Fixing America

Ultra Liberalism is destroying America. Many years ago, environmentalists began to challenge the importance of human beings over other animals. This brought to mind old Dr. Sweitzer who wouldn't purposely step on an ant or other bug. He thought of his philosophy as a "reverence for life".  He may have gone a bit too far, but he made his point. All life is important.

More recently, Rachael Carsen decided that many commonly used chemicals were actually nasty and were killing both bugs and human beings. The first big example  recall was DDT. With little real evidence she concluded DDT was doing more harm than good. This may have been true but it was clear that she focussed on the damage and ignored the benefits. It was true that DDT was being widely, indiscriminately and uncontrollably used. There was also no doubt that it  could also be dangerous. Time passed and DDT is now carefully controlled and very helpful helpful to humans and animals.

Since then, science has found that carbon based petrochemicals are bad and solar energy is good. They might be right or they might be wrong. They have decided that it is politically incorrect to talk about it. So, bring on the electric cars. Ban the coal. Do not use the earths natural resources if the sun is stil lit.

John Muir walked the Sierras and firmly established that the mountains were a gift of nature and should be preserved. The national government stepped in and bought the most of the Sierra's. Then they put up signs restricting 'who/what/and when' people could walk on the property.  

So who knows? Liberals want more gun controls when clearly most proposals do not satisfy the right for individuals to defend themselves and their property. That right is fundamental to every American.

Big Thoughts

I am losing confidence in a few of today's bright guys. Steven Hawkins, for example,  wrote about the universe in complicated and convoluted language. When trying to decipher his books I am, like most mortals,  left with a few questions. He was obviously a genius, but it is clear that only very smart people can understand him. Most of the scientific community simply accepts that there was once a "BIG BANG", and that it was the launching of the  universe. 

But it's only a theory. 

Human beings entered the picture long after the creation of the universe.  Alone amid all species humans seem to have have the highest level of intelligence. Steve suggests that it is at least possible that an alien intelligence we know nothing about is superior.

Why not?

One of our notions is that no one knows has how the universe came into being. We are probably right but could it have been an slowly part of an even larger entity than the universe we know of?   

But let's accept the "big bang" at least until we learn more. 

We do not know where we came from or when, and we do not know what existed before the universe existed, or how far the universe extends. Our experience, scientific and otherwise,  suggests that everything has a beginning and an end. If we can accept that - and then rethink the important questions, perhaps we can form a more accurate picture of where we are going.

Maybe.

Trump Goes To Russia Again

President Trump has once again caused the very liberal left to show their ignorance. They have become so stupid it's amazing. How did we ever let extreme radical progressivism become so dominant? Americans were recipients of more natural assets and advantages than any other country. Now the progressive left is screaming, ranting, raving, and acting like we are not giving it away fast enough. Like petulant children they protest our "democratic republic government". They want our country to have no borders and no immigration restrictions. It's ridiculous on it's face, but they have used the issue to form a brick-wall stopper preventing progress. Their actions have become anti-American.

In well over fifty years there has never been I've never been such idiocy in a political party. If you are a Democrat today - you are an advocate of political suicide.The general thinking of the Democratic Party: 

• is turning away from biblical philosophies. 
• is convinced there is no benefit to national borders. 
• believes the way to reduce the number of unwanted children is to kill them. 
• believes that charitable diplomacy should lead our foreign policy. 
• believes free market capitalism should be replaced by socialism. 
• and that the key to reducing poverty is increasing welfare.

The President has been trying, with urgency, energy, ability, and careful thought, to return America to it's heritage of liberty and freedom for it's citizens, fewer government controls, eliminating un-needed laws and correcting ineffective ones. He has found ways to return fairness to our foreign relations. The President is attempting to guide America back to it's roots; the Constitution as written, Declaration of Independence, and traditions of progress.  They are the basic, irreplaceable foundation stones of our government, our freedoms, and our American exceptionalism. 

It needs o be said that President Trump is no angel. His style is more like a carnival barker or a traveling salesman. He speaks fast, bluntly - and often not precisely with facts. He frequently mis-speaks and then spends far too much political capital trying to turn around or "walk back" his comments. He leaves behind an impression of chaos, indecision, and incompetence. He drives his press secretary and other cabinet members nuts - and feeds headlines to the media.

But - if anyone carefully looks at the positive results of his actual efforts they will discover that his central themes are working. They are working very well indeed. 

