And Here’s Why The Supreme Court Majority Was Right In Shelby v. Holder…

Ok, if you don't buy the theory that they hurt the public schools, how about this: they're racist!

Ok, if you don’t buy the theory that they hurt the public schools, how about this: they’re racist!

In its much maligned decision in Shelby v. Holder, the Supreme Court declared that the Justice Department could not interfere with state legislative decisions affecting voting rights based on 60 year old data about racist practices prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Federal government should not be able to over-ride the will of the people and its elected legislatures without a compelling and overwhelming interest, and allowing the large list of states designated as subject to the Act invited abuse of power. What kind of abuse? This kind:

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit to stop the Louisiana from distributing school vouchers to poor black families in any district that remains under a desegregation court order. Over 600 public schools are affected. The argument of Holder’s Justice Department  is just as ridiculous as it reads: it is that “many of those vouchers impeded the desegregation process.” You see, if black children are able to go to better, private schools thanks to the vouchers, the percentage of whites to blacks in failing but desegregated public schools will go up, “impeding” desegregation. Can’t have that! What citizens would want politicized, absurd bureaucrats who reason like this second-guessing their legislature?

As the Washington Post noted in an incredulous editorial it called, pulling no punches, Justice Department bids to trap poor, black children in ineffective schools:

“Nine of 10 Louisiana children who receive vouchers to attend private schools are black. All are poor and, if not for the state assistance, would be consigned to low-performing or failing schools with little chance of learning the skills they will need to succeed as adults. So it’s bewildering, if not downright perverse, for the Obama administration to use the banner of civil rights to bring a misguided suit that would block these disadvantaged students from getting the better educational opportunities they are due….The government’s argument that “the loss of students through the voucher program reversed much of the progress made toward integration” becomes even more absurd upon examination of the cases it cited in its petition. Consider the analysis from University of Arkansas professor of education reform Jay P. Greene of a school that lost five white students through vouchers and saw a shift in racial composition from 29.6 percent white to 28.9 percent white. Another school that lost six black students and saw a change in racial composition from 30.1 percent black to 29.2 percent black. “Though the students . . . almost certainly would not have noticed a difference, the racial bean counters at the DOJ see worsening segregation,” Mr. Greene wrote on his blog.The number that should matter to federal officials is this: Roughly 86 percent of students in the voucher program came from schools that were rated D or F. Mr. White called ironic using rules to fight racism to keep students in failing schools; we think it appalling.”

Appalling, yes. Unethical, yes. Surprising? Not at all. The Obama Administration is in thrall to the teacher unions and the AEA, which furiously oppose school vouchers because they reduce the public’s dependence on public schools. Eric Holder’s Justice Department, which, though it is ethically obligated to be non-partisan, has been the latest in a long line of politicized DOJ’s, and one of the worst. Now, as the Post correctly notes, it is using a fake civil rights argument to score points with teachers, and the citizens of Louisiana are just pawns in the game.

While a different result in the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby would not have changed the requirement that the Justice Department had to sue in this instance (because the issue is segregation, not voting rights), the fact that the Federal governments motives may not be pure and its willingness to bully the states not restrained by fairness or proper deference to the will of the people is vividly demonstrated here. That is why the Supreme Court was and is correct to insist that the exceptional power granted to Justice to  unilaterally veto state action by states, like Louisiana, that were certifiably racist in the 1960s and 1970s be based on current data and real, not presumed, bigotry.  It is the inherent tendency of the government to abuse its power that makes it essential for such extraordinary incursions like the Voting Rights Act to be monitored, based on hard facts, and fair. The Department of Justice just gave us a perfect example of why the Court’s decision was the right one, and ethical as well.

NOTE: The original version of this post incorrectly stated that Shelby forced Justice to sue regarding the vouchers, rather than just stopping the program. That was incorrect and careless. The text has been changed to address the error, and I apologize to Ethics Alarms readers.

______________________________________

Sources: Washington Post 1, 2, Jay P. Greene

Graphic: Texas Tribune

66 thoughts on “And Here’s Why The Supreme Court Majority Was Right In Shelby v. Holder…

  1. It goes part and parcel with your earlier posts about private schools. If you allow the best and brightest to go elsewhere, then all you have left are the poorest and unmotivated, with the parents who don’t care enough to get them to a better school.

