The Concord Monitor recently ran an editorial titled, “The fringe of everyday misogyny.”
I agree completely with the conclusion of the first paragraph, that Representative Robert Fisher should, my words not the Monitor’s, get the hell out of the State House:
It’s obvious that state Rep. Robert Fisher of Laconia, who was outed this week as one of the creators of an online forum dedicated to a particularly repulsive strain of misogyny, doesn’t belong in the State House.
But the Monitor’s editorial actually is not about Fisher. It is about pushing the progressive feminist agenda in New Hampshire though “shaming”: suggesting that anyone who does not support the progressive feminist agenda is just a less virulent misogynist than Fisher. The last two paragraphs:
The bottom line is that Rep. Robert Fisher isn’t worth New Hampshire’s time. He is a sideshow in the much wider battle for gender equality. When he fades from view, women will still be getting paid less than men. They will still choose silence after a sexual assault because they fear the backlash. They will still endure harassment in the workplace because that behavior has been normalized.
Robert Fisher isn’t the face of misogyny in New Hampshire. He is merely a grotesque caricature of everyday inequality.
A caricature is a representation of someone or something that exaggerates and distorts prominent characteristics. So according to the Monitor:
If you think existing laws are adequate to assure equal pay, that is rooted in a shared belief with Fisher that rape isn’t all bad.
If you think that people accused of a sexual assault are entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process -you may recall the Duke lacrosse players and Rolling Stone’s UVA rape-hoax– you are just a less grotesque Fisher.
If you think that workplace sexual harassment laws are adequate, never mind have gone too far … yup, you’re a mini-me Fisher.
The Monitor’s suggestions are totally ludicrous and totally offensive. And they trivialize rape.
Governor Sununu recently had this to say about a prominent school-choice bill, SB 193:
I think when it comes to using state money for schools, and I think a lot of people know I’m a big believer in school choice, that whatever we do, we have to make sure we’re not harming public schools.
We’re not just removing funds out of those schools and we understand that as we move money around, what those pros and cons might be.
I do have concerns when you start using state funds, whether it be a voucher program, or all the different terms that you want to put for it, to schools of a non-public nature.
Whatever we do, we have to take things step wise. I think that’s the most important thing. You don’t want to jump into everything all at once.
One of the things I like and that I’ve seen and that I’ve encouraged on the table are opening it up just within a program that allows flexibility within public schools, whether it just be for certain grades or maybe for entire districts if the districts were small enough or compact enough.
I think the point is that you don’t want to jump in too big too fast. You have to understand what the repercussions to the public school systems might be and make sure that you’re doing it step wise so that you understand the pros, cons, negative effects, and unintended consequences of any program you put forward in the state.
Stated considerably more succinctly, Sununu (a) believes reducing funding for public schools in order to fund school-choice may “harm public schools,” and (b) he wants to limit, at least initially, school choice to choice among public schools.
Sununu’s funding concern echoes a claim made by hard-left Democrat Representative Marjorie Porter in a recent op-ed:
… funds are limited, and forcing public schools to share them with private schools is simply unfair. Our local superintendent estimates if these bills are signed into law as written, it will cost our local school district more than $600,000 – even before any of our currently enrolled students make use of it. How will this improve things?
Jason Bedrick of edCHOICE has demolished that claim:
According to the New Hampshire Department of Education, district schools spend $17,565 per pupil annually on average … .The ESAs would be funded only with a portion of the state’s per-pupil funding, but about two-thirds of the district school funding comes from local and federal sources. Those local and federal funds would remain entirely with the district schools, and the state would continue to fund districts for the students they enroll.
Schools have both variable costs, which go up or down based on short-term changes in student enrollment, and fixed costs which do not vary with enrollment. … the local and federal funding more than covers the average school’s fixed costs, meaning that decreases in enrollment translate into significant savings for district schools and more resources for students who choose to remain in public schools.