A Miserable Santa Ana School

Okay! Get out of my way. It's time to yell at the wall about Willard School and you're the wall.  I am acquainted with a fellow named Rob Richardson. He's a school board member and thought to be intelligent, aggressive, success oriented, and a "straight shooter". I've never asked him (I should) how can he stomach being part of this miserably ineffective school board without puking in his pudding.

Willard Intermediate School is, by far and away, the most awful example of public schools in Santa Ana, California. It's old now and it's problems didn't happen over night. They won't be solved overnight either. Willard's  The condition now was bad when I first got acquainted with it over 30 years ago.  Now it's worse. Willard is located in a quiet, downtown, residential neighborhood. It was a large middle school that many old-time Santa Ana folks remember fondly. Since that time Santa Ana has been taken over by a growing population of Hispanic families. The demographics of the area have changed quite a lot. The school was originally located in the middle of a typical working class neighborhood. There were people living there from many races and backgrounds. Sadly, the once proudly maintained homes and apartment buildings are now generally neglected and run down. The majority of families living in this part of Santa Ana are very poor, many living in poverty, most dependent on welfare, and speak only spanish in their homes. 

Willard's students are now largely of Hispanic origin. They probably have experienced home schooling, or have very little (or no) school education prior to entering Willard. 

The students were not the only problem.  Beginning the early 1990's there were signs that Willard School had been singled out to receive the new or less talented teachers from the school district. At the same time Willard School was also selected to be the dumping ground for poor or incompetent school administrators. Then state and national governments forced adoption of an increasing number of mandatory programs all intended, of course, to improve public schools. The result has proven awful. Most American public schools, including Willard, continued to decline.  

Education results went down Good teachers could not be persuaded to stay on board. Administrators got more and more frustrated. The schools generally went to the dogs. 

Today, many, including Willard, can't even be called a school. They are more like a daytime holding pen for: 

• 1.  A few good students, 
• 2.  A few not so good. 
• 3.  Many who have no wish to be there at all. 

This last group (3) usually includes: 

• Students with no parental encouragement. 
• No appropriate educational background.  
• No respect for parents, teachers, laws, rules, restrictions, and so forth. 
• A large percentage of them are uncontrollable, uncaring, and sometimes criminal thugs.

At schools like Willard most of the students can not qualify for the grade level they are in. Only a very rare student can survive and excel. Teachers are afraid to teach and afraid to discipline The campus has become a holding ground for delinquents, and the total environment is hostile and dangerous. 

There is no discipline, no consequences, and no support for authority. 

Rain Trueax

I've a blog friend named Rain and I highly recommend that you look in on her blog https://rainydaythings.blogspot.com/. She is a beautiful writer. Covers religion, history, politics and nature, and she does it extremely  well. I've been absent for a while and I've just started to reconstruct some of my old favorites. First thing I discovered was that Rain recently wrote an excellent article about "IMMIGRATION". So good that it led me to look beyond the headlines and I discovered several facts that I had wrong or twisted. 

For example I learned that the largest number of immigrants in 2016 came from India, followed by China and Mexico. I had thought Mexico or China would be first. Also that restrictive immigration laws in 1921 and 1924, coupled with the "Great Depression" and World War II, led to a sharp drop in new arrivals. I thought this happened after the great depression. Wrong again.

Then, since about 1970, the number of immigrants has risen rapidly with increasing numbers largely from Latin America and Asia - made possible by the Immigration Act of 1965, which abolished the national origins admission quotas. Between 2010 and 2016  almost 43.7 million immigrants have entered the United States and about half of them were naturalized citizens.

The remaining half, about 22 million, were:
                 1.  lawful permanent residents
                 2.  unauthorized immigrants
                 3.  legal residents on temporary visas (students and temporary workers)

Another fact I found that surprised me was that in 2016:  
                  1.  30 percent of the 38 million immigrants aged 25 or older had a bachelors 
                      degree or higher, and 
                   2.  of U.S. born adults over 25, the average was 32 percent.

In 2016 Educational attainment varied widely by country of origin:
                    1.  78 percent arriving from India had at least a bachelors degree.
                     2.  74 percent arriving from Taiwan had at least a bachelors degree.

                     Note: By comparison just under 32 percent of U.S. Born had a bachelors
                     degree of higher.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Unsupported comments from blogs:

@ About half of all agriculture workers are now undocumented immigrants.

@ The VISA Lottery Program brings in about 50,000 immigrants per year.

