Ruby Bridges was chosen as the first child to integrate a public school in New Orleans. Six years old, she walked to school surrounded by federal marshals. After Norman Rockwell illustrated the photo, it became an iconic image as “The Problem We All Live With.”

Ruby Bridges was interviewed by Stephen Colbert, and it was a moving interview. He asked her if she was afraid when she saw the crowds of screaming white parents outside the school. She said, “No, I thought it was a Mardi Gras event.” When she entered the school, the crowd rushed in and withdrew their children, leaving her the only student in the school.

It’s a wonderful short interview, and she is a very impressive woman.

Ryan Walters, State Superintendent of Oklahoma, decided that he needed some out-of-state assistance in banning books from school libraries, so he appointed Chaya Raichik, who runs a far-right social media group, to help him.

NBC News reported:

A far-right influencer who was accused of instigating bomb threats against a school library in Tulsa, Oklahoma, last year has been named an adviser to a state library committee, the head of the state Education Department announced Tuesday.

Chaya Raichik, who runs the incendiary Libs of TikTok social media accounts and is not an Oklahoma resident, was appointed to the Education Department’s Library Media Advisory Committee.

“Chaya is on the front lines showing the world exactly what the radical left is all about — lowering standards, porn in schools, and pushing woke indoctrination on our kids,” state Superintendent Ryan Walters said in a statement. “Because of her work, families across the country know just what is going on in schools around the country.”

Raichik’s Libs of TikTok accounts have more than 3 million combined followers on X and Instagram. Its content — which is often laced with bigoted rhetoric — generally singles out LGBTQ people, drag queens and their employers, and it criticizes them for promoting diversity, inclusion and equity efforts.

In addition to last year’s scare in Tulsa, posts by the account have preceded several bomb threats to schools, libraries and hospitalsacross the country in recent years.

Raichik did not respond to a set of questions. The Libs of TikTok account replied to a request for comment on X with a compilation of drawings seemingly from young adult novels that depict sexual encounters and asked: “Do you think this is appropriate for kids in school?”

Walters said in a statement, “Chaya Raichik and I have developed a strong working relationship to rid schools of liberal, woke values.”

In August, Union Public Schools, a school district that covers parts of Tulsa and some of its suburbs, said it received bomb threats for six consecutive days. The threats came after Raichik shared a critical video about one of its school librarians.

The video Raichik posted showed a school librarian walking next to a bookshelf, and it was captioned: “POV: teachers in your state are dropping like flies but you are still just not quite finished pushing your woke agenda at the public school.” The video replaced the librarian’s original caption, which read: “My radical liberal agenda is teaching kids to love books and be kind — hbu??”

This article in Politico is a must-read. It describes Donald Trump’s strategy of using the courts to undermine the rule of law. He has been doing it for 50 years, with great success. His lawyers come and go but Trump loves the courtroom. Much as some might challenge his intellect, the fact is that he is a brilliant legal tactician. He has figured out how to turn the courtroom into his personal stage, where he defies the law, the prosecutors, even the judge, where he mocks them all, ignores their decisions, appeals and appeals.

How does he do it? Read the article by Michael Kruse. Trump learned at the feet of Roy Cohn, who served not only Senator Joe McCarthy but the Mafia and a rogues gallery of unsavory defendants. From Cohn he learned to fight back aggressively, suing whoever sued you, never compromising or giving in.

The article begins:

NEW YORK — What happened in Room 300 of the New York County Courthouse in lower Manhattan in November had never happened. Not in the preceding almost two and a half centuries of the history of the United States. Donald Trump was on the witness stand. It was not unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence just because it was a former president, although that was totally true. It was unprecedented because the power dynamic of the courtroom had been upended — the defendant was not on defense, the most vulnerable person in the room was the most dominant person in the room, and the people nominally in charge could do little about it.

It was unprecedented, too, because over the course of four or so hours Trump savaged the judge, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the case and the trial — savaged the system itself. He called the attorney general “a political hack.” He called the judge “very hostile.” He called the trial “crazy” and the court “a fraud” and the case “a disgrace.” He told the prosecutor he should be “ashamed” of himself. The judge all but pleaded repeatedly with Trump’s attorneys to “control” him. “If you can’t,” the judge said, “I will.” But he didn’t, because he couldn’t, and audible from the city’s streets were the steady sounds of sirens and that felt absolutely apt.

“Are you done?” the prosecutor said.

“Done,” Trump said.

He was nowhere close to done. Trump’s testimony if anything was but a taste. (In fact, he said many of the same things in the same courtroom on Thursday.) This country has never seen and therefore is utterly unprepared for what it’s about to endure in the wrenching weeks and months ahead — active challenges based on post-Civil War constitutional amendments to bar insurrectionists from the ballot; existentially important questions about presidential immunity almost certainly to be decided by a U.S. Supreme Court the citizenry has seldom trusted less; and a candidate running for the White House while facing four separate criminal indictments alleging 91 felonies, among them, of course, charges that he tried to overturn an election he lost and overthrow the democracy he swore to defend. And while many found Trump’s conduct in court in New York shocking, it is in fact for Trump not shocking at all. For Trump, it is less an aberration than an extension, an escalation — a culmination. Trump has never been in precisely this position, and the level of the threat that he faces is inarguably new, but it’s just as true, too, that nobody has been preparing for this as long as he has himself.

