Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently spoke at Calvin University in Michigan. As one of the university’s most prominent graduates, her remarks were received with respect.

Dr. John Walcott, a professor of education at Calvin University, wrote an article for the school newspaper in which he expressed respectful disagreement with her ideas. The full article is worth reading. It takes courage for a professor to take issue with a state and national leader such as DeVos, especially in a religion-focused university.

Be sure to open the link and read the comments.

He began:

On Nov. 17, Calvin University hosted an event with Betsy DeVos. DeVos served as Secretary of Education during the Trump administration and is a graduate of Calvin University. In making the announcement, President Boer described the event as part of efforts “to hear from people who bring diverse backgrounds and perspectives to important conversations.”

DeVos served as Secretary of Education during the Trump administration and is a graduate of Calvin University. In making the announcement, President Boer described the event as part of efforts “to hear from people who bring diverse backgrounds and perspectives to important conversations.”

I understand and respect the desire of our university to welcome to our campus a distinguished alum who has a long history of involvement at local, state and national levels. Furthermore, I agree that it is important to provide space for “diverse perspectives” and “important conversations.” We must strive to be a community willing to ask tough questions and engage deeply with important issues in our world.

I believe that an opportunity for additional engagement with these issues is especially necessary because of the problematic nature of much of what Secretary DeVos proposes when it comes to education. For example, her call to support “students and not systems” fails to recognize that student learning can be supported by teachers, curriculum, financial resources, school administrators and, yes, in many cases may even require a building conducive to learning. It is easy to demonize systems, but the use of this sort of false dichotomy is ultimately unproductive.

In that spirit, I suggest that we continue the conversation started at this event. The event used an interview format that did not provide opportunity for the sort of conversation and debate that are required to dig deeply into important issues related to educational policy and the state of education in our nation. Near the close of the event, Secretary DeVos stated her ongoing desire to “debate and advance” the policies for which she advocates. I agree that we need to debate these policies and, as a university community, think deeply about issues that relate to education and political engagement and how God calls us to seek justice and be agents of renewal in our world.

I believe that an opportunity for additional engagement with these issues is especially necessary because of the problematic nature of much of what Secretary DeVos proposes when it comes to education. For example, her call to support “students and not systems” fails to recognize that student learning can be supported by teachers, curriculum, financial resources, school administrators and, yes, in many cases may even require a building conducive to learning. It is easy to demonize systems, but the use of this sort of false dichotomy is ultimately unproductive.

We also need to carefully consider Secretary DeVos’ focus on parental choice and individual rights as the basis of her calls to change our educational system. This perspective ignores the function of our schools as a public good, an institution at the core of our desire to promote democratic values and the flourishing of all students. We need to think carefully about the purpose of education in a democratic society and about the role of public schools that have been part of our nation’s commitment to education since before the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Our call to seek justice and be agents of renewal in our world may push us to prioritize the needs of our community and of the most vulnerable in our society over individual rights.

As an educational scholar and researcher, I recognize the need to carefully examine the impacts of policies that use the language of choice and freedom on student learning and on public schools. For example, advocates for school vouchers, which allow parents to use public education funds for tuition in private schools, argue that these policies can be the key to improving student outcomes while ignoring research that does not support these claims. For example, Dr. Christopher Lubienski (Director of the Center for Evaluation and Policy Analysis at Indiana University), summarizing research since 2015, states that “every study of the impacts of statewide voucher programs has found large, negative effects from these programs on the achievement of students using vouchers.”

A thorough discussion will explore the impact of DeVos-supported policies on school funding. Recent reports from Florida note that this year, school vouchers will divert $1.3 billion from public schools, and reports from states like Arizona, New Hampshire and Wisconsin show that the overwhelming majority (80%, 89% and 75%) of students utilizing vouchers were already in private schools before the programs began. We need to ask if public funds should be given to schools that are in some cases not required to comply with regulations related to special education, federal civil rights laws and curriculum standards. We should engage critically in questions regarding the role of teachers’ unions before dismissing out of hand their role in public education. And we should critically examine the rhetoric that is currently a part of the so-called “culture wars,” especially as it relates to education. I am concerned that Secretary DeVos has contributed to a misrepresentation of critical race theory and may be perceived as aligning with groups and individuals that have advanced a harmful narrative directed at the LGBTQ+ community.

