National Anthem

NFL players and coaches during the playing of the National Anthem.

NASCAR driver, wife, and crew during playing of National Anthem.

The pictures say it all.

Reactions to Travel Restrictions Highlight Public Education Failure

Ironically, some of the ballyhoo surrounding the travel restrictions serves to highlight the failure permeating our system of public education.  One report describes how “tech giants” joined in an amicus curiae brief against the executive order.  The report states, “The ban prevents tech companies from attracting talent,” indicating they can not source enough “talent” from within the United States.

Public education is in shambles.  There is no other way to put it.  Story after story, report after report describe the problem from a variety of perspectives.  Attempting to counter these reports and stories, some elected officials employ a form of progressive sleight of hand to try to convince us the problem is not real.  One such ploy is reporting graduation rates are rising, thereby arguing education is improving. In perhaps one of the most egregious stories, in New York, “Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña cite the city wide 72 percent graduation rate as evidence that schools are improving. Rarely noted — only an average 37 percent of students graduate ready for college.” 

Only “37 percent of students graduate ready for college.”  Really?  And the same New York Post article reports, “But the stats are even worse at other schools such as Urban Assembly HS of Music and Art in Brooklyn, which boasted a 82.5 percent graduation rate but only 3.8 percent of the senior class was college ready.”  A measly 3.8 percent of a senior class was evaluated as college ready.  Almost concurrently the Mayor of New York touts “a record high graduation rate of 72.6 percent in 2016 after five straight years of improvement.”  Of course, teacher unions clap loudly at the otherwise abysmal results, with the Post reporting, “The teachers union also hailed the results.”  Even if accepting the claim of a 72.6 percent graduation rate, the level of college preparedness is highly questionable based on other reports.

The preceding examples come from one public school system in New York City, that bastion of liberal policies and approaches.  It can be argued that if New York City cannot provide quality public education, then it likely cannot be provided elsewhere.  And the tech sector relies on a highly educated workforce, though sadly the nation is meeting its public education responsibilities, with the former CEO of Sun Microsystems declaring public education is failing.  And this circles back to the views of “tech giants.”     

The tech giants complain about an inability to attract talent from overseas, implying if not outright stating they cannot find the talent they require within our country: a country with more than 50 million students in elementary and secondary education, according to The National Center for Education Statistics estimates.  Certainly the raw talent needed by the tech giants should be found in such a large student population.  Apparently not, if we are to believe the tech giants.

If nothing else decries the state of public education, certainly the complaints of leading tech companies that hire enormous number of employees must stand out.  Regardless of what the elected officials and school unions would have us believe, the public school system is failing too many of our citizens.  When major employers cannot find adequately numbers of prepared individuals for the workforce they need from local resources, and so complain about travel restrictions closing off some sources of potential employees, it rings as an indictment against public education. 

Ironic, isn’t it, that an unintended consequence of the ballyhoo surrounding travel restrictions is the stark and unambiguous condemnation of public education.    

Presidential judgment

A man is known by the company he keeps and whose counsel he accepts, because both reflect upon his judgment.  Arguably, no where is judgment more important than for the President of the United States.

The immediate past and current presidents have demonstrated exceedingly poor judgment in the company they keep and counsel they accept.  For Obama, it was Valerie Jarrett.  For Trump it is Steve Bannon.

Jarrett brought no distinctive credentials or skills to the position of Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental.  Reports swirled around her and the Obama administration concerning the extraordinary influence she seemed to hold over the president.  She was present is virtually every critical meeting.  She would take the place of agency experts at high level meetings.  She was provided Secret Service protection.  She reportedly was the one who persuaded (that is, told) the president to delay on multiple occasions the mission to get Osama bin Laden.  And the list goes on.  It became known that nothing would happen if Jarrett did not approve.


Now comes Bannon in a similar role.  If anything, it has been expanded upon, as evidenced by his being included in the Principals Committee of the National Security Council.  Bannon, like Jarrett before him, brings no distinctive credentials or skills to the West Wing of the White House (despite what some may say).  Like Jarrett, he is an ideologue.  Like Jarrett, he is of seriously dubious character.

Thus, there is justifiable reason to question President Trump's judgment.

Mr. President, please jettison Bannon immediately.  He is not the type company you should keep, nor is his counsel that which you should accept.  Your administration does not need, and should not have, a male version of Valerie Jarrett.