    And actually, if you are using your own funds to do so, I don’t think the state should stop you. But I’m not sure if the state should be funding its own downward spiral. All that voucher money represents money leaching out of the public school system, making the situation for the students that stay worse off than they were before. So it’s a matter of which students that the government want to favor, those who have decided to stick it out and believe in the public school system, or those who have given up on it?

      • ‘If this goes on’ has been a slow trainwreck. Public schools used to be a point of pride in the US and did a good job. Voucher systems rarely offer enough for the poorer end to afford school and letting public schools fold harms the kids whose families cannot afford private school even with a voucher.

        I’m not saying the school system needs large gobs of money, though the pay should be enough to live on and enough to pay loans and have a family. I worked in temp jobs in education while I worked on my degree and I saw some insanely stupid shit that should have had a few people with common sense in position of influence to stop them. My college was a teacher’s college, and was frightened when one jerk was going into it because it was a safe job and he didn’t like kids or dealing with people, and another I was tutoring in how to use a program didn’t even understand the assignment, as a junior. There was no way I could report them as a menace to future children, Cumulatively those people are the rot.

        Start with expecting competence and rewarding teaching what kids need to be able to find work and be productive citizens. There are many many reasons for this, commented on here, but it will take concerted efforts, not just from the smart educators. Welfare types who must replace the idiot parents who don’t teach morals or life skills, so the teachers have to. Effort from people to weed out the bad teachers on more subtle distinction than ‘advancement,’ so kids who can’t add, pass math. Special needs kids are folded in and they don’t get what they need. Too many woo-woo programs swept like fads.

        But all kids need an eduction, we can’t just dump the ones in public schools because you’re mad at the current system. This isn’t like when a chain store folds, that another company takes the slack. As the public schools fold, like you seem to be taking glee in, how will the kids inside get a chance to learn and get off any kind of welfare? The system needs a major rehab, a wise one run with wisdom and standards at all levels. Neither of those qualities can be bought.

        • Public schools used to be a point of pride in the US and did a good job.

          This hasn’t been true since the 80’s. While some places still have good schools, most have been back-sliding for decades, as they have become bloated and top-heavy, with too many administrators and no ability to jettison inept and ineffective teachers. And we won’t even start on the decidedly liberal turn they have been taking since at least the Bush The Elder years.

          Voucher systems rarely offer enough for the poorer end to afford school and letting public schools fold harms the kids whose families cannot afford private school even with a voucher.

          Yes, I can see how allowing a failure of a system to actually fail would be a bad thing. Truly, you are wise.I’m not saying the school system needs large gobs of money, though the pay should be enough to live on and enough to pay loans and have a family.First, what you suggest would require an obscene amount of money. Second, why should it? Why should we make sure that a certain arbitrary benchmark of “comfort” be attainable? Why should we make sure that they be able to afford several kids and loan payments and a nice house and nice things?

          Why am I responsible for making sure their whims are met? Why is it my job to see to it they can afford their wants? I can’t afford my wants, and I’m not a consumer of the public’s largess, so why the fuck should they? If you want to be a teacher and have kids, find a well-off spouse. If you want to own a home, maybe wait a while.

          Or don’t be a teacher. The Public Sector should not be – not ever – a place where “comfort” exists. You get extreme job security; if you want high pay, go get a real fucking job in the private sector.

          The rest of your drivel reads like a reason to support private schools. New Orleans has seen a massive increase is student achievement, and it is because private schools have come to replace the schools that were destroyed by Katrina. Students are succeeding because they are actively encouraged to attend school (because it now costs a noticeable amount to the parents, instead of it being a hidden and unnoticed cost) and because bad teachers can be fired at will.

          And frankly, why shouldn’t some be “dumped” on a worthless system? Almost to the soul, those stuck there are those who actively support the policies that cause the failure. Why shouldn’t they be left to a system they support?

          • As for the expense of public schools, remember this is Louisiana, not New York. I sent my stepson to private junior high school for a year. It cost $350/month and included after school care until 5:30 PM. The public schools are funded to a much higher extent, so a voucher covering most of the state (vs county) portion of education could cover most or all of the private school costs allowing even the poorest student to take advantage of it

  2. It is true that Louisiana had a history of resisting desegregation during the 60’s and ’70’s. In 1974, the state adopted a constitutional provision that banned racial discrimination by the state and its subdivisions. The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted this provision to be broader than the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it invalidates almost all racial classifications by the state, regardless of any justification. Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 477 So. 2d
    1094 (La. 1985) (The only exception to this is if federal law or the U.S. Constitution requires a racial classification.)