These are just a few of the many complex and vitally important issues that need to be a part of a deeper conversation. I am not criticizing the decision to host Secretary DeVos, a distinguished graduate with years of activism in the public sphere. However, as a faculty member in the School of Education, it is important to me that the broader educational community understands that this does not signal an endorsement of her policies and perspectives by the School of Education. And I remain hopeful that we, as a community, will embrace the opportunity to not only offer diverse perspectives, but also engage deeply in important conversations of what it means to think deeply, act justly and live wholeheartedly as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.

Professor Maté Wierdl teaches college-level mathematics in Tennessee; he is a native-born Hungarian and travels there regularly. In this post, he reviews the teachers’ strike in Hungary, which has dragged on for more than a year.

Throughout the strike, the Hungarian government has shown its disdain for the teachers’ union and the teachers. American right-wingers love the growing authoritarianism of the Hungarian government, even inviting Hungarian President Victor Orban to speak at the annual meeting of CPAC, the conservative political action committee.

Wierdl writes:

Hungarian teachers have been openly protesting for almost a year now. The formal protests began in January. As a response, Orbán, Hungary’s Prime Minister, basically took away the teachers’ right to strike (they cannot skip their teaching obligations while they “strike”), and quite a few protesters have been fired from their jobs. Just this week, 8 teachers were fired since they protested during school hours.

Why the protests? I think Hungarian teachers used to have a pretty good job. But in recent years, their load increased a great deal, more testing was introduced and kids need to go to school more. I have to say, I see the US influence, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone after seeing in the news that Orbán was invited to the US to give the keynote address at CPAC, and then he paid a visit to Trump.

I have many teacher friends and they say the main issue is not just about money but the general worsening conditions of teachers, and as a result, there is a huge teacher shortage.

Though numbers don’t tell everything, they clearly indicate serious problems. For example, here is a chart showing teachers’ salaries relative to other college educated people’s salaries (I think most of the countries’ names are recognizable; EU22 is the EU average). Note how the US (Egyesült Államokin Hungarian) and Hungary are the last two

The next chart shows the mandatory classroom hours in several European countries. Hungary is at the top (meaning, most hours) and in fact, since there aren’t enough teachers, the average teaching load is close to 27 hours. (US teachers teach even more, like 6 classes per day which means a 30 hour load)

Below, I put together some reports of the protests in the international media in the last two months.

Bloomberg writes this about today’s (Dec 2) protests

Hundreds of Hungarian teachers joined a widening strike action across the nation’s school system following a government decision to fire more educators for protesting low pay.

Almost 700 teachers from 71 schools walked off the job on Friday, forcing several institutions to suspend classes, according to the Teacher for Teachers Facebook page, which compiles the information.

Thousands of students joined in solidarity, many of them placing black tape over their mouths. They decried what they called a hardline response by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government to silence teachers who earn among the lowest wages in the European Union.”

Nov 18

BUDAPEST, (Reuters) – Hungarian teachers, students and parents stepped up their protest calling for higher wages and education reforms on Friday, forming a 10-km (six-mile) human chain in central Budapest, with smaller rallies held across the country.

Teachers launched their “I want to teach” movement in September, calling for civil disobedience to demand higher wages for teachers and an adequate supply in the workforce. They are also protesting against restrictions on their right to strike.

Here is a video of the protests a few weeks earlier. As you can see many students support the teachers.

Oct 6:

Wednesday’s rally, which started with students forming a chain stretching for kilometers (miles) across Budapest in the morning grew into the biggest anti-government demonstration since nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s April re-election.

 Protesters carrying banners saying “Do not sack our teachers” and “For a glimpse of the future, look at the schools of the present” crammed a Budapest bridge near parliament, blocking traffic amid light police presence.

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature and Governor Ron DeSantis passed a bill that they called the Parental Right in Education law, but it is widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law. It forbids any recognition of gender identity in grades K-3, as well as careful scrutiny of any such instruction in higher grades to be sure that it is “age appropriate” (i.e., in the eye of the beholder). Gov. DeSantis boasted on election night that Florida is where “woke goes to die.” As you will read in the article below, the governor’s general counsel defined “woke” as the “belief there are systemic injustices in America society and the need to address them.”

