Parsing Jim Best's Letter to the Dalton Community

Head of School Best

This letter was sent by Head of School Jim Best yesterday as a response to the anonymous parent letter. It is unedited, but my comments are italicized.

To the Dalton Community:

Like many schools across the country, Dalton is in the midst of a rigorous and constructive debate about how to bring important issues of equity to life in ways that reinforce and advance our academic program. 

No, it's not. There has been no debate. Under the cover of the COVID distraction, "anti-racism" has been presented to parents and alumni as a fait accompli, and has already been sown into the entire curriculum. 

This debate has recently centered around the School's commitment to becoming an anti-racist institution, and one or more parents recently chose to write an anonymous letter that takes issue with how – and why – we're bringing that objective to life for our students. 

Have you asked yourself why these parents chose to remain anonymous?

I'd like to take a moment to articulate the values backing that commitment, and why it is so important for our school.

At its heart, Dalton seeks to create a climate of respect rooted in creativity, curiosity, individual risk-taking, and personal excellence. Our core values of honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, humility, citizenship, justice, respect, and responsibility, are not just words on a website – they are an essential part of who we are and how we develop students of strong character.

Great list of core values - except they can't be all be when "anti-racism" is now positioned as THE core value.

Our commitment to being an anti-racist institution is a natural extension of these values. In its simplest terms, this means creating an inclusive environment where all members of our community – students, faculty, staff, parents, and alums – feel respected, valued, and heard. 

Do you think that the parents right now feel "respected, valued, and heard?" 

It's a belief that every person who walks through Dalton's doors, physical or virtual, should be treated with dignity and empathy and protected from hatred and ignorance in all its forms. None of that is onerous; none of that is ideological. 

It's not ideological? "Not being a racist" is not ideological - it's human decency. "Anti-racism" is ideological to its core. Here's how Merriam-Webster defines "ideology": 

"A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture."

I can't think of anything that fits that description better than "anti-racism."

These are the principles that have guided our school for over a century and that will continue to be our north star.

To bring these principles to life in a thoughtful, meaningful way, this December I launched a comprehensive formal review of all DEI-related academic programming – led by independent experts and guided by exceptional faculty steeped in our rigorous academic tradition – to ensure that any existing or future programmatic and curricular revisions are consistent with our mission. 

Independent experts? Are we talking about Pollyanna? For those not familiar, Pollyanna is a "DEI consultant," and they are steeped in ideological, race-based training, including fully embracing "anti-racism" and the odious 1619 Project. They were founded by Casper Caldarola, a Dalton grad and ex board member. Their board and staff are chock full of Dalton people.

This effort will be further informed by our community through expert-led interviews and anonymous surveys, the first of which I hope everyone will complete by Monday, February 1, at
5:00 PM.

Some parents have told me the survey is a joke. The very first question asks parents to list the things they like most about Dalton's DEI mission. That's like asking, what do you like best about me, my intelligence or good looks? How about asking some of the questions that parents suggested in the anonymous letter?

As we roll out the results of this review later this spring, I intend to do a better job of demonstrating that excellence and inclusion aren't competing ideas; each makes the other stronger. Rigor and anti-racism aren't mutually exclusive, they're integral to each other. 

Absolutely wrong. A key tenet of "anti-racism" is equity. Equity means equal results. It means ditching advanced classes if blacks aren't making it into them in societally correct percentages. As Andrew Sullivan put it, "Equity means treating individuals unequally so that groups are equal."

True to our founding, I'll continue to try to strike the ideal balance between where excellence meets innovation, grounded by the strong academic ideals that remain a cornerstone of our school.

Is any of this true to Dalton's founding? I think of the school's motto, Go Forth Unafraid, and then I think of parents who can only voice their opinions under the veil of anonymity. 

As a community that has long stood for the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, my hope is that in this at least, we can stand together. To do so we must continue to work alongside one another, to communicate openly, and assume the best of intent from one another. We must model for our students what it takes to learn and change in our constant effort to be a better and stronger community in a better and stronger world.