Trump and his allies say he is the victim of the weaponization of the justice system, but the reality is exactly the opposite. For literally more than 50 years, according to thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of interviews with lawyers and legal experts, people who have worked for Trump, against Trump or both, and many of the myriad litigants who’ve been caught in the crossfire, Trump has taught himself how to use and abuse the legal system for his own advantage and aims. Many might view the legal system as a place to try to avoid, or as perhaps a necessary evil, or maybe even as a noble arbiter of equality and fairness. Not Trump. He spent most of his adult life molding it into an arena in which he could stake claims and hunt leverage. It has not been for him a place of last resort so much as a place of constant quarrel. Conflict in courts is not for him the cost of doing business — it is how he does business. Throughout his vast record of (mostly civil) lawsuits, whether on offense, defense or frequently a mix of the two, Trump has become a sort of layman’s master in the law and lawfare.

“He doesn’t see the legal system as a means of obtaining justice for all,” Jim Zirin, the author of Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits, told me. He sees it rather as a “tool,” said Ian Bassin, a former White House lawyer in the administration of Barack Obama and the current executive director of Protect Democracy, “in his quest to command attention and ultimately power.” But it’s not merely any tool. It’s his most potent tactic and fundamental to any and all successes he’s had. “There’s probably no single person in America,” said Eric Swalwell, the Democratic member of Congress from California and a former prosecutor and Trump impeachment manager, “who is more, I would say, knowledgeable and experienced in our legal system — as both a plaintiff and as a defendant — than Donald Trump.”

Many have been confounded by the legal system’s inability to constrain Trump, by his ability to escape at least thus far any legal accounting for behavior that even some leaders of his own party excoriated — and why that reckoning might never come. To understand this requires seeing Trump in a new mode — not as a businessman-turned-celebrity-turned-politician, or as a nationalist populist demagogue, or as the epochal leader of a right-wing movement, but rather as a legal combatant. “This is not a political rally — this is a courtroom,” the judge admonished him at one point in November in New York. It was only in the most technical sense correct. Just as he had upended the norms inside the New York courtroom, Trump has altered the very way we view the justice system as a whole. This is not something he began to do once he won elected office. It has been a lifelong project.

Please read the article. You will understand the present moment far better if you do.

In a decision that was a happy surprise, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration’s view that federal law controls international borders, not state law.

The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting with the three liberal justices.

Governor Greg Abbott ordered that razor wire and buoys be strung across the Rio Grand at locations where migrants were crossing from Mexico to Texas. The U.S. Botder Patrol was blocked by the Texas National Guard, which took control of policing the border. Three migrants, a woman and her two young children, drowned while the Texas National Guard watched and prevented the Border Patrol from rendering assistance.

The Biden administration sued the state of Texas, asserting the primacy of federal law. The federal district court ruled in favor of the federal government. Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative in the nation, which ruled in favor of Texas. Many legal scholars thought that ruling was bizarre.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government and against Texas, meaning that the U.S. Border Patrol will resume their duties. This decision is a knock on the secessionist inclinations of far-right firebrand Greg Abbott and the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

This decision knocked down the claim that state law could override federal law and that a state on the international border could take control.

What’s truly shocking is that four justices were willing to give states the authority to overrule federal law. Shades of 1860!

In part 1 of his two-part series, Yoav Fisher explains why Israel lost the war. In part 2 of his two-part analysis, Yoav Fisher explains why Hamas lost the war.

Conclusion: there are no “winners” in this war. Israel must accept a two-state solution, agreeing that Palestinians must have their own autonomous state. Hamas must abandon its core belief that Israel ought to be eliminated. Both sides must sit down and negotiate in good faith. Clearly, this will not happen with the current leadership on both sides. For the sake of peace, outside forces (including the U.S. and Arab nations) must intervene to bring about a robust and lasting peace. This situation is yet another reason to oppose the return of Donald Trump; he is close to Netanyahu and will do nothing to betray his friend.

The links in his article did not appear when I laboriously copied it, paragraph by paragraph. Open his article to see his links to sources.

Fisher writes:

Hamas lost the Domestic Front

The alleged goals of Hamas, specifically freedom for Palestinians, failed miserably. Palestinians are no more free now than they were on October 6th. Actually, Palestinians in Gaza are significantly worse off than they were before. Every single dead Gazan would be alive right now had Hamas not instigated a war (#facts).

Hamas has had a stranglehold on Gaza from the day they came to power — neglecting the basic needs of citizens, hoarding resources and foreign donations for themselves and their Jihadi terrorist aims, neglecting infrastructure, and using civilians as human shields.

Palestinians themselves have been aware of this for years, and more and more voices of Palestinians themselves are starting to speak out against Hamas, chipping away at the false narrative that Hamas actually cares about Gazan citizens.

Hamas also failed domestically regarding the Arab population in the West Bank and in Israel. Hamas expected the West Bank to flare up, which it didn’t. Hamas also hoped that Arab Israelis would rise up as well. In fact, the exact opposite happened. Arab Israeli have largely stayed loyal to Israel.

Arab Israelis are supremely practical, aware, and knowledgeable about the situation in the Middle East, infinitely more so than privileged white kids on TikTok. They all know that being an Arab Israeli in Israel is a hell of a lot better than being in any of the neighboring countries

Contrary to what everybody is seeing on social media, Israel is not an Apartheid state. Arab Israelis have full legal protection of their civil liberties. Arab Israelis, particularly women, enjoy freedom, economic opportunities, education, and healthcare in ways that are unheard of in neighboring countries, and more and more of them are speaking out against the Hamas narrative.

It is true that this war has economic ramifications for Israel, but even on this front Hamas failed. The Israeli economy has mastered the war-life balance and is already showing signs of future success. Intel’s CEO Pat Gelsinger went on the record publicly lauding the resiliency of the Israeli economy, and is about to quadruple-down with a $25B infusion into the economy.

Case in point: Elbit’s stock price. What happened on the 31st of October? The whole world saw Israel shoot down a Houthi ICBM from the stratosphere. You know what happened Nov 1st? The whole world called Israel and placed orders for more Israeli tech.