I would add that Porter and other hard-lefties want to have it both ways. They claim that cost of an adequate education can be calculated through a per-pupil mathematical formula. Yet Porter also claims that the cost of an adequate education does not decrease if the number of students attending public schools decreases. In other words, if as Porter claims the cost of an adequate education in a school is the number of students multiplied by the per-pupil cost of an adequate education, then the cost must decrease when enrollment decreases.
Sununu’s position that school choice should be limited to choice among public schools, supports the foremost goal of the #VolinskyAgenda, which is to prevent poor and middle class students from attending private schools:
“strong pub schools” – block school choice, so middle-class and poor parents cannot pick the schools their children attend the way rich parents, like Andru Volinsky, can and do. Forcing middle-class and poor parents into public schools facilitates Democrats inculcating their left-wing values into children, and thereby creates generation after generation of compliant Democrat voters who think, talk and act the way Democrats think they should. Especially cannot allow children to attend religious schools because abortion must never be seen as the taking of an innocent human life.
To be clear, I do not think that Sununu supports Volinsky’s goal of using public schools to inculcate Democrat (as in Democrat Party) values in children.
But to be equally clear, I do think that Sununu’s belief that choice should be limited to choice among public schools is horribly misguided. It appears to be based on the erroneous notion that choice would deprive public schools of necessary funding. And the goal should be to give students from poor and middle-class families access to the same educational opportunities as students from more affluent families.
I previously posted about SB 3 here. In a nutshell, while the Democrats and their allies, such as the ACLU (which is essentially a Super-PAC for the Democrats) charge SB 3 is “voter suppression,” it is actually a fairly toothless tiger.
The ACLU in a recent op-ed claims that SB 3 “would effectively criminalize legitimate voters who cannot provide documentation proving where they live and cause government ‘agents’ to visit these legitimate voters.” Let’s examine those charges.
SB 3 will allow the practice of drive-by voting to continue. In 2016, there were over 7,300 instances of potential drive-by voting. More particularly, on election day 1,423 persons were allowed to vote with no photo ID at all while 5,903 were allowed to vote using out-of-State licenses. Continue reading The ACLU’s BullCrap Attacks on SB 3
Anti-school choice forces, including the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office, have used the New Hampshire Constitution’s “Blaine Amendment” to oppose school-choice in New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s Blaine Amendment reads as follows:
[No] money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. (New Hampshire Constitution, Part II, Article 83)
While phrased neutrally, Blaine Amendments were a response to Catholic immigration. Blaine was a Congressman who proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution in 1875 that would have prevented States from providing financial aid to religious schools. In a nutshell, public schools, at this time, were teaching generic Protestantism and Catholic immigrants wanted the government either to cease that practice or to provide funding to Catholic schools. The Blaine Amendment was intended to prevent such funding. Continue reading A United States Supreme Court Case of Huge Importance to School-Choice in New Hampshire
The Right and the Left rarely agree, but many prominent lawyers on the Left agree that Trump knocked it out of the park with his pick of Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat held by the late Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. For example, from the Weekly Standard.
Even those on the Left who opposed Gorsuch conceded the point by calling for -and/or- engaging in an unprecedented partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Simply put, although Gorsuch clerked for Justice Kennedy the Senate Democrats wouldn’t have filibustered Gorsuch if they thought he was going to be another Anthony Kennedy.
Soon Governor Sununu will have the chance to put his stamp on the New Hampshire Supreme Court: Continue reading The Problem With Ovide
From the twitter of the NHGOP:
I made my thoughts known about Governor Sunna’s nomination of MacDonald here.
To reiterate and update, Continue reading More Apt Analogy Is NHGOP Scores In NHDEMS Basket
Governor Chris Sununu proposed $18 million in his budget for funding full-fay kindergarten. From his budget address: Continue reading Shawn Jasper’s Hypocrisy on Full-Day Kindergarten
So Chris Sununu has nominated Attorney Gordon MacDonald to be New Hampshire’s next Attorney General:
And New Hampshire’s RINOs are ecstatic. From lobbyist/insider Tom Rath, Continue reading This One Was For The Establishment