@ Most citizens believe "chain migration" should stop and be replaced by "merit migration"

@ Americans generally support a path to legal residency for most illegal immigrnats.

@ Family separations occur when adult immigrants illegally cross America's borders with children and are judged as criminals. This law has not been enforced until recently, and is now considered unsatisfactory, wrong, and a bad law.  I question this?

@ Today the adults go to jail before being returned, and the children go to 

properly established holding locations before sent back to their families.

@ Most immigrants are fairly religious and oppose unlimited abortion.

@ Hispanics IQ scores are lower than whites and higher than blacks.

@ If you import low average IQ populations you become a low average IQ country.

@ Many Americans beleive that if those who employ illegal aliens were also crimals and punished, it would discourage many from coming to this country.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

My take

We Ameicans have a problem. We want immigrants to come to us but not in numbers that would unbalance our national standards. We appear to agree that human beings from around the world have roughly similar abilities to make a positive contribution to civilization. The notion that we should restrict immiigration by nationality, by intelligence, by educational attainment, by religion, and so forth - is probably not what we should be doing. What then is the answer to uncontrolled immigration and overwhelming numbers of immigrants.

First, and urgent, we must establish more carefully reasoned immigration laws - and erase the present ones.

Second, we should not restrict the numbers of immigrants from any country, area, or religion. 

Third, to protect our (hard fought for) general economy and standards of living we do need to restrict the numbers of immigrants.

Fourth, we should permit:

1.    No habitual criminals, and none that have had a criminal instance within the last five years.

2.    We should have preference for a family or member of a family that has an American citizen to sponsor them.

3.    All immigrants should be required to become American citizens within one year, and renounce their allegiance to their original birth country at the time American citizenship is granted.

4.     All immigrants should agree to recognize ENGLISH as the nations language and learn and speak it at home and in public.

Read-em and Weep 2013 - 2018

Unbelievable. I've been going at this blog for five years or so and haven't made any sort of impact at all. Perhaps I never meant to benefity anyone else, but it's a bit discouraging not to have developed at least one transitory reader.

Anxious/Angry/Disjointed/Thoughts of one day.

Old people tend toward dementia and that seems to include me. It's coming on and there is little a person can do about it. So why not relax and enjoy it? Start your day with the news on the telly.

@  Roseanne offends everybody. So what? I am personally offended by celebrity geniuses almost every day and I don't think I am alone. Roseanne pushed the envelope to far. Not once but several times. Her comedy and personality depends on scribing the limits. She's bound to overstep once in a while. No. That's no excuse. But it does happen to her and to countless other on the fence practicioners.

@ The Democrat Party should be condemned long before Rosenne. With all of the bitter, phoney, disgraceful, insulting, and misleading statements by the very liberal "hate Trump forever" idiots, a normal person would hang them right alongside Roseanne. It's not fair. And exactly just who was it that said it was?

@Jeff Sessions has an impossible job. He cheerfully jumped onto the hot seat and immediately recused himself from the largest controversy facing America. What in the hell was he thinking? If the Russians actually have invaded our political or military cyberspace to the extent that they can gather information that can be used against our national interests, it's a big deal whether the invasion was government sponsored and intentional or not.

@ So our Atty. General who is in charge of the security of our nations laws - recuses himself of any responsibility? Come on people. There is a rotten egg here someplace that needs to be removed.

@ Sexual harassment has been around for hundreds of years. Adam and Eve were not the same creatures. Adam (male) was a bit larger, stronger, etc., and Eve (demale) a bit smaller, less physically strong, and so forth. The major difference was their sexual construction with the male set-up to produce sperm and the female to receive it, and then make it into another human being.

Today,  extremely progressive and other far out thinkers are trying to sell the idea that everything and everyone should be equal. It's not true. They are obviously and provably wrong. Men and women will never be equal in all things. Never ever. In human society men tend to aggressively court females, and females, for their part, tend to passively or secretly accept or reject the efforts of the male. With few exceptions this has always been so.

Now, in today's "media circus world",  men who, at some time in their lives, carried their natural pashionate function further than normal boundaries  (as set by the women subject to those advances), are to immediately reverse their behavior or be shamed for their minor infraction or publicly and lawfully sued for major infractions.

The male behavior, if particularly unlawful, must be addressed by the proper authorities (Doctors, Nursees, Pastors, Policemen, etc.) AS CLOSE TO IMMEDIATELY AS POSSIBLE. Certainly one month after the event should be sufficient.