With gratitude,
Jim Best

Some Dalton Parents Want to Save the School

Proposals reprinted here in full. This was attached to the bottom of the letter in my previous post. Note that members of the board have already privately dismissed much of this to be "racist," and the letter writers remain anonymous for fear of retribution.

By the way, remember how Jim Best's initial reaction in the wake of the Naked Dollar's revelations in December was to describe the faculty demands as a "conversation starter?" The letter below, as well as the one in the previous post, make it clear this was a lie. Many of the demands were already fully implemented. Illustrating this perfectly is that (per Jim Best's welcome back email), Dalton no longer implements "DEI," which, as we all know by now, stands for "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," but "DEIA."

Apparently, this is going to be like LGBTIAQ (...) where every few weeks a new letter is added to placate ever-more narrowly sliced constituencies. It used to be just "D&I," but the equity part was added a couple of years ago. The "A" now stands for "Anti-racism," which is a full-throated advocacy of Critical Race Theory.

And there's this: the Dalton Board is in complete disarray. They are preparing a response to the "concerned parents" but have no idea what to say. There have been many drafts. Some on the board want to concede that "anti-racism" shouldn't necessarily be the school's entire reason for being, while others claim this view itself to be racist. They apparently aren't even close to figuring out what to say.

Here's a takeaway quote from the parent letter below: 

"It's quite clear that over the summer, when schools across the country were thinking deeply about how to reopen and teach students, the Dalton administration was on a crusade to radically transform the school's curriculum and pedagogy."

By the way, you will see references to something called "Pollyanna." The Naked Dollar will explore connections between Dalton, its board, and Pollyanna in the next post.

Ideas for Restoring the Confidence of the Dalton Community

In response to the crisis of confidence, we believe three important steps are necessary., and we outline them below. We welcome a dialogue and a free exchange of ideas - if there are better ideas those would be great too!

First, the Dalton Board must immediately appoint and impartial ombudsperson to advocate for Dalton's education mission and to solicit feedback from parents and alumni about the changes to the curriculum. This could be an Ombudsperson for Curricular Excellence as outlined by the incoming Board Chair. This must be someone who is widely trusted, someone that parents and alumni may feel comfortable reaching out to in absolute confidence. Ideally it would be someone well steeped in the Dalton way. This person would be ethically and legally bound by confidentiality.

It is essential that this ombudsperson be impartial and not come from the DEI industry or specialization, which would defeat the purpose of having an independent voice. The recent appointment of experts on DEI from outside Dalton to ascertain whether we have gone far enough is not sufficient. These may be respected and talented professionals of good will, but the nature of their mandate and professional expertise does not necessarily position them to look at whether the school is being served by the curricular changes, whether the school is staying on mission, and whether the proportion of DEI materials in the curriculum is right sized. They are not positioned to see how upset the parent body and alumni are. The administration must not be involved in the selection of guidance of this important representative of the community.

Second, the ombudsperson must open a confidential avenues of communication with community members and hold an anonymous survey of the faculty, parents and alumni to understand how the community feels about the pedagogical changes. This is very different from the survey being proposed by the administration. If the results of the survey aren't anonymous, it's basically useless. It must be designed and implemented by an ombudsperson accountable to the Board and bound by confidentiality to honor the anonymity of respondents. This is the only way to get a real feel of the depth of the crisis that has been created. The survey should include the following areas:

1. Do you feel Dalton has stayed true to its educational mission?
2. What are your thoughts about the Dalton "anti-racism curriculum?"
3. Does "anti-racism" make you feel hurt or excluded?
4. Is the cadence right? i.e. should it be every class, every day, every subject? or perhaps an assembly once a year? once a month? In response to current events?
5. Would you be happier supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, without "anti-racism" in the curriculum?
6. Is a DEI program which appears to segregate parents and children by race in groups and clubs contributing to the healing within the community?
7. Do parents and faculty feel the new material is age-appropriate?
8. Does the community have confidence in the administration and DEI leadership to champion Dalton's educational mission?