So yeah, Hamas lost. The only thing they “won” is more dead Palestinians that they can use as clickbait to pull heartstrings and purse strings.

Hamas lost the Arab front

Below the surface there have been some interesting activities.

First, all of the Arab countries did not come to bat. Sure, they make grandiose speeches and some fire rockets, but none actually committed themselves to Hamas’ aims. Not even Hizballah and Iran (not yet at least). Instead, the Arab countries are letting Hamas take the fall, ultimately at the expense of Gazan civilians.

Hamas has also caused massive disruptions in the Middle East, disruptions that are causing economic damage to many of the countries in the region.

Take the Houthis for example — the Jihadi sister-wife of Hamas. Their recent provocations in the Gulf of Aden are actually most irksome to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Saudi Arabia exports billions of dollars of refined oil from Yanbu, through the Bab Al-Mandab straight to Asia. Egypt collects over $9B in transfer fees from usage of the Suez Canal, a key source of liquid cash flow. So don’t be surprised if the Houthis suffer a quick blow from another Muslim country.

Cracks are beginning to show in the broader Muslim world. Hamas, ISIS, and all the other Jihadi extremist groups have been slaughtering other Muslims for decades, and people are starting to speak up.

The majority of people across the MENA region want to wake up in the morning and deal with the mundane — send their kids to school, make some money at work, etc… Hamas and Jihadi terrorism has been interrupting progress in the greater MENA region since the day Islam was created.

Raheel Raza and Mohammed Rizwan summarize this point recently in the National Post:

Support for Palestinian cause comes from a fear that if Israel is allowed to exist in peace and security, its democratic values will eventually permeate the region.

Ouch.

Hamas lost on the Global front

Over the last two decades Hamas, and the larger Jihadi terrorist umbrella, have done an excellent job of indoctrinating Western white kids to hate Israel and to hate Western/European Liberal values.

Over the last two decades Hamas, and the larger Jihadi terrorist umbrella, have done an excellent job of indoctrinating Western white kids to hate Israel and to hate Western/European Liberal values.

But Hamas, and the larger Jihadi terrorist umbrella have lost the Global front because that mask is coming off — and more people are becoming aware of the dangers.

The whole world now knows that Hamas actually committed war crimes: Murdering civilians, including children and babies, mass rape, and taking hostages. Even those that deny these things happen know these atrocities actually did happen.

We know now that Jihadi terrorism has been pumping cash to American universities for years.

We know now that Students for Justice in Palestine is a Jihadi death cult, with no interest in Justice and no interest in Palestine except when used as an excuse to let out some violent Anti-Jewish steam.

We know now that SJP is backed by American Muslims for Palestine, which is run by 4 known Hamas operators, most notably Hatem Bazian, lecturer of the Department of Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley. (side note — AMP is tied to multiple organizations that have taken in donations from Americans and used them to fund Hamas militancy — Bazian is tied to all of them. Go down the rabbit hole if you dare).

The world is becoming acutely aware of the ugly side of Islamic Jihadi extremism — the violence, the brutality, and the lack of respect for basic morality and rule of law, all driven by the desire to establish a global caliphate of Sharia law.

It has spilled over into all corners of the world and it is a global problem.

The harsh truth is that it is not Jews who threaten to attack churches on Christmas.

It is not Jews who attack police in New York or Berlin and burn down cities in “peaceful” protests.

It is not Jews who make bomb threats to elementary schools.

It is not Jews who harass children at a public mall and shout death threats.

It is not Jews who coordinate mass rape on the streets of Cologne.

Jews don’t massacre 200 Christian civilians over Christmas in Nigeria.

Jews don’t ban girls from getting educated beyond sixth grade.

Jews don’t troll the streets shouting to gas or kill other religions.

Jews don’t go on TV to justify child marriage like this guy:

The world is quickly becoming aware of the insidious nature of militant Jihadi extremism, and is starting to take action.

Italy is shutting down Mosques that preach violence and the primacy of Sharia law over civil law.

Years of violence in the streets of the Netherlands (again — not Jews) led to the election of Geert Wilders, who has this to say about Islam:

To many people in Europe, the US, Canada, and elsewhere, Islam has a problem with violence. It has a problem with homophobia. And it definitely has a problem with treatment of women. Every single one of the 54 UN-designated terror organizations is Muslim.

As Jimmie Akesson, leader of Sweden’s 2nd largest political party stated recently:

“We must confiscate and demolish mosques where anti-democratic, anti-Swedish, homophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda is spreading in Swedish society.”

Hamas gave legitimacy for the extreme, violent and militant aspects of Islam to act out. And the world is watching.

Hamas was the catalyst for all of this because they decided to video everything and share it with the world. And now the world is seeing what Jihadi Islamic extremism looks like on their own soil. And for those that still don’t know, Hamas did the world a favor and documented the whole thing, so we will be able to watch in horror for generations to come.

There are many who may see this as Islamophobia. But there is an increasing amount of people out there who question if Islamophobia is even a thing, or just another PR push. Statistically, Islamophobia has actually been decreasing over the last decade.

So what now?

To recap, Hamas launched a war, and now they are subsequently losing a war. Hamas did not “free Palestine”, they did not eliminate the state of Israel from the River to the Sea. All they did was cause the death of thousands of Gazans, which they used as clickbait to fuel a global Antisemitic PR campaign.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch… this came with a steep cost.

Hamas did not get the results they want from Arabs in the West Bank, and certainly not from Arab Israelis. Hamas did not get support from their friends, and left a trail of massive internal upheaval within the Arab world.

Hamas was also the catalyst for violent and insidious protests and criminality by Islamic extremisms all over the world, and also the subsequent blowback.

The vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadi militants, but those that are, like Hamas, are causing irreparable damage to the greater MENA region, to the world, and to the image of Islam as a whole.