These women who may or may not have a legitiment complaint, but have not attempted to make known the behavior within one month - should have no legal standing, no public forum, and no further claim on the errant male.

People like Bill Cosby for example, may be guilty of sexual harassment recently - but the claims and lawsuits against him stemming from 1 year or 10 years or 20 years ago - should be considered worthless and be disregarded.

Almost Insignificant Reminising

It's time now to prattle. To remember eighty years of existence on planet earth. Where did my recollections begin? Who knows. Perhaps when a few people, probably from Manchuria, Russia, and China, managed to trek across the Aleutians and enter what we now know as Alaska. Dressed in ragged animal skins and wrapped to ward off the bitter cold, they found the land too harsh to linger so most of them moved south toward warmer climes. A few of these folks split off from the main and nestled in Canada. Later this "branch" of early people found their way to the eastern coast (leaving small remnants here and there along the way) and continued southward toward the sun. They disbursed in small groups and then the groups gathered to become Indian nations.  These people, later described as Indians, traveled extensively in small tribes (groups) to locations across the land toward the east. By the time that America was "discovered" by Europeans there were Indians from New England and to the south, as well as toward the west. From the other (mythical) branch there were Indians from Washington State to the warmer south, and toward the east. 

Using the Mississippi River as a median of what eventually became America, Indians resided in virtually all parts of the land. They should be properly described as the original (aborigine) inhabitants of America. 

History is unreliable to this point but the land that was to become known as North America (Alaska, Canada, and America) was probably "discovered" by Europeans during the period between 1000 to 1492. Officially the American storyline is that Columbus "discovered" North America in 1492 in the name of Spain. Soon thereafter Columbus was followed by other exploring adventurers from several other  European nations. Many landed ashore and found Indian people inhabiting the area. They were universally primitive compared to the European adventurers that brashly ignored them - or considered them lesser people to be walked over.  The Europeans used their superior weapons to impose themselves and occupy the land. The Indians understandably resisted and soon became the "savage enemy".  After defeating them the arrogant invading newcomers took over the land and pushed the Indians aside. 

Anyone But Hillary

There  is no one currently active in politics that I dislike more.  Hillary and her husband should both be in jail, likable Bill for his disgusting conduct in the President's office, and Hillary  for abusing of all of her political offices. 

From the start of her career Hillary has used her influence to unethically put money in her purse. She has lied throughout her career, and dreadfully abused people around her. (The White House Travel Office for example). She has also proven to exercise extremely poor judgement. Her handling of the Benghazi Murders and the handling of  Secret and Top Secret military documents on her private cell phone, were, beyond criminal. 

Donald Trump is colorful new face on the political horizon. He's also a controversial person in his business and his personal affairs. Now he has mustered his blustering personality and entered the presidential primaries. On his quest to become the Republican Candidate he found that his complaints echoed those of the majority. Citizens have flocked to his banner. 

The liberal media (yes it is!) is having a new fit every day. Trump is expressing, in crude and colorful New Yorkese, the American citizen's rage against the corruption, incompetence, waste, and over-spending that has characterized the most recent administration.  

Ultra-Liberals (almost all Democrats) have penetrated most colleges and universities and impressed their liberal philosophy on several generations. They tend to enlarge welfare programs (at the public's expense of course).   It's disgusting, but a great way to buy votes. Unfortunately, Socialist systems tend to self-destruct.

Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal, our government has lost focus on the principles and freedoms so important to our citizens. 

I've tended to ignore Donald Trump in the absolute circus of Republican candidates. I  took him to be an insulting clown and thought he would disappear quickly. Well, he's not a clown and he didn't disappear. 

Mr. Trump  may surprise us in November.

dw

Politically Correct Non-sense

Several in the Democratic Party are shooting themselves in the foot.What's with these folks anyway?  Their  (former)  idols Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, are idols no more. They have discovered that both Tom and Andrew owned slaves once. It was over two centuries ago but they must be punished for those past sins. It makes no difference, for example,  that Tom established many of the human rights now so important in American life. Don't these current liberal folks know that today's moral standards are different than they were years ago. Perhaps ethics and common sense improve with time - but not always.

• Victor Davis Hansen offers this question which really ends the debate for me:

"Would American society of 1915 have allowed a federally supported agency 

such as PLANNED PARENTHOOD to cut apart aborted 

fetuses to sell infant body parts?"