Third, the school must immediately put a hold on this new "anti-racist" curriculum and revert to the Dalton curriculum. Immediately pause the "anti-racist" teacher training programs, Pollyanna, and other well-intentioned programs that are altering the curriculum and mission without proper review. First Program students and Middle Schoolers have been exposed to a college-oriented curriculum with sexuality and violence. Make Health and Assembly optional until there is a consensus that these are age-appropriate. Empower the teachers to passionately take responsibility for the children's education and teach their subjects according to the Dalton Plan, as they have done so well for 100 years. It seems insane that we have to say this, but let's restore the centrality of education to the school's mission.

With regard to the teacher trainings driving curricular changes, a glance at Pollyanna's website suggests that their recommended curriculum has already permeated Dalton classes from social studies to science. This is a brand new, untested endeavor and it appears there are close ties between the Board, PA, and the administration that suggest a conflict of interest, or at least a muddling of priorities and missions.

The company's website features a quote from Jim Best: "Pollyanna is transformative. You'll talk the talk, you'll walk the walk, and you'll see the world-and-your-work-in a new light." We don't believe it's right to transform the Dalton curriculum and pedagogy with a new "anti-racist" pedagogy, or "racial literacy." It appears some of the worst abuses this year stem from this source. It's quite clear that over the summer, when schools across the country were thinking deeply about how to reopen and teach students, the Dalton administration was on a crusade to radically transform the school's curriculum and pedagogy. Many parents and alumni have lost confidence in the administration's leadership and ability to make independent and unbiased decisions about the content of the curriculum. 

A neutral and unbiased ombudsperson appears to us the only way that a reasoned dialogue can be achieved in the wake of a highly divisive rollout of curricular changes, in an atmosphere of fear of speaking up. If the Dalton Board is not willing to step up and get an independent person that can be trusted to take the pulse of the community and act as a steward of Dalton's educational mission, as concerned parents and alumni, we would be open to finding a neutral third party for this important role.

We understand that the Board isn't set up to design the curriculum. They are, however, trustees and stewards of Dalton's educational mission. Curricular changes that affect that mission should concern the Board. In civics terms, these curricular changes that have been taken in the heat of the moment by Executive Order, but are serious enough to require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Once the situation has been stabilized and the school reconnects with its core mission, we can consider a multi-year curricular review. The content of the curriculum could be considered holistically by some of the finest minds of the educational world. It is in this context of ensuring a broad liberal arts education that curricular changes might best be considered and evaluated in accordance with Dalton's educational mission.

We hope this is food for thought, and we implore the Board to open a more meaningful dialogue with the community before the administration makes major changes to Dalton's curriculum and educational philosophy.

Dalton Parents Push Back

 

The Dalton follies continue. 

Yesterday, a letter was circulated from a group of concerned parents. The letter is well written and measured. Will this stop the pendulum swing towards madness, or will it be ignored? It is reprinted in full below.

Note that the letter is anonymous. That parents are afraid to come forward with their honest (and well informed) opinions tells you all you need to know. They are afraid of retribution against their children. Don't think this crowd is above it, either. It happens all the time. Conservative parents and students everywhere have learned to shut up and keep their heads down. (In this case, the parents can't even be call conservative; let's call them just "rational.")

My understanding is that the board is looking to throw Head of School Jim Best under the bus. Honestly, they should throw themselves under the bus. They let this happen. The board actually instructed the school to remove their names from the school's website after the Naked Dollar's first reported on what was happening. Courageous move, that. If you want to see who's on it, I listed their names here. I have learned that some of the board members are "outraged" by the letter, calling it racist.

Of course they did.

Anyway, here it is. Congrats to the scribes, it's a powerful statement, and stands in sharp contrast to the hideous inhumanity of the faculty demands. As you read it, ask yourself how anyone in their right mind would keep their kids at this school. I am reminded of one reader's comment:

"You know your society has reached peak bourgeoise decadence when its ruling class will pay top dollar to learn how to hate themselves."

