeek, etc.) as a primary reason over the last 12 months.
True, there are other reasons why people call it quits, but the fact that teachers positively answered that student misconduct topped their reason for leaving, well that says it all.
Final Reflection
Teachers take a lot of crap, and the lack of power granted to teachers in the classroom is driving many of them out of the professional entirely. It's not enough to pay a teacher a good salary. They have to command the respect of the students, the parents, and the administrators. By and large, teachers are not getting the respect they need, let alone the respect they deserve, to run their classrooms. The fact that teachers unions are lying about the reasons for the teacher shortage proves the lack of respect they are getting from the very people who are supposed to be representing their interests in the first place!
 |
| Nas Daily confronted by Avi Remini of Rebel News |
Alex F