Victor offers several other interesting comments  that I will paraphrase: 

• No society before the Nazi Third Reich had institutionally committed mass death by executing tens of thousands of sacrificial human captives. 

• Aztec Indians also practiced slave owning and ritual cannibalism. Isn't it true that the morality of the present is not always the same as that of the past. 

• Liberal-progressive Democrats are damning Woodrow Wilson.He successfully won World War I,  and was instrumental in organizing the League of Nations (forerunner of the United Nations). Wilson was also an unapologetic racist.  He fought integration  (particularly of African-Americans) in the U.S. military. As president of  Princeton University he also fought to deny University admission to African-Americans. Should we now focus only on the disreputable aspect of his legacy?

• Earl Warren, a liberal-progressive icon whose work on the Supreme Court promoted a liberal agenda with lasting impact. He and FD.R. also were largely responsible for incarcerating Japanese Americans in internment camps. Together they  raised the level of racist paranoia and stripped the constitutional rights from tens of thousands of U.S. citizens. This is now thought to have been a terrible decision.At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do.Should they now be condemned?

dw

Black, White, and Whatever

I'm going to try to be polite but it may not be possible. A Princeton professor that has studied the problems of the American black population is whining a different tune of despair. He teaches that before positive change can improve the lot of the black people, the white people must realize that they have to accept black folks as equals. Maybe this was so in the past, but today it's just more nonsense. There is only one thing that makes all of humanity equal, and that is the philosophy accepted since time immemorial that we are all equal in the eyes of our creator. In other human characteristics we may or may not be equal at all. You have brown eyes and I have blue. I am 6'2" tall and you are 5'4'. You are able to jump 6' high, but I can only jump 4' high. You an solve complex calculus equations and I can solve none. I can not read a book and you can memorize one.

People that are white, yellow, tan, or whatever are usually considered white. People with darker skin; black, brown, or simply have a dark skin for example, are considered black. There is, for most of us, a  heritage that includes one or many links of color. As the world grows larger it become harder to find any "pure" heritage of anyone. We are, generally,  each with a mixed and stirred history.

To advance in our society requires effort, initiative, education, and so forth. 

In America the most prominent original settlers were on the white/whatever  side. The population that continued to immigrate here also tended to be the same. The original black population arrived in America only to be dominated by the white majority at the time. This, of course, was over 200 years ago. From that time forward the white/whatever population tried to maintain their 'so called' superiority. Black/whatever people were held down.

Now, 2016, we have a white/whatever population that feels endangered by the relatively recent immigration of people of the Islamic faith. Most tend to be of Semitic origin or black. So the overall demographics have changed a lot. White folks started ahead and then tried to maintain their lead by holding the black folks down. Today the white people no longer hold the considerable competitive or numerical advantage they had in the past, and the black people have been making huge strides of upward mobility in American society. 

To be sure there is still not "equality" in several areas but - the playing field is leveling out. And America has added a very large influx of Hispanic people,  and another large number of of Islamic people. The balance in our population is now changing rapidly and will soon be of four parts rather than two; 1. White 2. Black 3. Hispanic 4. Semitic. 

In order to absorb the new populations without bankrupting our nation - it is vital that we: 

1. Control our borders and limit immigration by requiring eligibility qualifications. 

2. Every new immigrant that desires permanent residency must pledge to become a citizen.

3. Insist that all intending permanent residency must learn English, our national language. 

4. Insist that at least one person in a family group have the promise of a job before entry. 

5. Require that each new immigrant has a "sponsor" that can help the adaptation process. 

6. Make the qualifications for welfare assistance more demanding. 

pause

Trump - Aggressive Trumpet

I've tended to ignore Donald Trump in the circus of Republican candidates and I'm beginning to see this as a mistake. He's widely known to be ego driven and full of himself and much of what he says sounds like tabloid journalism.  He doesn't let anyone forget that he is filthy rich and the smartest person in the room. Before this 2016 presidential campaign his politics were quite changeable, with no particular right or left wing preference.  Now, he is running as a Republican, a man of the little people that are so dissatisfied with the present administration. I didn't even consider him  serious candidate - until recently.  Instead I  took him for a gross and insulting clown and thought he would disappear in a cloud of dust. Well, he's not a clown. 