Surely, doesn’t everyone agree that there are no “systemic injustices in American society,” and never was such a time or thing ever ever. Since they don’t exist, the reasoning goes, there is no need to address them. The state of Florida believes that it must be illegal to teach about any systemic injustices that exist now or might have existed in the past. This law is a denial of academic freedom, plain and simple.

It is a kind of poetic justice that the sponsor of this law–Rep. Joe Harding– was indicted for wire fraud and money laundering—for claiming $150,000 in COVID recovery funds from the Small Business Administration for two businesses he owned that had no employees and no revenues. He has resigned his seat in the legislature. Karma.

The Miami Herald reported:

Florida’s State Board of Education will meet next week to scrutinize whether 10 school districts — including Miami-Dade, Broward and Hillsborough counties — are carrying out the state’s parental rights law, which have become a political lightning rod in local school board meeting and national politics in recent years.

The Florida Department of Education put the districts on notice last month when it sent superintendents letters detailing the policies and procedures that each of their districts “may not comport with Florida law.”

The law, titled Parental Rights in Education, but which critics have dubbed “don’t say gay,” prohibits classroom instruction and discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in grades K through 3 — and in older grades if they are not “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.”

Many of the policies the state has flagged offer protections to LGBTQ students who confide personal information to school employee by requiring their consent to divulge aspect of their sexual orientation and gender identity to guardians and parents.

In letters sent Nov. 18, Senior Chancellor Jacob Oliva flagged a range of policies and procedures at the 10 school districts and requested a status update on those policies by Friday.

In addition to Miami-Dade, Broward and Hillsborough, letters were also sent to Alachua, Brevard, Duval, Indian River, Leon, Palm Beach and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind.

The State Board of Education will meet on Wednesday.

Some of the policies that were flagged by the state include “best practices” policies for school personnel to not disclose the sexual orientation or gender identity of students without their input or permission; policies that say all students should be referred to by the gender pronouns and name that is consistent with their gender identity, and rules that allow students to access locker rooms and restroom that are consistent with their gender identity.

The state has also raised questions about a “racial equity policy” at the Indian River County School District. The district’s policy says it is mean to confront “the institutional racism that results in predictably lower academic achievements for students of color than for their white peers.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis has targeted such policies as he declares Florida to be the state where “woke goes to die.” During a federal court trial last week, DeSantis’ general counsel Ryan Newman, said the term “woke” refers to the “belief there are systemic injustices in America society and the need to address them.”

In Miami-Dade, the state has zeroed in on policies that aim to support transgender and “gender expansive students” in sports, locker rooms, and manners that pertain to which pronouns students want to use and what private information they want to disclose. In Broward County, policies that aim to create a “safe space for LGBTQ+ students” have come under the microscope.

The state wants to hear the status of five policies, including one that says “it is never appropriate to divulge the sexual orientation of a student to a parent without the student’s consent.” And in Hillsborough County, the state is asking the district to provide an update on two policies: a “racial equity” policy that aim to increase academic achievement for “ALL students,” and LGBTQ policies that deal with “coming out and confidentiality.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article269802507.html#storylink=cpy

Nicholas Tampio is a professor of political science at Fordham University. As a father, he was outraged by the Common Core, so outraged that he wrote a book about it, “Common Core: National Education Standards and the threat to Democracy.”. In New York State, the person most responsible for the quick and unpopular rollout of Common Core was State Commissioner John King. King was recently named the Chancellor of the State University of New York.

Tampio expresses his view of King here.

On Dec. 5, the State University of New York appointed John B. King Jr. as the new chancellor. His biography may give us clues as to his possible plan to prioritize workforce training over the liberal arts for SUNY students.

King was state commissioner of education between 2011 and early 2015. Then-chancellor of the Board of Regents Merryl Tisch hired him to implement the state’s Race to the Top plan. The plan had interlocking parts. Schools teach the Common Core learning standards in reading, writing, and math. Students take end of year tests whose scores are entered into a database. Teachers are evaluated on students’ test score growth. Schools with low test scores get taken over by the state.