The only way out of this is for the Arab world to rise up and rid themselves of their extremist, violent members.

(N.B— why is it that when any Muslim dares to question the given narrative, they are immediately either harassed, issued death threats, or actually killed? Doesn’t that just prove the point that Islam has a problem? In normal countries, issuing death threats lands you in jail. Killing someone who just has a different opinion lands you in jail. In Muslim countries killing someone who just has a different opinion on Islam gets you TikTok followers and a commemorative SJP t-shirt.)

While rummaging around the Internet, I came across two connected articles by a writer I had not heard of. I was so impressed by his clarity that I wanted to share his analysis with you. Fisher is Head of Health Innovation at HealthIL.org in Tel Aviv.

Part 1 is titled: Israel Has Lost the War.

Part 2 is titled: Hamas Has Lost the War.

This is the first part of a two-part series.

We will cover how Israel lost on the domestic front, on the Jewish Community front, and on the Global front. And then some ideas of what to do.

Harsh truths coming your way…

Make sure to read Part 2 on how Hamas Has Lost The War — as I have stated before, it is imperative to look at both sides.

ISRAEL LOST THE DOMESTIC WAR

On Oct. 7th Hamas Terrorists instigated a war — killing civilians, including children and babies, and taking hostages — of which over 100 are still in captivity.

Israel responded by launching an assault on the Hamas Terrorists in the Gaza strip, of which thousands of Gazan civilians have also tragically perished.

Israel effectively lost the second they decided to respond because they played directly into Hamas’ well-known trap of forcing a strong response from Israel, which galvanizes Jew Hatred, which forces Israel to back down and let Hamas replenish for the next round. Lather, rinse, repeat.

As Tom Friedman suggested recently in the NYT, maybe it would have been better for Israel to think strategically instead of instinctively and let the atrocities of Hamas resonate across the globe and create an alternative plan with the help of allies (what few remain).

But Israel’s true failure isn’t tactical, it is internal.

Ever since Netanyahu started his 16 year choke-hold on Israel, his government has failed to treat Hamas as the Jihadi terrorist organization it really is, turning a blind eye toward repeated warnings, and all for the sake of narcissism, holding on to power, appealing to far right settler/ultra-orthodox crazies, and actively avoiding any conversation about “Peace.”

In fact, in the weeks before Oct 7, the Netanyahu government moved soldiers from the Gaza border to the West Bank, allegedly to “protect” a bunch of settler crazies who wanted to build a Sukkah in the West Bank to provoke the Palestinian population.

And then everything blew up.

The longer-term result of the October 7th Massacre is the complete destruction of internal trust. Israelis no longer trust the government to protect them. Israelis no longer trust each other — and there is a fear that the already tenuous relationship between Israeli Jews and Muslims will erode into chaos.

And Israelis no longer trust in the future of the country.

There is little doubt that this Netanyahu government will screw it up, and there doesn’t seem to be any plan for the future — whether it is dealing with Hamas, dealing with Hizballah, or anything else. So far Israelis have received no cogent plan for anything; just pomposity and calls from crazy right wingers to create new settlements in Gaza.

Israel Lost the Jewish Front

Let’s be real for a second. Israel, and Jews, have lost credibility. It doesn’t matter how many times Israel (or Jews) call out blatant one-sided hypocrisy, it falls on deaf ears.

Support from the global community is quickly waning, and even Israel’s historic allies like Canada, Australia, and the UK are backpedaling.

And can you blame them? How do Israeli politicians expect anybody in the world to trust Israel? The country has a prime minister who is a criminal, but is un-convicted. It has far right settler crazies who go on violent rampages in the West Bank but are never prosecuted. And very recently, Simcha Rothman, an ultra-conservative member of parliament (Knesset) submitted a proposed bill to the government denying due process to Hamas terrorists.

This creates a moral conundrum: is Israel a country that respects the rule of law for all, or is the rule of law selective only to Jewish Israelis? Keep in mind this is the same Simcha Rothman who was put in charge of ramrodding the preposterous Judicial Reform in Israel — moving the country markedly away from Democracy and toward a theocratic dictatorship.

Long gone is the Israel of the Biden generation — when Israel granted even Eichmann a trial and due process of law, and even paid for Eichmann’s legal fees (!!!). The Israel of today, as seen from the global lens, is one where morality is tossed aside in favor of courting favor with far-right extremists and Ultra-Orthodox religious fanatics, all so Netanyahu can maintain his seat on the throne.

David Ben Gurion spoke passionately of Israel as the “Light Unto the Nations” — a moral and social beacon in the middle of a violent and backwards Middle East. Over the last two decades Israel has had a number of opportunities to rise above and build long term strategic plans to ensure stability and possibly even Peace. Instead, Israel decided to cave to the short-sighted whims of far right extremists and the Ultra-Orthodox.

Turns out that Israel isn’t a “Light Unto the Nations”, but is just as crappy as every other country…

So what to do now?

This part is much easier said than done.

1. Halt all expansion in the West Bank; immediately and permanently.

This is not a PR trick. Continued Israeli expansion in the West Bank is untenable in the long run, politically, morally, and economically. (I wrote that article in 2014! Think how much worse it is now). I don’t know what to do with the settlements going forward, but stopping expansion needs to happen now.

2. Get rid of the crazies.

All of the fanatic right wingers need to leave. They are causing material damage to Israel, politically, economically, internationally. Of course, this requires voting them out (yes, Israel is a democracy).

3. Support non-Jewish Israelis

This may come as a shock to many readers, but Israel is not, in fact an Apartheid state. Non-Jewish citizens get full rights as Jewish citizens, as protected by law. But (big but), inequalities are persistent and have been neglected for decades. Israel needs to do more to address inequality for Arab Israelis (Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc…). They are a vital and vibrant part of the country and represent over 20% of the population.