Loving Concern @ Dalton

An Open Letter to the Dalton Community

Dear Dalton Community,

We are writing with heavy hearts and loving concern over the future of Dalton. As alumni and parents, we have been a part of Dalton and its wonderful community of teaching and learning for several decades. Amidst these trying times, we want to step back and remember what matters most. Dalton's greatest strengths have been 1) an educational philosophy that celebrates teaching and learning, independent thought, curiosity and creativity, and 2) an extraordinarily dedicated and caring faculty. To these strengths, the school has added one more great light - an unbelievable diversity of the student body, unique among its peers, of which the school may be very proud. While the passion for progressive education - true liberal arts, child-centered education that nurtures a love of learning and curiosity native to children - seems to have waned over the years, nothing prepared us for this fall.

Love of learning and teaching is now being abandoned in favor of an "anti-racist curriculum." Our new mission is "vocal" and explicit. How else are we to interpret the repeated communications from the Head of School pledging allegiance to a new ideology that is untested, and worse yet, untestable? How else can we interpret a curriculum night where every single class, from science to social studies, to physical education, must now be rewritten to embody "anti-racism?" When so many of Dalton's extraordinary faculty sign a letter that shows little interest in the education of children, the joy of learning, or the kids' educational development? Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, "racist cop" reenactments in science, "de-centering whiteness" in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. Wildly age-inappropriate, many of these classes feel more akin to a Zoom corporate sensitivity training than to Dalton's intellectually engaging curriculum.

Many of us do not feel welcome at Dalton any more. That really hurts to write. This ideology is extremely exclusionary to those families (perhaps a majority of the Dalon community) who don't identify as part of an oversimplified racial dichotomy in a beautiful and diverse world, or those who choose not to make their racial identity the centerpiece of their family life or their children's education.

Dalton's progressive educational philosophy believes that each child has a spark, and all we need to do is fan that flame with a love of leaning, books, art and human civilization, to cherish nature and love and respect our fellow humans. This approach is enshrined in the Dalton Plan. You'd never know that to listen to this years's classes and administration. The curriculum is being revamped in a rush in the middle of a pandemic. Not once this semester have any of us heard (and because classes are taking place in our homes, we hear) mentioned the joy of reading, of learning, of independent thinking, of curiosity, of discovering math and science, of human cultures. What we have heard is a pessimistic and age-inappropriate litany of grievances in EVERY class. We fear that rote learning of political concepts that must be accepted as gospel is not a nutritious educational experience.

In a place of joyful progressive education, students are exposed to an excessive focus on skin color and sexuality, before they even understand what sex is. Children are bewildered and bored after hours of discussing these topics in the new long-form classes. Dalton used to awaken children's imaginations with fiction, art, Aztec bookmaking, the Renaissance, ITL and Carmino Ravosa musicals. Having children focus on skin color and their sexual identities, rather than immersing them in the beauty and joy of human civilization, the wonder of science and nature, or the meaning and power of words and math and music, seems nuts to us.

The children are innocent, humane, and decent young people full of joy in a diverse classroom. It's almost as if we're punishing the children for "the sins of the fathers." Some of this material seems a strange thing to teach seven or ten or twelve years olds. They shouldn't be anti anything. They should be pro the beauty of humanity, works of art, creativity, loving and caring for each other as citizens and community members. We have each found ways to make community building and social change part of our life missions, many of us with the tools Dalton taught us.

The new "anti-racist" obsession with race is incredibly exclusionary and hurtful to many of the children and their families, and many are considering leaving. Why would anyone voluntarily send their children to be taught that they are guilty regardless of their decency and kindness? A school where they are constantly reminded of the color of their skin, not the content of their character. What Black parent wants the other children to feel sorry for their kid and look at them differently? We have spoken with dozens of families, of all colors and backgrounds, who are in shock and looking for an alternative school for their children.