One year during his reign as commissioner, 155,000 New York students refused the end-of-year Common Core tests. To his critics, King was a hypocrite for sending his own children to a private Montessori school in Albany while he was rolling out the Common Core for other people’s children.

People in the test refusal movement, such as myself, were trying to explain why we did not want an education system for our children focused on standardized testing. Alas, King and Tisch dug in their heels, and the main planks of the Regents’ reform agenda remain in place….

Race to the Top incentivized states to build a P-20 longitudinal data system. This system tracks a child from pre-school (or pre-natal) until 8 years until after they graduate from high school. Nancy Zimpher, SUNY chancellor from 2011 to 2017, was a champion of creating career pathways. King may well continue her efforts to prepare children, from an early age, for a specific job that they will do as adults.

In 2018, King told the the Silicon Valley Education Policy Summit: “Whenever I go around the country, when I talk with employers, they talk about the challenge of finding the workforce they need. They talk about the challenge of finding folks with the right skills.”

Now, SUNY press release notes that King will work to connect “K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and employers to tailor high school curriculum to meet the needs of a modern-day workforce.”

To be clear, college students should learn a wide array of skills to prepare them for the workforce. And the Education Trust advocates commendable ideals of expanding college access, improving college graduation rates, and making college affordable, particularly for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds.

Still, we ought to think about what kind of future is in store for New York students enrolling in a state university or college.

In the body of the SUNY press release, there is little indication that King values faculty governance, research, or the liberal arts. SUNY could aspire to become a world-class higher education system with laboratories, research resources, study abroad programs, libraries, and so forth. But the press release will not assuage academics who want to teach subjects that do not directly translate into jobs.

SUNY enrollment fell 20% over the past decade, a trend that started before the pandemic. SUNY could aspire to make the school attractive to bright students who can afford to go to private liberal arts colleges or universities. But the early indications are that that is not the priority of SUNY’s leadership.

Over a decade ago, Tisch and King created a K-12 education system that would funnel students into tracks based on test scores. Now, they are working together to build the rest of the P-20 system that place those children into their assigned slots.

In the near future, rich New York kids will go to expensive out-of-state or private schools. And everyone else will be placed in a career pipeline that is hard to escape.

I was thrilled when I heard the news that Brittney Griner was being released and thrilled today to learn that she had landed in San Antonio, where she will have a thorough medical examination.

I naively assumed that everyone would be thrilled that this young woman was released, but soon realized that that was not the case.

Republicans quickly seized on her exchange–release of Brittney in a trade for Viktor Bout, notorious arms dealer known as the “Merchant of Death”–to say that Biden had committed a terrible sin. He got a mere basketball player in return for a dangerous criminal who had spread arms throughout the world to terrorize and kill people, including Americans. Republican politicians wasted no time denouncing the deal on Twitter as a show of Biden’s naivete and incompetence. He left a Marine behind enemy lines, crowed Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn. Trump denounced the deal as “stupid” and “unpatriotic.” He assumed that Biden simply forgot about Paul Whelan, who has served four years behind bars in Russia for alleged espionage.

But that was not true. Biden has been in contact with the Whelan family. Whelan’s brother made clear that he agreed with Biden.

The reports from inside the Biden administration make clear that Putin was unwilling to make a 2-for-1 trade. He offered to release Griner in exchange for Bout. The deal was 1-for-1. Only Griner was on offer, not Whelan.

Putin had leverage: he was holding three Americans in Russia’s grim prison system: Griner, Whelan, and an American teacher named Marc Vogel, aged 60, who has been imprisoned for more than a year for possession of medical marijuana on entering the country. Vogel and his wife were teachers at the Anglo-American School in Moscow, a pricey private school for the elite. The Russian negotiators were clear: only one American would be released, and it would be Griner.

Biden’s choice: Trade Bout for Griner or no deal at all.

He chose to give up Bout in return for bringing Griner home.