  3. It’s easily forgotten that the vouchers are ultimately funded by taxpayer’s money. If some parents who are black and impoverished want to send their child to say, a private Catholic school why should the Federal Government make this more difficult? Answer: The NEA and other teachers groups want to continue to control things including school choice!

    • There’s also this. If those poor, black kids went to a school that actually set educational standards and required them to learn how to think as well as pass tests, they might actually go out into the world and become successful on their own merits and without government assistance. This scenario alone would threaten to topple one of the pillars of unethical governance in this country and realign the power structure that dominates us today.

    • Are we to beleive that non-public institutions wouldn’t increase their prices so that certain people wouldn’t be able to attend because the voucher wouldn’t cover the entire cost of tuition?

      Never mind the fact that these voucher funds are going to schools that include such wonderful science proofs like the Loch Ness Monster is an example of why evolution isn’t real.

      Yeah, this is why we need government oversight over where federal education dollars get spent.

  4. If the Supreme Court in Shelby had not suspended the Justice Department’s power to unilaterally veto state action by states like Louisiana that were certifiably racist in the 1960′s and 1970′s, then the Obama Administration would not have to prevail in court to stop poor black children from going to private schools in order to keep those campaign contributions from teachers coming.

    I’m pretty sure this is incorrect. The SCOTUS effectively revoked a lot of the federal government’s power to supervise voting rights. This case is about an entirely different matter, the federal government’s power to supervise desegregation.

    No matter what the SCOTUS decided in Shelby (or even if SCOTUS hadn’t taken Shelby at all), bringing this matter to court would have been the only route open to the Federal government to try and oppose this action. (The previous Louisiana school voucher law, which was found unconstitutional earlier this year, pre-Shelby, was blocked through the court system, not through some other method).

    Am I mistaken?

    As for the rest of your post: I agree with you that this lawsuit is wrong, and disagree with every word you say about Shelby. :-p

    • I checked the statute and the case law again, and you are right about that—Shelby going the other way would not have affected this law suit. The Feds would still have to sue. I’m fixing it.

      Shelby should have been 9-0: the dissents are, in my view, classic examples of putting results over the law, and the howling and accusations of “gutting” the Act from some quarters (no labels, now) is, if not dishonest, inexplicable to me. The Act is really gutted by allowing states that have made great strides in Civil Rights, surpassing many states never on the original bigotry list, to continue to have their democratic processes over-ridden by the same people capable of the outrage in the voucher case when current data and a fair formula would rescue them. The argument that because Congress is dysfunctional, a clearly outdated formula should continue to make some states legislate with training wheels is ridiculous on its face, under-valuing, as an entire political party apparently does today, Equal Protection and Due Process if they get in the way of partisan politics.

  5. I am having trouble determining why their actions on school vouchers is relevant to the ruling on the voting rights act.

    And there is plenty of current data available to show that states are acting in a way that specifically targets black voters (and other minority voters) and seeks to supress their votes.
    Florida is one example:
    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

    NC, OH, PA, VA, TX and other states also have such specific legislation meant to target minority voters and supress their votes. All of this done under the guise of “election integrity”.

    • Limiting early voting, no matter how much you might wish it to be aimed at minority voters is not, in fact, targeting minority voters.

      I’m sorry, but if your sorry ass can’t make the time to go vote on election day, I’m not entirely sure you should be voting. Period.

      Much like I think you should, in fact, have to demonstrate some basic knowledge of the system – who your Congressional rep is, who your governor is, and some exceedingly basic questions on the Constitution. You know, the sorts of things that people need to know to become a US citizen, or things that get covered in 6th grade.

      And then we weight your vote based on your score. Get three out of ten right, and your vote counts for 30%. Get all of them right and you get a full vote.

      I’m sick of this country being in the thrall of the mind-fuckingly ignorant.

      • So I should just disbelieve the statements by GOP party officials who admit that the reason for them taking these actions is specifically to reduce minority turnout?

        Perhaps you should look in the mirror before calling others mind-fuckingly ignorant. When people admit to being racist (like those who admitted to taking actions specifically meant to reduce minority turnout) I tend to believe them.