Jim Best's recent email suggested that the school "will always welcome community input and honest around how to meaningfully bring these principles to life." Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not an intellectually honest debate over the role and scope of "anti racism" at the school and in the curriculum. It is an anti-intellectual, doctrinaire soliloquy of the Head of School, perhaps with the assistance of corporate consultants who are invited to indoctrinate the rest.

Please understand the fear surrounding the implementation of this radical change to the curriculum. No one can speak up for fear of being branded a racist. Or for exhibiting white fragility. Nonsense. We are all caring people who want a better world. As a result of this fear, the Board and the administration don't realize the depth of the pain this has caused many families, or how many feel compelled to leave Dalton altogether. Jim's recent email states that this is a done deal. "We agree that our commitment is clearly aligned with our mission, strategic plan, and values as a culture and a community. I need all of us to understand that as well." Honest debate? Basically it says we know what's best, and get on board.

We are concerned that the administration has lost its way, and that the Board appears unwilling or unable to speak out and represent the Dalton community as a whole.

When a great institution undertakes a periodic curricular review, and certainly a revamping of the core mission of the institution, it is done with the advice of world renowned educators, faculty, board members, parents and alumni. We have forgotten that before being an "antiracist" institution, we must be an educational institution. We can't remake the curriculum only with the expertise of teachers specialized in "anti-racism," or we will accidentally make that the focus of the curriculum,

At most, social justice is just one part of the educational world. We need a broad based group of passionate educators to look at the curriculum over a period of years and restore our educational philosophy. We have confused a progressive pedagogical model with progressive politics. Even for people who are sympathetic to that political viewpoint, the role of a school is not to indoctrinate politically. It's to open the minds of children to the wonders of the world and leaning. The Dalton we love, that has changed our lives, is nowhere to be found. And that is a huge loss.

To be clear, we abhor racism. We celebrate Dalton's diversity and its inclusive environment, and we believe in better outcomes for Black Americans. Diversity is the best thing to happen to Dalton in the last twenty years. We, too, have been inspired by the tragic events of lst summer and are taking action in our own ways to make a difference. We totally understand the administration's desire to do something. We simply reject the "anti-racism" on philosophical, ethical, and pedagogical grounds, and we support other ways to oppose racism and teach children to become thoughtful and empathetic people, In our view, these recent curricular changes achieve precisely the opposite results as intended.

As many scholars have noted, the recent push for "anti-racism" eduction rests on unquestioned and potentially flawed philosophical underpinnings. It flattens out the rich diversity of the student body. There is no questioning allowed. Look at how divisive this initiative has been. One can embrace the ideals of hard work of making the world a better place without straying from our core educational mission. We risk losing what makes Dalton special. We must recommit ourselves to finding it.

It's unfortunate that the discourse has become so fraught that the numerous community members who contributed to this letter feel compelled to remain anonymous. We hope this communication will help the Board and the administration become aware of the depth of hurt that has been unleashed with recent changes in the direction of Dalton. In the spirit of getting a meaningful dialog going, we have shared a few ideas below that we think could contribute to restoring the trust of the community. We have set up an email as a confidential way for people to reach out and share ideas. Any creative ideas to help the community connect with Dalton's core mission would be welcome!

Most importantly, if you share our love of Dalton's education mission and our concerns about the future of the school, please reach out to the Board, share this letter widely, and make your voice heard.

If we focus on ideology at the expense of curiosity and creativity, we will extinguish the spark. Let's celebrate what makes Dalton special - and extraordinarily diverse community, a wise an enthusiastic faculty, curious and engaged students and a distinct educational philosophy that has survived the test of time. Let's build on that foundation to continue to grow and improve in a patient and thoughtful way. We must dig deep into the Dalton spirit and get back on track with an exciting and meaningful progressive liberal arts education.

Sincerely,

Loving Concern @ Dalton

Note: Following this, there was a list of ideas for restoring the school. I will publish them at a later date.

 

One Year In - COVID by the Numbers

The State of Connecticut keeps really good COVID data, and it's eye opening. 