From the vitriol being thrown at Biden by Republicans, I assume they would prefer to have made no deal at all. They would have let Griner serve out her 9-year sentence or wait until Putin was prepared to release Griner, Whelan, and Vogel. Some GOPers say on Twitter that the only reason she was chosen by Biden (Biden did not make the choice) is that she is lesbian and gay. Absurd.

What would you have done?

I, for one, welcome Brittney Griner home.

This appeared on the website of the New York Times. It is about five minutes long.

For years, charter friends and charter foes have debated whether charter schools are public schools and whether they are, like public schools, “state actors.” The lame-duck Attorney General of Oklahoma recently declared that religious schools could be charter schools. He seems to believe that privately managed charter schools are not public schools, because no one claims that religious schools are public schools. His opinion does not have the force of law, but you can see that Oklahoma is eager to give public money to religious schools.

The AG’s opinion raises many questions. If charter schools are religious schools, may they limit admission only to members of their faith? May they exclude gay students, teachers, and families? May they substitute religious books for the state textbooks? May they indoctrinate their students into their faith? If charter schools are religious schools, how do they differ from voucher schools? What state regulations apply to them, if any?

Peter Greene writes about the issue here:

The Supreme Court has slowly and steadily busted a hole in the wall between church and state when it comes to education. AG opinion: Statute barring charter school operators from religious affiliation unconstitutional (nondoc.com)

In a fifteen-page opinion issued December 1, Attorney General John O’Connor argued that in the wake of Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson, he believed that SCOTUS would “very likely” find Oklahoma’s charter law restriction on nonsectarian or religious charters unconstitutional. Therefore, his opinion is that the state should no longer follow the law forbidding sectarian or religious charter schools.

Each of those cases elevated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment over the establishment clause. In other words, the court has repeatedly (and in a break from previous court decisions) found that the free exercise of religious beliefs outweighs any restrictions against government-sponsored religious activity.

Carson v. Makin in particular established that if the state allows for taxpayer funding of any non-public secular schools, it cannot exclude religious schools from the chance to receive taxpayer funding. While Carson involved school vouchers and private schools, observers like Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder’s School of Education, noted that in light of these three decisions, “states will probably be forced to let churches and other religious institutions apply for charters and operate charter schools.”

While charter schools have often been considered public schools (at least part of the time), the extension of free-exercise protections, as Welner wrote after the prior decision, complicate the issue.

If courts side with a church-run charter school, finding that state attempts to restrict religiously infused teachings and practices at the school are an infringement on the church’s free-exercise rights, then the circle is complete: Charter school laws have become voucher laws.

Justice Sotomayor, when dissenting on Carson, noted that

“in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

Given the previous decisions, an attempt by charter supporters to extend religion to charter schools was probably inevitable.

Charter supporters, including Governor Kevin Sitt and State Superintendent of Public Instruction-elect Ryan Walters praised the decision. Officials of the Catholic Church in Oklahoma, the church likely to go after the taxpayer funding made available by this opinion (there are reports that they have an application for a Catholic virtual charter school ready to go), also praised the decision, as did officials of the American Federation for Children, the pro-privatization group with connections to Betsy DeVos.

The potential complications are many. If the taxpayers of Oklahoma are going to be compelled to fund religious charter schools, which religions will qualify for those dollars, and who will decide?

Oklahoma law designates charters as public schools, but how much discrimination in the name of religious exercise will the state allow? O’Connor argues that charges of discrimination can only be brought against state actors, and “actions taken by charters are unlikely to fit this bill.” So are charter schools public schools or not, and to what degree should taxpayers be forced to fund schools that exist in some sort of fuzzy grey law-free zone?

AG John O’Connor was a Trump nominee for a United States district judge in 2018; the American Bar Association rated him “not qualified,” and his nomination was withdrawn. After Oklahoma’s previous attorney general resigned in May of 2021 over “personal matters,” Governor Stitt appointed O’Connor to the office. O’Connor ran for the office this year and was defeated in the primary, making him a lame duck in the office.

An opinion such a this does not carry the weight of law, and it is possible that the matter will be tested in court. But given the foundation laid by the Supreme Court, it takes no great stretch to reach the conclusion that O’Connor did. They ripped the hole in the wall; he just walked through it.