4. End this silly “Judicial Reform”

Obvious.

5. Stop bankrolling Ultra-Orthodox idleness

Israel is a global powerhouse of technological innovation in all sectors. Every single country in the world benefits from Israeli innovation, directly or indirectly. I firmly believe that shared economic well-being can be a major impetus toward coexistence (see Israel and the UAE). The Israeli health-tech sector (near and dear to my heart) has the potential to improve lives across the globe, especially across the greater MENA region.

But tech innovation and the shared prosperity and progress that comes with it has one major prerequisite — smart human capital. Every cent that goes toward unproductive aims — like massive subsidies to the Ultra Orthodox — do damage to Israel’s future.

Plus, I don’t want to live in a theocracy.

6. Admit you can’t “Destroy Hamas”

I get the need to rally around the flag, but it is also impossible. You can’t “eliminate Hamas” because Hamas is not a person or a group — it is an ideology. Much like ISIS was never really eliminated.

This means Israel needs to shift focus toward strategic longer term approaches and not pure militant approaches.

Good luck to all of us.

My view: I endorse Yoav Fisher’s views. But I would go even farther than him regarding the West Bank settlements, which is easy for me to say since I don’t live in Israel. I think they should be completely removed from the West Bank, because that area would be part of any future Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon dismantled Israeli settlements in Gaza in 2005, despite angry protests. But he knew it had to be done. The West Bank settlements don’t belong there; they were intended to be an obstacle to a new Palestinian nation.

And as a note to readers, I want to explain Fisher’s reference in point 5 to “Ultra-Orthodox idleness.” These groups, known as Haredi in Israel, believe that boys and men should devote themselves to studying Torah. They are exempt from military service, and they pay little, if any, taxes. Their wives, who are second-class citizens, work at low-wage jobs to support the family. The Haredi are politically powerful, even though they are only 10% of the population (and growing), and they are subsidized by the government.

An article in Foreign Policy—written before October 7– claimed that Haredi power had peaked, but that may have been wishful thinking. After that fateful day, some Haredi volunteered and some even joined the military. But secular Jews like Fisher nonetheless believe that the government should not subsidize their life of Torah study.

Nancy Bailey is a retired educator who has seen the damage wrought by No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the nonsensical grandchild called Every Student Succeeds Act. We can say now with hindsight that many children were left behind, we did not make it to the Top, and every student is not succeeding.

Nancy knows that the greatest casualty of these ruinous federal laws and programs are young children. Instead of playing, instead of socializing, instead of living their best lives as children, they are being prepared to take tests. This is nuts!

Nancy explains in this post (originally from 2021 but nothing has changed) why the status quo is harmful to small children and how it should change. I should mention that Nancy and I wrote a book together—although we have never met!

EdSpeak and Doubletalk: A Glossary to Decipher Hypocrisy and Save Public Schooling https://a.co/d/bXKYsZG

Here’s Nancy on what kindergarten should be:

Let’s remember what kindergarten used to be, a happy entryway to school. Children attended half a day. They played, painted pictures, dressed up, pretended to cook using play kitchens, took naps on their little rugs, learned how to take turns, and played some more. They listened to stories, proudly told their own stories, described something unique about themselves during show-and-tell, mastered the ABCs, counted to 10, printed their names, and tied their shoes. They had plenty of recess and got excited over simple chores like watering the plants or passing out snacks. They had art and music and performed in plays that brought families together to generate pride and joy in their children and the public school.

Then, NCLB changed kindergarten in 2002. The Chicago Tribune described this rethinking well, which I’ve broken down.

  • In some schools, kindergarten is growing more and more academically focused–particularly on early reading. 
  • The pressure to perform academically is trickling down from above, many experts say, because of new state and federal academic standards.
  • . . . in one Florida classroom some children “cried or put their heads on their desks in exhaustion” after standardized achievement tests. 
  • One Chicago public school kindergarten teacher quit in part because of what she considered unrealistic demands of administrators who expected kindergartners to sit all day at desks, go without recess and learn to read by year’s end. The teacher wanted to create centers for science, art and dramatic play but was forbidden.
  • In some places, kindergarten, once a gentle bridge to real school where play and learning easily intermingled, is becoming an academic pressure-cooker for kids, complete with half an hour of homework every night. 
  • Some parents are alarmed enough that they’re “redshirting” their children, holding them back from kindergarten for a year so they will be more mature.

So how will they rethink early childhood again? Instead of kindergarten being the new first grade will it become the new third or fourth grade, with more standards piled onto the backs of 5-year-olds?

What happens to the children who are developing normally and can’t meet the standards, or children who have disabilities and need more time? Will they be labeled as failing, sorted into the can’t do kids who get bombarded with online remedial programs?

The harder they make early learning for young children, the more likely parents will seek more humane alternative placements that treat children like children.

It’s time to start caring more about the children and less about driving outcomes or results that don’t make sense.

I am sharing the best standards for children of all time, written by now-retired teacher extraordinaire, Sarah Puglisi.

Here’s a sample. Please go to the link and read all 100 of them. Then bring back kindergarten!

As I noted previously, the richest man in Pennsylvania, Jeff Yass, gave Governor Gregg Abbott a gift of more than $6 million to push hard for vouchers, and he did. Abbott lost his fight for vouchers in the regular session of the Legislature, and he called four additional special sessions to keep trying. He refused to give increases to public schools and raises to teachers unless he got vouchers, but he didn’t get vouchers. Some rural Republicans held out against him, because they didn’t want to hurt their local public schools, the schools they graduated from. So Abbott spread the $30 billion state surplus as a property tax cut, schools be damned. After failing to pass vouchers, Abbott threatened to primary the rural Republicans who did not support vouchers. And now it begins, as big money flows into the primaries in Republican districts to defeat the public school supporters.