        But hey, you can continue to bury your head in the sand all you want and deny that the people admitted to specifically targeting minority voters. But perhaps you should also restrict yourself from voting, since you don’t want the mind-fuckingly ignorant people to vote.

        • And yes, by definition measures to curb illegitimate votes would target minorities, because it is minorities (specifically illegal immigrants) who are casting fraudulent ballots.

          But whatever. I mean, what the fuck does it matter that we don’t actively make certain only citizens who are who they say they are are the only ones voting?

          At this point, what does it matter?

            • Dan, you know that’s untrue. One asshole Republican in Pennsylvania made the statement consistent with that interpretation, and your pals have been attributing it to the entire Republican Party…there is no “they.” Show me more than that one quote, please. When did a measure approved by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court as completely reasonable suddenly become voter suppression? When the Obama Democrats realized that they could use the accusation to polarize the electorate, and that the media, as usual, would be uncritical.

              Besides, the fact that a reasonable and justifiable law has other consequences that partisans may like for the wrong reasons doesn’t disqualify the law. You are embracing, I presume unintentionally, a false conclusion. If a Southern Democrat Rep, learning about Harry Truman’s decision toi drop the atom boms to end WWII and avoid the casualties of a land invasion, was caught saying, “And the best part is, we get to fry all those damn Japs!”, would you say that “They” admitted that the real purpose behind Hiroshima was genocide?

          • I am not saying requiring an ID reduces minority turnout. I am not making that arguement here.

            I am saying that the people who implemented these ID laws (that contain other restrictions on top of the ID laws) did so with the explicitly stated purpose of wanting to supress the turnout of legitmiate voters who happened to be of specific minorities.

            • I am not saying requiring an ID reduces minority turnout. I am not making that arguement here.

              No, you’re saying that people who support voter ID are trying to reduce minority turnout.

              That you think you are somehow making a different argument from the one you are denying making is exceedingly interesting.

              • No, I am saying that there are plenty of examples of people promoting these laws under the guise of maintaining election integrity who have admitted to pushing these laws for the expressly stated purpose of reducing turnout of legitimate voters who are minorities.

                That you find misrepresentations of my comments interesting is of no concern to me.

                • No, I am saying that there are plenty of examples of people promoting these laws under the guise of maintaining election integrity who have admitted to pushing these laws for the expressly stated purpose of reducing turnout of legitimate voters who are minorities.

                  So yeah. You think the people pushing for them are racists out to hurt minority voters. That is exactly what I said, and just because you went through a thesaurus first doesn’t make you any less of a cunt.

                  • “So yeah. You think the people pushing for them are racists out to hurt minority voters.”

                    No. Again, I am saying that the people who SPECIFICALLY stated the intent to supress minority votes are racist. I wouldn’t think I would have to explain that more than once to someone who has the ability to turn on an electronic device, connect to the internet, and use a keyboard.

                    And the juvenile nature of your posts makes me surprised that you would know that a thesarus is a book and not some prehistoric creature.

    • You’re not trying very hard. Under the act, the Justice Department can step in and veto a state legislature, normally a violation of federalism.The Court insisted, properly, that this power be properly restricted and limited, and not just ceded to Justice without good cause. (In the absence of legitimate and current proof of racial bias, there many be cause to challenge a law, but not to allow Justice to kill it without judicial testing in court.) The other reason such power needs to be monitored is the naked politicization of this and other DOJ’s, in which its good faith judgment can’t be assumed—and this is a smoking gun example of that.

      Every one of the proposed changes in voting rules and requirements can be justified. Assuming that any one of them, especially voter IDs, is designed to restrict minority voters is either dishonest or, in your case, confirmation bias. As long as all voters have to vote under the same rules, there is no discrimination—-the law does not and should not require that all aspects of life are equally convenient for all citizens.I think legitimate arguments can be framed that early voting and absentee voting both undermine the integrity of elections, and encourage fraud as well as unthinking voting. IDs should not even be a controversy.

      • “You’re not trying very hard. Under the act, the Justice Department can step in and veto a state legislature, normally a violation of federalism”

        The 14th amendment stripped away a lot of federalism when it came to the protection of individual rights.

        “In the absence of legitimate and current proof of racial bias, there many be cause to challenge a law, but not to allow Justice to kill it without judicial testing in court.”

        When a state government seeks to restrict rights, in this case voting rights, they should be the ones that has to prove their case in court. Government should have to provide a rational basis to do so. The federal government requiring a state to jump through an additional hoop to restrict voting rights by setting up additional voting regulations should be applauded as a protection of individual rights.