                                  Deaths by Age Group As a Percentage of Group Population

     Age Range    Deaths/Population

  0-29                 0.001%

 30-49                0.014%

 50-69                0.122%

 70-79                0.584%

   80+                 2.424%

The last two groups, those 70 and over, have accounted for 81% of the deaths even though they are only 12% of the population. Those 80 and over have a 3,954 times greater chance of dying than those under the age of 30.

Even those in the 50-69 group are relatively unaffected by COVID. If you were under 50, you effectively had zero risk, breathless media reports not withstanding.

What this means, of course, is that we never should have shut our country down. The correct response was to keep everything open while those over 65 or 70 took steps to self-isolate.

These data were pretty obvious by last June. Why was our policy response so bad?

The obvious answer is politics were in play. Blue states self-imposed the strictest lockdowns, and it hardly seems a coincidence. Anything to hurt the Orange Man.

The less obvious answer is that it's the baby boom, screwing everyone else, yet again. Consider who many of the people are who run the country: Pelosi, McConnell, Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, DeWine, Sanders...now Biden. 

We are run by a gerontocracy. 

Then of, of course, there's this guy:

Anthony Fauci, age 80

The correct policy would have sidelined these people to Zoom while everyone else went about their business. It would have loosened their generation's grip on power, a power that has definitely outlived its welcome. 

Was self-interest involved here? I wouldn't discount it. They wanted the pain to be shared. It reminds me of the AIDS epidemic in the 80s, which really only affected one demographic group, but that wasn't the promulgated narrative.

Now, don't get all mad saying I have no proof. Of course I don't. But self-interest should never be underestimated as a motivational force.

Other considerations, one year on: 

• COVID has been a massive transfer of wealth from small companies to large corporations. Easy money has driven stock prices through the roof while the restaurant on the corner shuts its doors. This is not healthy for our country, but don't the Fortune 500 is in any hurry to change the status quo. 
• COVID testing has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. Don't think they want to go away anytime soon.
• The private sector (generally) has suffered while the public sector grows ever bigger. Does anyone know of a public sector employee, anywhere, that has lost their job? This, despite tax revenues plummeting. This will mean still more borrowing to make up the difference, something the private sector will have to pay for.

It's time to open up the damn country.

Why Conservatives Should Love Cryptocurrencies

I started buying crypto about six weeks ago. I'd been pondering this for years, but finally got off my ass. Does it feel late? I think it's still very, very early. How many people do you know that own Bitcoin? One,  two? The total value of all Bitcoin is about the market cap of JP Morgan, a single company  If you think this is going to become an asset class, it has to be 100x a single company like JP Morgan.

But making an investment argument is not the point here. There's plenty of that elsewhere. I want to make a philosophical one.

First, Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a currency without a nation state attached to it. Nothing specifically backs it, but nothing backs the dollar, either. Unlike the dollar, though, Bitcoin has no controlling authority other than code. This has one key advantage: it can't be inflated (which is to say, devalued) by irresponsible governance. 

Politicians ultimately are the ones who destroy currencies. It's a pattern repeated throughout history. They spend more than they have, borrowing to make up the difference. Then they print money to pay lenders back. The more they print, the more the currency is devalued. It happens most everywhere. How many times has the Argentine peso crashed in the last century?

The U.S. is not immune to this. Here's a graph of our money supply:

Seventy percent of outstanding dollars have been printed in the last decade. That's an amazing fact. You've heard of "quantitative easing?" That's government-speak for printing money.

Our status as the world's reserve currency has shielded us, for a time, from an erosion of value, as has the fact that many other fiat currencies are backed equally irresponsible policy.

But what if there was a currency that actually practiced quantitative hardening? 

There is, and it's called Bitcoin. 

There are currently 18.6 million bitcoins in the world. Of these, it is estimated that 3-4 million are lost forever (people lose their passwords or die without giving anyone access). The pace at which new bitcoins can be created ("mined") is halved every four years. Once it reaches 21 million, there will never be another. 