Robert T. Garrett and Philip Jankowski wrote this article for the Dallas Morning News:

AUSTIN — A looming dogfight over “school choice,” fast emerging as a litmus test issue within the Texas GOP, has triggered a rush of huge campaign contributions in the run-up to the March primary.

Most of the money is flowing to legislative candidates who favor voucherlike programs that proponents say will rescue some Texas families from ill-suited public schools — and to committees such as those controlled by Gov. Greg Abbott that are bent on defeating “school choice” opponents.

Republican House lawmakers who oppose Abbott’s proposed education savings accounts as a potentially budget-busting entitlement are receiving some financial help to ready their defenses, according to new campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Generating applause and protests was Abbott’s receipt late last year of $6.25 million from Wall Street billionaire Jeff Yass, an options trader who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs.

Yass, a longtime crusader for voucherlike programs, also gave $500,000 last month to AFC Victory Fund, a new entrant in the Texas school voucher wars.

Its parent, the American Federation for Children, has long been associated with former U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

The richest man in Pennsylvania may want a school voucher program in Texas, but Texans don’t,” said Nicole Hill, communications director of AFT Texas, referring to Yass. Hill’s union represents 66,000 teachers and support personnel in Texas school districts, along with higher education employees.

Abbott’s push

Abbott has vowed to help defeat fellow Republicans who tanked his ESA proposal. While the three-term Republican governor has restored his war chest to nearly $39 million, he hasn’t begun spending in the House primary battles taking shape — at least, as of Dec. 31, according to his reports, which covered the last six months of 2023.

In addition, the AFC Victory Fund had nearly $3.3 million in cash. It and other pro-school choice PACs are expected to open their checkbooks soon.

Meanwhile, the 7-month-old Family Empowerment Coalition PAC, a pro-ESA group cofounded by Dallas businessman DougDeason, showered $175,000 on Republican insurgents trying to unseat seven of the House GOP incumbents who defied the governor.

Risk to incumbents

Speaker Dade Phelan, who remained neutral in last fall’s fight over using public money to help subsidize private school for certain families, is defending incumbents, including the “rural 16” who defied Abbott.

Of the 21 Republicans who joined Democrats in killing ESAs in November, 16 are seeking reelection. Most are from rural districts, though some hail from suburbs.

Phelan purchased $942,950 worth of polling to help House GOP incumbents and gave $15,000 to each of seven of the embattled voucher opponents.

H-E-B grocery magnate Charles Butt of San Antonio, a longtime opponent of vouchers, gave $20,000 to each of the 16 Republican representatives who refused to bend.

Some of the targeted House incumbents reported huge cash advantages over their challengers, such as Rep. Reggie Smith of Sherman, who had about $262,000. Challenger Shelley Luther, a Dallas hair salon owner who defied COVID-19 edicts, had less than $7,000 as of Dec. 31, her report showed.

But Rep. Gary VanDeaver of New Boston was behind one of his opponents, Linden grocery store owner Chris Spencer, in cash, thanks to a $300,000 loan by Spencer to his own campaign.

GOP Rep. Glenn Rogers of Graford, with $71,000 in cash, was running behind his opponent from Aledo, Mike Olcott, who loaned himself $140,000, while GOP Rep. Steve Allison of San Antonio had about the same amount of cash on hand as his challenger, Marc LaHood.

University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus said the rural 16 have to be concerned.

“We’re seeing more incumbents with multiple challengers, which is dangerous territory for sitting legislators,” he said. “A key conservative talking point, a huge pile of money, and several challengers to dilute the vote leads to runoffs where incumbents might fare worse.”

Turnout in the March 5 Texas primary could dwindle if former President Donald Trump sweeps the early-voting states in the Republican presidential contest, Rottinghaus said.

“That crystallizes the power a few dedicated groups may have to move the needle on school choice,” he said.

North Texas business leaders are supporting Abbott in the fight.

Last summer, Deason, a conservative activist on criminal-justice issues, joined former conservative Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville and longtime Houston GOP activist Leo Linbeck III to create the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC, or FECPAC.

It gave $25,000 each to seven of the 16 House Republicans who in November voted with Democrats to strip ESAs from a school-funding bill: Allison, Ernest Bailes of Shepherd, DeWayne Burns of Cleburne, Travis Clardy of Nacogdoches, Drew Darby of San Angelo, Hugh Shine of Temple and VanDeaver.

Also emerging as a North Texas donor in the ongoing fight over vouchers is Joe Popolo, chief executive of Dallas-based Charles & Potomac Capital, a private investment firm. Last week, Popolo, who gave $125,000 to FECPAC, posted on social media about a new national poll by the DeVos-backed American Federation for Children. It showed wide support for school choice.

“Politicians should listen to their voters! @TXlege,” he wrote.

Popolo, who formerly ran Farmers Branch-based Freeman Co., a live events firm, gave $50,000 to AFC Victory Fund.

Rockwall GOP Rep. Justin Holland, whose district includes part of southern Collin County, voted against ESAs.

Holland, a Phelan lieutenant, raised $407,000 in the last half of 2023 and had a cash balance of about $288,000.

Challengers Katrina Pierson, a former tea party activist who served as a national campaign spokeswoman for former President Trump, raised just $48,000 and had about $22,000 in cash; and Dennis London, a California transplant who lives in Rockwall, raised $37,000. London entered the year with a balance of about $21,000.

Rottinghaus, though, said it’s dangerous to read too much into the early fundraising tallies.

“There is a lot of soft ground to traverse in these primaries so, with two months until the election, much can happen,” he said.

Paxton’s pull

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is campaigning against numerous Republican incumbents in the House who voted for his impeachment in May.