        “The other reason such power needs to be monitored is the naked politicization of this and other DOJ’s, in which its good faith judgment can’t be assumed—and this is a smoking gun example of that.”

        I am seeing what is happening to the educational system here in Louisiana specifically. I have a child just entering it the system and I will tell you that the policy changes are not helping my child and many others are being left behind. Children are not helped when vouchers can be spent at schools that use the loch ness monster to disprove evolution.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/the-loch-ness-monster-in-a-science-textbook/2012/06/27/gJQAoTXP7V_blog.html

        “Every one of the proposed changes in voting rules and requirements can be justified.”

        Except for the effort put into implementing them assumes voter fraud at a frequency much higher than it actually is.

        “Assuming that any one of them, especially voter IDs, is designed to restrict minority voters is either dishonest or, in your case, confirmation bias”

        I assume nothing. I am going by their specific comments stating that their desired goal was to supress the vote of legitimate minority voters.

        “IDs should not even be a controversy.”

        ID is only a controversy in states that require the payment of money to aquire an ID to vote. To me that ammounts to an unconstitutional poll tax. However, if the ID is free to obtain (including the documentation required to obtain it) then I have no problem with the requirement of an ID to vote. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking an ID actually curbs fraud. People who wish to vote illegally where ID cards are required will just obtain fake ids.

        “As long as all voters have to vote under the same rules, there is no discrimination”

        I think we both know that how laws are written and how laws are applied are two different things. Literacy tests for example were required by all but only given to certain people. I think you would agree that such things were discriminatory in their application even though the law required it of all.

        “I think legitimate arguments can be framed that early voting and absentee voting both undermine the integrity of elections, and encourage fraud as well as unthinking voting.”

        I would be interested in hearing such arguments, because the idea that when a person vote would increase fraud and unthinking voting does not follow intuitively.

        • “To me that amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax. However, if the ID is free to obtain (including the documentation required to obtain it) then I have no problem with the requirement of an ID to vote.”

          That’s a reasonable position. I would not regard a token minimal fee, like 5 bucks, less than a pack of cigarettes, unfair or overly burdensome either. Many of the state ID laws provide fee or virtually free IDs.

        • More to this quote “As long as all voters have to vote under the same rules, there is no discrimination”

          Look at Ohio. Republican counties initially had longer early voting hours than Democratic counties. Husted broke the tie on expanded voting hours in those Republican counties but did not vote to expand the voting hours in Democratic counties.

          So when you have a statewide GOP official making laws different for areas that support Democrats over areas that support Republicans… yeah, I am going to say that people are under the same rules.

          • You don’t seem to understand what Jack actually said…
            Jack didn’t say “all people, everywhere”, he said “everyone under the same rules”. If counties can make changes to what they allow for early voting, then everyone is under the same law if everyone in the county is held to that standard.

            I’d ask if you get the difference, but let us be honest here…

            You’re just a little too fucking retarded to grasp the concept.

            • I find that people who insist on name calling in arguments use them as a crutch because they are incapable of making a cogent point.

              Voting laws are typically implemented on a state by state basis, not a county by county basis. So, again, your failure to undstand how laws work is glaringly obvious and as such proves your ability to make a valid criticism of my post to be lacking.

              Give up. You lost.

                • I would point you to the 14th amendment that prohibits states from denying people equal protection under the law. Good enough for you?

                  And after being exposed, Ohio changed the rules and applied a uniform standard. However, that doesn’t change the previously stated intent.

                    • Not at all, again you fail. The supremacy clause of the Constitution puts the Constitution as the main law of the land. The 14th amendment strictly prohibits a state from depriving persons from equal protection under the law.

                      it is very simple really.

                    • “And so long as everyone gets a shot on election day, you feckless moron, then they aren’t depriving anyone.”

                      Uh no. Equal protection doesnt’ mean that it is ok for folks in Democratic leaning counties get less hours (i.e. less access to the polls) as compared to Republican leaning counties.

                      Equal protection would require equal access. No more. No less.

                      Remember, I didn’t say Ohio tried to deprive people of the right to vote. I said they deprived people of equal protection under the law. I wouldn’t expect a mental midget like yourself to get the difference and this is why you are stomping around like a toddler.