Projected Bitcoin Supply

This is a very powerful fact, and it will ultimately serve as a means to keep profligate governments in check. In my view, Bitcoin will increasingly be viewed as a reserve-currency alternative. When this happens, fiat currencies will have to compete not just with each other, but with Bitcoin. They will have to operate with unaccustomed restraint or watch their currencies, and the power that comes with them, evaporate. 

Good.

The other crypto conservatives should love is Ethereum. Ethereum is completely different from Bitcoin, and it's worth understanding how. It is actually a platform that rests on a vast global network of computers. It is decentralized with no controlling parties. 

Using the Ethereum platform, developers can create applications (called "Dapps," for "decentralized applications") that let users make agreements and buy, sell, and trade without a middle man. To put a Daap on the platform, developers need to spend "Ethers," which is the cryptocurrency associated with Ethereum. Ethers have the second largest crypto market cap behind Bitcoin.

Think of Ethereum as the world's computer, but instead of being one big computer, it's thousands (millions?) of separate ones.

This is not good news for much of today's Big Tech. Even though the internet seems decentralized, it's not. The vast majority of it runs through the mega-platforms like Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. These companies have begun actively stifling speech, almost exclusively from the right. (The decision by several not to support Twitter-alternative Parler has been chilling.) 

Simply, these companies have become way too powerful, and they have social agendas beyond simply making a profit for their shareholders. 

Ethereum is the ultimate middle-man crusher. 

Why go to Amazon Web Services or Dropbox if there was a simple way to utilize private servers? 

Why buy a book through Amazon when you could buy it directly from the seller? Someone will create something that looks like Amazon, but in reality has no centralized corporation overseeing it. 

Why pay Uber a fee if you can hire a driver directly? Why pay Netflix if you can get what you want directly from the creators?

Check out Presearch. It is a decentralized search engine that doesn't have Google's privacy issues or anti-competitive practices. The coolest part? Every time you search, you get some tokens (their own crypto). These tokens are the currency with which advertisers pay to get on the platform. You may not need them for that, but if the platform grows, you can sell your crypto at a profit.

The value of Presearch tokens (called PREs) has recently skyrocketed from 2 to 8 cents.

I love Presearch.

I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface, and honestly, I'm still learning. Like I said, early days. 

Last thought: I don't have the data to support this, but I think it's safe to say that crypto's biggest fanbase leans young and left. I wonder if they understand the basic contradiction in their views. They vote for an ever-expanding centralized planning (e.g. "Medicare for all") while at the same time supporting libertarian mega-trends like crypto. 

I would be the last one to suggest there's much self-analysis going on. 

P.S. If you want to try Presearch and start with 20 tokens, click this: https://www.presearch.org/signup?rid=2048924

Critical Race Theory and the "Equity" Scam

 

You've see this one, right? The three kids on the left are "equality," because they all have the same size box. The kids on the right are "equity," because they have an equal outcome.

Seems nice, right? Everyone's happy. This poster has been used in endless DEI sessions. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, if you haven't been keeping up.)

I just have so many problems with this.

For starters, the poster is misleading. The boy on the right has been given the help he needs to reach a goal, and that's great. This is what all our schools should be doing. 

If only this were a good metaphor. 

It isn't. This is a better one:

Okay, a bit graphic, but it makes the point. Critical Race Theory, the guiding force behind the DEI movement, is cultural Marxism. It is about equal results, achieved by tearing standards down. Saying things like, "striving for excellence" is now considered a microaggression. Not kidding.

Look no further than the faculty demands at the Dalton School (chronicled in previous posts). One of the demands is to eliminate AP classes (euphemistically called "layered" classes) by 2023 if black students are not qualifying in the same percentages.

In other words, bring down the high achievers (including some blacks) if the numbers aren't equal. "Equity" is all about assuming racism exists wherever the numbers for racial groups aren't equal. It doesn't require that one find actual discrimination. If you don't have a proportionate number of blacks at your company or on your faculty or in your AP classes - presto! - there's systemic racism. Cue the hiring of an immense DEI infrastructure. Yale alone has 150 DEI officers. I have no idea what they do all day, other than sow division.