While the powerful Republican has endorsed several challengers, Paxton’s support has not translated to a cash windfall.

With few exceptions, the targeted incumbents outraised Paxton-backed opponents and maintained significantly more cash than the attorney general’s preferred candidates, according to the new campaign finance reports.

Those included four of the five Republican incumbents in Paxton’s backyard of Collin County.

For instance, Allen Rep. Jeff Leach, once a close ally who argued forcefully for Paxton’s removal from office, had more than $500,000 in his campaign war chest at the end of 2023. His challenger, Allen City Council member Daren Meis, had about $57,000, Ethics Commission records show.

McKinney Rep. Frederick Frazier’s campaign finance report showed he had slightly more cash than his Paxton-backed challenger, Keresa Richards of McKinney. However, Richards raised more money in the last half of 2023.

Frazier’s reelection campaign has been dealing with controversy after he pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges of attempting to impersonate a public servant and was dishonorably discharged from the Dallas Police Department.

Phelan, who has been speaker since 2021, contributed to many of the incumbents Paxton wants tossed from the House. Phelan, R-Beaumont, is also facing a Paxton-backed challenger in David Covey.

Phelan dwarfed his opponent’s campaign cash with more than $5.3 million, compared with Covey’s $23,674.

Paxton’s finance report shows his campaign did not donate directly to his preferred House candidates in the last six months of 2023, though he has been on the campaign trail for some, including at an event Tuesday in Rockwall for Pierson, one of the challengers to Holland.

In Dallas-area state Senate races, the finance reports showed Dallas Democratic Sen. Nathan Johnson had a significant advantage over his primary opponent, state Rep. Victoria Neave Criado, D-Dallas. Johnson had more than $820,000 in cash on hand, compared with Neave Criado’s $58,268.

Meanwhile, Republican Senate hopeful Brent Hagenbuch loaned his campaign more than $1 million, giving him far more spending cash than the three other Republicans in the race.

Controversy costs PAC

The reports showed Defend Texas Liberty, a conservative political action committee, all but ceased action in the aftermath of a Texas Tribune report that revealed its former head met with an avowed neo-Nazi for hours in October.

The organization received less than $2,000 in small donations and received no cash from oil magnates Tim Dunn and brothers Farris and Dan Wilks, whose big spending previously made the organization a major player in Republican politics.

The political action committee made only three contributions to candidates since the Tribune report.

It gave $10,000 to Republican Brent Money, who is running in a special election to replace former Rep. Bryan Slaton. Slaton was also backed by Defend Texas Liberty but was expelled from the House after an investigation found he gave alcohol to a 19-year-old staff member before having sex with her.

Defend Texas Liberty also gave $10,000 to Rep. Steve Toth, R-The Woodlands, and $5,000 to Edgewood Republican Sen. Bob Hall. The organization did not return a message seeking comment.

rtgarrett@dallasnews.com,

Writing in The New Republic, Michael Tomasky describes how the rightwing has deftly invested in buying up media properties, even those that lose money. They play the long game, Tomasky argues, while Democrats and liberals ignore the reality of media control. Sinclair has been so successful in rural areas that Democratic candidates don’t have a chance. He wonders whether Democratic big wheels will ever catch in.

I subscribe to The New Republic. So should you.

He writes:

You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.

The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.

Smith wasted no time in showing his cards during his first meeting with the staff Wednesday. He was asked about a comment he made to New York magazine back in 2018, when he said, “Print media is so left wing as to be meaningless dribble.” (“Dribble”? Let’s hope he won’t be on the copy desk.) Did he feel that way about the Sun specifically? “In many ways, yes,” Smith said, adding that he wants the paper to emulate the local Fox affiliate, which is owned … by Sinclair.

But this column isn’t about the Sun and Smith. In fact, I applaud Smith and Sinclair in one, and only one, respect. They get it. They understand how important media ownership is. They are hardly alone among right-wing megawealthy types. Of course there’s Rupert Murdoch, but there are more. There’s the late Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who, after he got rich from his Unification Church, sprouted media properties, most notably The Washington Times, still owned by the church’s News World Communications (once upon a quaint old time, it was shocking that the conservative newspaper in the nation’s capital was started by a cult). And Philip Anschutz, whose Clarity Media Group started the tabloid newspaper The Washington Examiner in 2005. These days, the list includes Elon Musk with X/Twitter, Peter Thiel and Senator J.D. Vance with Rumble (a right-wing YouTube alternative), Ye with his attempted purchase of the now-defunct Parler, and, of course, Donald Trump, with Truth Social. They all understand what Viktor Orbán told the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2022: “Have your own media.” Shows like Tucker Carlson’s old Fox show, the Hungarian strongman said, “should be broadcast day and night….”

The right-wing media is now the agenda-setting media in this country, and it’s only getting bigger and more influential every year.

And how have the country’s politically engaged liberal billionaires responded to this? By doing roughly nothing.

I’ve been in the trenches of this fight for many years. Back in the George W. Bush era, the late Rob Stein, a Democratic insider and good friend of mine, mapped for the first time the conservative infrastructure in a PowerPoint presentation that became such a hot ticket in Washington liberal circles that The New York Times Magazine did a story about it. He showed, from looking over conservative groups’ 990s (because they were mostly all nonprofits), how much was spent on policy development, how much on field operations, how much on youth training, and how much on media. I don’t remember the numbers, but the media figure was high.

Much of this spending was coordinated. Murdoch’s empire didn’t count, because his properties were for-profit, as was The Washington Times. But a lot of the nonprofit spending was directed by a handful of anointed movement leaders, and they made certain that a big chunk of money was spent on media.

I used to try to argue, whenever I was lucky enough to get the ear of one of our side’s rich people for five minutes, that we needed to build an avowedly liberal media infrastructure. I was told that they just weren’t that interested. They had other priorities. They were concerned with the issues. They weren’t prepared to lose all that money, and for what?