The State Commissioner of Education, in New Hampshire, Frank Edelblut, home-schooled his 7 children. He doesn’t like public schools. He’s a big supporter of “backpack funding,” where students can use public funds for anything of an educational sort. At his urging, the legislature adopted a voucher plan.

But a lawsuit was recently filed claiming that the funding of the voucher plan violates the state constitution by drawing down money intended for public schools.

Garry Rayno of inDepthNH reports:

CONCORD — The new Education Freedom Account program violates state statutes by using funds earmarked for public education for private programs, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday against Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut.

The suit challenging the funding for what has been described as the most expansive voucher program in the country, claims money raised by the Lottery Commission, and money from the Education Trust Fund may only be used for adequate education grants to school districts, citing the law creating the fund in 1999.

The suit seeks an injunction blocking the state from using any more of the Trust Fund Money to fund the EFA program.

“If the state desires to operate an Education Freedom Account or similar program, whereby it grants public money for parents to utilize for private use, it must separately fund it through additional taxation or another source of funds,” the suit claims, noting there currently is no mechanism for doing so.

The New Hampshire Constitution states “all moneys received from a state-run lottery and all interest received on such moneys shall, after deducting the necessary costs of administration, be appropriated and used exclusively for the school districts of the state,” according to the suit, which also notes the money “shall not be transferred or diverted to any other purpose.”

The law only allows the money to be used to distribute adequate education grants to school districts and approved charter schools, the suit claims.

The complaint, brought by Deb Howes as a citizen taxpayer, who is also president of AFT (American Federation of Teachers)-New Hampshire, was filed in Merrimack County Superior Court.

The complaint also claims the state is delegating its duty to to provide an adequate education to a private entity, The Children’s Scholarship Fund, which runs the EFA program without any “meaningful oversight” by the state.

“The state specifically earmarked this money for public education. Instead, the state is stealing from public school students in plain sight to pay for its private voucher program,” Howes said. “Public school students are losing out on millions of dollars that are needed to fix leaky old buildings, purchase and maintain modern computer equipment, buy books and materials published at least in the last decade to support student learning, and provide more social and emotional assistance and other needs that will help students excel.”

“If Commissioner Edelblut wants to continue with his cherished voucher program, he needs to figure out a legal way to fund it,” she said, “but definitely not on the backs of public school students.”

The controversial EFA program was approved as part of the two-year budget package in 2021 after it stalled in the House, but the Senate resurrected it and put it in the budget.

Since it began, it has cost much more than Edelblut told lawmakers to expect, which was essentially $3.4 million over the biennium, but has cost $23 million over that period.

Sold as a program to help students find different educational environments in order to thrive, instead about 75 percent of the participants attended private and religious schools prior to the program’s launch last year, meaning less than 25 percent of the participants were in public schools the year before the program began.

Parents can use EFA grants for tuition and fees for private schools and private online learning programs, private tutoring services, textbooks, computer hardware and software, school uniforms, fees for testing, summer programs, therapies, higher education tuition and fees and transportation.

So the program is more expensive than expected, and 75% of the students it serves were already enrolled in nonpublic schools.

The single biggest beneficiary of the program thus far has been Amazon, presumably for books and hardware.

Recently, the power lines in Moore County, North Carolina, went down, damaged by gunfire, and officials suspect they were intentionally sabotaged, leaving 40,000 or so people without power. Some suspect that the power was shut down to prevent a drag show from happening.

Crooks&Liars points to domestic terrorism and mentions an activist who had loudly denounced the drag show. The activist, a former Army officer, had previously been questioned about her participation in the January 6 insurrection. She posted on Facebook that she knew why the power went out.

The Washington Post reported that the FBI is investigating.

At Sunrise Theater on Saturday night, drag queen Naomi Dix was about to introduce an act when the lights went out. Dix said that participants immediately suspected that the power outage might be connected to those opposed to the performance (Dix spoke to The Post on the condition that she be identified only by her stage name out of fear for her safety).


Dix, 31, said she tried to keep the audience of about 300 people calm and upbeat. She asked them to turn on the flashlights on their cellphones, then led the crowd in singing “Halo” by Beyoncé.