Donald Trump came from  a real estate wealthy and close family. He graduated from a fine military prep school, and then a first rate college. I never did doubt his obvious hard driving style or his intelligence. Mr. Trump (or more likely a ghost writer) wrote a book and it is surprisingly thoughtful. In keeping with Mr. Trump's bombastic  style it is a good conservative primer - but without a depth of knowledge. There is little mention of  history, politics, or statesmanship. Yet, Donald Trump is not to be overlooked as a serious candidate. He has (and is) gaining support, from the great composite of low and middled class voters in particular. 

Mr. Trump  may surprise us in November.

dw

Trump

    All of a sudden Donald Trump is colorful face on the political horizon. Politics apparently drew him from his Golden Tower. He is, in case you didn't know, obscenely rich person or a bankrupt gambler. Either way he is a controversial person in business affairs and now in politics. With bluster and pizazz Trump has entered at the top. He's declared himself as a candidate for President. Why did he do this? He knows he will be criticized like never before. Who needs this? 

    Well, it seems that Donald Trump is one of a dozen people that seriously want to be elected President. Has he a chance? Probably not - but as a candidate he has an opportunity to voice his dissatisfaction with the today's political system, and to express his anger at the recent direction that President Obama is promoting. Trump is wise to the growing dead weight of America's excessive bureaucracy, the growing and dangerous federal debt, and the obvious need to turn the entire government back towards the application of  'common sense' in political decisions. For voicing his opinions in loud (and blunt) language the elitist ultra liberal press has been over-critical. They paint Trump as some kind of non-educated rich guy with a jello brain. Their treatment is not unlike that afforded (unfairly) to Sarah Palin a few years ago. Sarah is another fair minded, common sense, conservative leaning person that speaks her mind and gets the public's attention. 

    The liberals want to spend without limits, grow the size of government;  administer the constant creation of new governmental requirements, and to lead the country in the direction of socialism. Trump and Palin are both trying to reverse that trend. They see the disintegration caused by a liberalism that is not tempered with conservative thought. Both see the need for government control of certain political realities - but understand there must be a more cooperative spirit of "what's best for the country" on both sides. 

    Despite liberal resistance, there is no question that America's government is vastly overstaffed, employees over paid, and too many agencies duplicated. Conservatives like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin may not have the horsepower to be President but they certainly should be able to expound on their opinions. The press and other media should at least attempt to discuss all sides of controversial issues. The media needs to bring back some integrity and fairness.

    Liberalism has penetrated most colleges and universities and impressed their philosophy on several generations. That is perhaps the most significant reason for liberalism's popularity today. Liberals tend to create and enlarge welfare programs. That is another reason. 

    Over the years our American government  has been dominated by liberal persuasion. We've steadily drawn away from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Traditions have faded to obscurity. Government ethics and morals have been pushed aside. Honesty in government is a thing of the past.

America's Education No Longer Competitive

"A Nation At Risk"

An essay by this name was written in 1983. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the author. It  described what was then happening in our nation's K-12 schools and predicted the inevitable result. 30 years have now gone by. The essay was 99% correct. Since 1983 Americas' K-12 educational system has steadily declined. All those years of special committees, study groups, self described experts, political and union interferences, and etc. - all have failed.  Still, we continue to insist on the same programs and policies. Why?

In 1960 the system was quite different.

•  Classes began at 8:00 a.m. and  ended about 3:30 p.m.
• Teachers dressed professionally. Men: Suit & Tie / Women: Skirts & Dresses
• Students sat at their desks, feet on the floor, and spoke only when required.
• If students refused they were ejected from the classroom.
• The Principal or Vice Principal applied "corrective counseling and punishment".
• Discipline was the indispensable key to a successful school.
• Parents of students with repetitive disciplinary problems were invited to school.
• Uncooperative students with multiple infractions were expelled.
• Teachers worked on a one year to three year contract depending on experience.
• Teachers had an agent or union interface with school administration.

This format, or one that was similar, combined to educate our K-12 students for several decades. Then, at some point in time and after World War II, politicians, unions and dreamy psychologists began to tinker with the educational system. The result has clearly been awful. The do-gooders (usually with the best of intentions) have nearly destroyed the comparative excellence of our educational system. Today we have an enlightened, elitist, semi-tolerant, unprincipled, self esteem centered system that has failed to properly educate millions of students.  Politically the system has produced very liberal educators who have promoted a ridiculous standard of political correctness while not teaching basic knowledge, skills, or the other prerequisites of a well rounded education. American education no longer leads to exceptional educational achievement in the shrinking world community.