For what? Ask Viktor Orbán. He knows. Ask Rupert. Why has he held onto the New York Post? News Corp., the parent company, makes a profit. But the Post loses kajillions. Nobody knows how much, but here’s an estimate from 12 years ago that put the paper’s losses at $60 to $120 million a year.

So why does he keep it? Because it’s worth every penny. It gives him power. The Post’s editors know how to use its front page and its news pages to shape discourse. Where did last fall’s New York crime scare come from, the one that had Westchesterites convinced they dare not set foot in the city, and which elected all those Republican members of Congress? From the Post, that’s where.

I used to be told sometimes, “Yes, but we have The New York Times, The Washington Post …” Really? No, not really. Sure, they endorse Democrats mostly. And sure, much of their social and cultural coverage proceeds from liberal assumptions. They, and almost all of the mainstream media, will not write a story today suggesting, for example, that undocumented immigrants across America should be rounded up en masse and deported. This has been a hard-won reality forged by many activists and intellectuals over many years, and it is a good thing.

But it isn’t capital-P Politics. On capital-PPolitics, The New York Times and The Washington Post often let liberals down. I was having these arguments, as I said, back when Dubya was president, and he and his vassals were ginning up their phony case for invading Iraq. Which newspaper published the infamous “aluminum tubes” story charging that Saddam Hussein was seeking material that could only be used in nuclear centrifuges? The Times, on its front page on a crucial Sunday in the fall of 2002, as Bush officials spent the day fanning out onto the political chat shows touting the article.

It was false. Eventually, the Times itself debunked the story—but in 2004, well after the war had started. And as for the Post, that liberal paper’s editorial page was one of the most important promoters of the Iraq invasion in all of American media. (Speaking of the unreliability of liberal media outlets at that time, it would be evasive of me not to mention The New Republic’s own fervent support of the war, but that wasn’t me; I was helming The American Prospect at the time, and we opposed it.)

I used to say to people: What we need is a full-throated liberal tabloid in Washington—a Washington version of the New York Post that would use its front pages and its news columns to promote embarrassing stories and scandals about Bush administration officials, evangelical grifters, and other prominent right-wingers. It would be agenda-setting. It would have some juicy gossip columns and a great sports section because a tabloid newspaper has to. And most of all, it would have done the vital work of connecting liberal values to a proletarian tabloid sensibility.

Everyone I mentioned this to laughed in my face, and maybe you are too. But Phil Anschutz didn’t laugh. He started a conservative tabloid right around the same time I was saying our side should start a liberal one. And what’s happened? I suppose he’s lost money, although I don’t really know. But The Washington Examineris a respected property (it gave up on print in 2013, but that was fine; by then it was an established presence). I see its people on cable news, and it has produced some legit stars like Tim Alberta. It has influence, I assume its reporters have Hill press credentials, and I don’t see anybody laughing at it…

And now let’s return our thoughts to Sinclair. How different would things be out there in America if, 15 or 20 years ago, some rich liberal or consortium of liberals had had the wisdom to make a massive investment in local news? There were efforts along these lines, and sometimes they came to something. But they were small. What if, instead of right-wing Sinclair, some liberal company backed by a group of billionaires had bought up local TV stations or radio stations or newspapers all across the country?

Again, we can’t know, but we know this much: Support for Democrats has shriveled in rural America to near nonexistence, such that it is now next to impossible to imagine Democrats being elected to public office at nearly any level in about two-thirds of the country. It’s a tragedy. And it happened for one main reason: Right-wing media took over in these places and convinced people who live in them that liberals are all God-hating superwoke snowflakes who are nevertheless also capable of destroying civilization, and our side didn’t fight it. At all. If someone had formed a liberal Sinclair 20 years ago to gain reach into rural and small-town America, that story would be very different today…

What will the result be 20 years from now? Will we be raising a generation of children in two-thirds of the country who believe that fossil fuels are great and trees cause pollution, that slavery wasn’t the cause of the Civil War, that tax cuts always raise revenue, and that the “Democrat” Party stole the 2020 election? Yes, we will. And it will happen because too many people on the liberal side refused to grasp what Murdoch, Anschutz, Smith, and Viktor Orbán see so clearly. Have your own media.

Tim Slekar has been active in the fight against privatization of public education for more than a decade. He has created videos, written articles, posted on blogs, and recently he has run a regular radio show. He’s always fighting for public schools, teachers, and students against the long and ugly arm of corporate reform.

He writes:

Dear Advocates for Democracy and Education,

As BustEDpencils expands to a daily radio show on Civic Media, we’re not just talking about education; we’re championing the cornerstone of a healthy democracy—robust public schools. Our show is a clarion call to defend and rejuvenate public education, the bedrock of informed citizenship and democratic engagement.

By tuning in daily, you’re not just listening; you’re actively participating in safeguarding our public schools. Each episode is a step towards a more informed, democratic society, where public education is celebrated and protected as a vital public good.

And we’re not stopping at the airwaves. We’re planning to bring the heart of our message into your communities with live appearances. These events will be more than just talks; they’ll be rallies for public education, celebrating its critical role in maintaining a thriving democracy.

Join this urgent mission. Tune in, engage, and prepare to welcome us into your community. Together, let’s ensure that public education remains a pillar of our democratic society.

In Solidarity for Public Education and Democracy,

Tim and Johnny

P.S. Every listener, every conversation, every community we visit is crucial in our fight to preserve and enhance public education. This journey is about more than just a radio show; it’s about nurturing the very roots of our democracy.

Timothy D. Slekar PhD
412-735-9720
timslekar@gmail.com
https://civicmedia.us/shows/busted-pencils