I am not sure when drag shows became popular (probably in Ivy League men’s colleges, where men played women’s roles, or in Shakespeare’s time, when women were not permitted to act on stage). But they seem to be popping up in small towns, suburbs, and big cities, not just gay bars. Recently the Washington Post reported on a city-sponsored Christmas parade in Taylor, Texas, that included floats with drag queens—and caused conservative ministers to launch their own parade, limited to floats with “family and Biblical values.”

I had intended to write a post about Billy Townsend’s latest post, where he declared his solidarity with the drag queens, but I could not help noticing stories about drag queens in other places. Recall that Club Q in Colorado Springs was holding a drag show when the killer burst in and murdered five people. The guy who jumped on the killer and stopped him was there with his wife and family to see the drag show. Evidently, drag queens are funny and make people laugh, and many straight people enjoy their performances.

For many years, audiences in New York City were entertained by the shows written and performed by Charles Busch. They were hilarious send-ups of traditional fare, and they attracted large audiences.

Millions of people love the Billy Wilder’s comedy “Some Like It Hot,” where Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dress up as women to escape angry mobsters. To put it plainly, they pretended to be drag queens.

I remember attending Dame Edna’s Broadway performances, which were drag shows, and Dame Edna is not gay. The Australian performer has been married four times (to women) and has four children. His fourth wife is Lizzie Spender.

Yet despite the long tradition of drag shows, some states are now passing legislation to ban them or to ban children from attending them (whatever happened to parental rights?)

Billy Townsend wrote:

Drag performers are infinitely better, braver, and more productive human beings and citizens than the cosplaying Nazis stirred up by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis and Kanye and Elon et. al to torment and/or kill them.

This is both obvious and surprisingly difficult for even decent people to say bluntly. I’m not sure that I’ve ever said it. Perhaps that’s because I’ve never perceived a real need to plainly state the obvious until now.

Our community needs to protect the people harassed and death-threatened while minding their own business and making their own joy on Saturday. And it should celebrate their creativity and courage.

I’ve only seen a handful of drag shows in my life. Those I’ve seen were less “sexual” than a Muppet Show number. So I won’t dignify any bullshit excuses anyone may offer for saying, “Yes, but …” when considering how to address out of town Nazis attempting to terrorize Lakeland citizens just days after a MAGA boy shot up a drag show in Colorado.

I don’t have much else to say.

The Ledger and Lakeland Now both have good accounts if you want to read them.

But I would avoid sharing the pictures. That’s what the Nazi boys want. Even if you share the pictures in anger and revulsion, you’re sharing their propaganda/transgressive recruitment value. Think about how you amplify them.

Also, I think it’s important to note that the drag event organizers praised the response of the Lakeland Police Department as fast and protective. It’s very important for institutions of power to do their jobs for all citizens. And we should definitely acknowledge/praise when they do.

This is a time that demands choices, both in rhetoric and deed. I thank Lakeland’s brave drag performers for reminding me of that.

The Nazis can fuck off.

That pretty much sums up my view.

Earlier this year, Florida Governor announced the creation of an “election police” unit, to arrest former felons who voted illegally. The unit arrested 20 people. A Miami judge just dismissed the case against one of them, the third consecutive loss on this count.

A Miami judge has tossed out another voter fraud case brought by Gov. Ron DeSantis’ elections police, the third case to fall apart since the governor announced the arrests.

On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Laura Anne Stuzin reached the same conclusion as another Miami judge did in a different voter’s case, saying that statewide prosecutors didn’t have the ability to bring charges against Ronald Lee Miller.

Because he was convicted of second-degree murder in 1990, Miller, 58, was ineligible to vote. But after his voter registration application was cleared by the Florida Department of State, Miami-Dade’s supervisor of elections issued him a voter ID card, and he voted in November 2020.

Florida’s voting laws are ‘broken,’ felon advocates say following fraud arrests DeSantis held a high-profile news conference in August to tout the arrests of Miller and 19 others who were all ineligible to vote because of past murder or felony sex offense convictions but who had all voted after applying for and receiving voter ID cards. DeSantis oversees the Department of State.

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article269738906.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article269738906.html#storylink=cpy