Which brings me to my next issue with poster #1. It shows three individual boys, which is highly misleading. The "equity" movement is about groups; it cares not about the individual. The original intent of the civil rights movement - that we be judged as unique individuals, not by the color of our skin - has been thrown on its head.

Now, one's defining characteristic is color.

Here's a great example. A few decades ago, symphonies began using "blind" auditions. The idea was that judges would only hear the quality of the music and not be influenced by race or gender. Now, the New York Times, among others, is demanding that this practice end. They want racial preferences to make sure orchestras are diverse. Never mind tapping the best musicians.

The word "meritocracy" is also considered a microaggression. Yup.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly favor getting people the help they need to be the best they can be, and that needs to start at a young age. To do this, there has to be an honest conversation about teachers unions and fatherless homes, but just try to go there with a Critical Race advocate or DEI brown shirt. You'll be on the fast train to Canceltown.

Lastly, while the boy on the right is definitely height-challenged, perhaps he's a math genius, or a great artist. We all have different talents, and it's ludicrous to suggest we should all achieve the same in every area of endeavor. 

In closing:

'Nuff said.

How Did Hunter Biden Get into Yale Law School?

Do you know how hard it is to get into Yale Law School? The admission rate is 6.9%. By comparison, Harvard Law is twice as easy. It's also tiny, with only 200 slots available each year. 

Do you know how hard it is to transfer to Yale Law? Forget about it. Even harder. Typically, only about ten students a year are accepted. It goes without saying you'd have to be at the very top of whatever law school you were transferring from, and even then it wouldn't be a layup.

Which raises the question; how exactly did Hunter Biden pull this off?

You probably didn't even know he went there. It doesn't come up much. 

Here are the facts:

• Biden arrived as a transfer in the fall 1994. This means...
• He was accepted sometime in the winter/spring that same year
• The Dean of Yale Law at that time was Guido Calabresi
• It was well known that Calabresi's ambition was to serve on the federal bench
• On February 9th, 1994, Bill Clinton nominated Calabresi to the 2nd Circuit, where he still serves
• Thus, Biden's acceptance to Yale Law and Calabrisi's appointment were contemporaneous
• Chairing the Judiciary Committee at that time - the man responsible for confirming Calabresi's nomination - was none other than Joe Biden.
• Calabresi sailed through the process

Calabresi

Those are the facts. 

Coincidence? 

Perhaps. 

If you think Hunter Biden was one of the top first-year law students in the country and had near perfect board scores. 

I am not one of those people. 

I do not have Hunter's transcripts from Georgetown undergrad or his first year of law school there, but he's not exactly known as a scholar. I know people who knew him then and they say he was more arrogant than anything else. His life since does not suggest the slightest trace of intellect, except in the pursuit of ways to monetize his family's name..

So, there's no smoking gun, no absolute proof that a slot at America's most elite law school was traded for a federal judgeship. But the circumstantial evidence raises serious questions, the kind the mainstream media won't ask anymore, at least when it inconveniences Democrats.

There's a pattern of quid quo pro that seems follow the Biden family wherever it goes.

It's worth noting that the Ivies are very much part of the swamp. Yale, for its part, gets the better part of a billion dollars a year from the federal government. Also, there is a definite pattern of prominent Democrats getting their kids - somehow! - into Ivy League schools. Tucker Carlson did an entire piece on this. It 's worth a watch.

Edit: I'm going to anticipate one of the objections to this piece, which is Yale is a private institution, so it can admit whomever it likes. First, this would be true if they didn't accept federal money. Second, the example of accepting a rich kid in exchange for a large donation - one I know will be thrown at me - is quite different from giving a coveted space up in exchange for a personal favor. In the first instance, all of Yale benefits from the donation. In the second instance, it does not.