And just like that…

McAuliffe’s war on parents

Sometimes a politician slips up and reveals his true self. It rarely works out well for them.

In this case, McAuliffe shows the Democrat’s disdain for the common man and their perceived need for their betters to have power over him.

It isn’t just education, it’s every detail of our lives.

22 thoughts on “And just like that…

    1. If not own, then definitely have dominion over them and responsibility for them.

      But by the Democrat’s behavior, it would seem they think children are owned by the State.

      Like

  1. Maybe if parents are unhappy with their children’s education they should simply make more money and send their kids to private school or homeschool them rather than relying on the taxpayers to solve all their problems for them. Take some personal responsibility!

    They need to learn to budget better, stop drinking lattes and eating avocado toast, etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Or they could get a voucher for the equivalent of spending on government schools and apply that to tuition at a superior private school.

      They shouldn’t have to pay twice.

      Like

  2. In all seriousness, the conservative refrain–and one used extensively by Tabor–is that democracy is bad and that the freedoms of the minority must be protected from the “mob mentality” of the tyranny of the majority. Is a school district creating inclusive environments for LGBTQ kids not protecting minority rights from the frothing mob? Is the inclusion of minority points of view not a protection from the tyranny of the majority?

    In what other sectors do we demand amateur control over licensing boards or sanctioning bodies?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Protecting LGBTQ students from violence or harassment is certainly a duty of our schools. but protecting the privacy of other students and the integrity of student athletics is also.

      Consider how we deal with different types of dysphoria.

      Anorexics have a delusion that they are grossly overweight and must starve themselves to be normal.

      Gender dysphorics have a delusion that their gender is in conflict with their sex.

      Why are we supposed to intervene with the former and get them the psychiatric help they need, even against their will, but for the latter we are supposed to go along with their delusion?

      If we are required to address the non-binary as ‘they’ should we not also call the anorexic ‘fatty?’

      Should we tolerate sexual minorities? Absolutely, LGBTQ and the rest of the alphabet too. They should not be harassed or denied their full rights as citizens, But we are not required to support their delusion nor must our female athletes compete for scholarships and honors with biological males, nor shower with them in the locker room.

      We have a right to our own delusions but no right to force others to participate in them.

      Like

      1. “Why are we supposed to intervene with the former and get them the psychiatric help they need, even against their will, but for the latter we are supposed to go along with their delusion?”

        Because that’s the recommendation of the psychiatric community. Speaking of, the “rest of the alphabet” you say should “absolutely” be protected were also thought of to be “delusional” and a threat to others not too long ago.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Not sure what you’re getting at.

          Anything consenting adults want to do is none of my business, either as an individual or through government.

          But when others are involved without their consent, or when minors are involved, it is our business to protect them.

          So, what part of the alphabet are you referring to?

          Frankly, the opinion of the psychiatric community is not a basis for policy,

          They are concerned only with the effect on the patient, and not on others.

          Even if the general population supporting a gender dysphoric delusion were best for the patient(and I question that, considering the extremely high suicide rate) that does not mean it is harmless to others.

          My granddaughter should not have to share a locker room with biological males nor should she have to compete with them in women’s sports.

          Like

          1. What I’m getting at is that there are people such as yourself who are reactionary and it is only through protections of minorities that society comes to accept them.

            “Frankly, the opinion of the psychiatric community is not a basis for policy.”

            We’re talking about psychiatric issues, so yes, it should be.

            “They are concerned only with the effect on the patient, and not on others.”

            Again, in most any other instance, you are strongly in favor of minority protections, often at the expense of the majority. In this case, using preferred pronouns hurts nobody.

            “Even if the general population supporting a gender dysphoric delusion were best for the patient(and I question that, considering the extremely high suicide rate) that does not mean it is harmless to others.”

            Again, unless a trans kid has a toothache, your opinion doesn’t (and shouldn’t) carry much weight. Their suicide rates are high because people insist on deadnaming them and because their identities are not affirmed.

            I have a young daughter who will be going to public school in the coming years. I do not consider a young person struggling with their gender identity to be a threat to her or any other cis girl.

            Just FYI, locker room usage by a trans student requires a specific ruling by the superintendent of schools. A student can use bathrooms of their identity with a note from a doctor or attestation from parents. Locker room usage is adjudicated on a case by case basis.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “In all seriousness, the conservative refrain–and one used extensively by Tabor–is that democracy is bad and that the freedoms of the minority must be protected from the ‘mob mentality’ of the tyranny of the majority.”

      This characterization is not quite accurate. The tyranny of the majority is one of the mechanical reasons democracy cannot function as an effective form of government, but maintaining the freedoms of the minority is not an inherent purpose of government. In other words, the characterization confuses two different things.

      Any form of government can preserve freedoms. In practice the relevant questions are: What freedoms will be preserved and how will that preservation be accomplished?

      If preserving freedoms is what you care about, democracy is the worst way to do it, because it doesn’t require wisdom to form majorities for decision-making.

      The absolute right of parents to control their children’s education strikes me as a freedom that should be preserved. Today, however, we have an ironically-named political party that supports the abolishment of that right.

      Like

      1. “… absolute right of parents to control their children’s education strikes me as a freedom that should be preserved.”

        Where is that right guaranteed?

        Aside from that, any parent can pull his child from public schools. Whether they can afford to do so is the issue.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of ‘consensus.’

            But ideally, the money allotted for a child’s education should follow the child to whatever school the parent’s choose.

            That way, if the parents don’t like a school’s philosophy, they can take their business elsewhere, just as we do with everything else.

            Like

          2. I understand the meaning of consensus just fine. However, it is the loudest who tend to believe they have a consensus based on their volume, not their veracity.

            …” if the parents don’t like a school’s philosophy”…

            I’m sorry, but public schools have a pretty basic philosophy: “Educate children.” The rest that people are so loud about is just noise. And not good noise.

            Like

        1. RE: “Every parent gets to tailor the curriculum to their kid? Teachers have 30 lesson plans to make?”

          Is that absurd?

          Like

          1. RE: “Ask any teacher.”

            I have known quite a few in my life. Based on their examples, I’d say all teaching is personal.

            Like

  3. Yes McAuliffe sure did reveal his trueself and the smug elitist mindset of Democrats as a whole. They just think they know what’s good for you and by golly you will like it whether you like it or not. Of course many fall for the sales pitch of free money and we’ll take care of you infused with racial politics only to find out afterwards they lied at the common man’s expense.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s