                      “Again, if Ohio lets each county decide when Early Voting is, then you should shut the fuck up, lest you look like more of an ignorant cunt than you already do.”

                      If Ohio lets each county decide early voting times and those early voting times are not equal then the application of that law would be a violation of the 14th amendment and as such a constitutional violation of the requirement to treat people equally under the law.

                      Seems at it is you who are ignorant, about a great many things.

        • To me that amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax. However, if the ID is free to obtain (including the documentation required to obtain it) then I have no problem with the requirement of an ID to vote.

          Then you should never complain about Voter ID laws, because they all make such IDs free.

          You should also be enraged at things like Illinois’ $150 fee to get your enhanced background check in order to Conceal Carry (which is, btw, a constitutional right, just like voting).

          • If Voter Id laws only contained laws on Voter IDs and all the IDs were free then I wouldn’t complain about Voter ID laws.

            But the laws labelled as voter ID laws often contain additional legislation above and beyond Voter IDs. And in NC the law specifically required a fee to obtain an id. One could fill out some form to claim hardship. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t say that poll taxes are prohibited on the poor. They are prohibited to be charged to anyone.

            The Constitution doesn’t prohibit taxes on obtaining guns. The Constitution strictly prohibits paying a tax to vote. Your analogy fails, much like most of your criticisms of my posts. Good day.

              • Who says I don’t care about the 2nd amendment? I am supportive of the second amendment.

                You really need to educate yourself before posting such drivel.

                What I said, and I will say it again, is that the Constitution strictly prohibits being charged a poll tax. You are not allowed to be forced to pay money in order to vote. The Constitution does not strictly prohibit a tax on the sale of a weapon or a fee for a license to aquire the weapon.

                Please learn to read before commenting further.

  6. So… is there any way to stop the vicious cycle of poorly educated and critical-thinking-impaired voters electing populist politicians who bend to the whims of disgraceful teachers’ unions who fail to educate the next generation of voters? Can we get a critical mass of people who not only know how to learn and deal with the world, but are also motivated to make the world a better place? Which of those three points in the cycle is the easiest to infiltrate with determined, enlightened people? Or should we try all at once? Or is there a different tactic we could try?

    This is an extremely important issue for me. It appears to be the root of all our other pointless troubles. Personally, I’ve been working for some time now on multiple ways to empower the voters to see clearly, think critically, discuss issues intelligently and respectfully, understand each other, and act decisively. I aim to create a culture of ethics and enlightenment, using teaching skills and memetics (most people overlook the fact that showmanship is a prerequisite for being a good teacher, at least for larger classes) to help people become more cognizant of themselves and each other.

    If anyone has any of their own earnest ideas for how to approach an actual solution to this devastating problem, I’d greatly appreciate it. Incorrigible pessimists need not reply, but constructive criticism and grounded pragmatism is welcomed.

    • The short answer is no. No there is no solution, no fix, no way to stem or turn the tide. We passed critical mass many years ago; we have just been waiting for them to start voting.

      And now the longer answer…

      As things sit right now, a majority of Americans are content to vote for people who promise to take from others so that they can benefit, and this is not fixable. They will vote for more funding for school because the teacher unions tell them they need to if they ‘care about the children’, further funding more administrators who do absolutely nothing of value, retain more teachers who couldn’t teach a fish to swim, all for children who can’t be bothered to learn because no one will dare tell them they were wrong anyways so why fucking bother.

      And as such, we have bred generations where intentions and feelings are more important than results and facts. Generations where accomplishment is mocked at best and demonized at worst. Generations where truth is subjective, and morality and ethics are things that happen to other people.

      And when you have that, you can not fix it; it is a self-perpetuating downward spiral to abject failure that can only result in ruin.

      The ruin is easy to see coming, but because we intend to do good, it is ignored because it doesn’t make them feel good.

      So actually, I lied. It can, in fact, be fixed.

      It will just take the absolute ruination of the economy to end all public works that do not directly and immediately help society – bridges, roads, energy, water and food. “Green Energy” will cease to exist, because “Green” is an indulgence of an opulent society; when no one has anything, you will go for whatever works now, up to and including clear-cutting forests for firewood.

      There will be no assistance programs, there will be no hand outs, there will be no safety net. Only then, after we crash and our population adjusts to new levels, will we ever even begin to come back.

      The pain we suffer between the crash and the correction will be very entertaining for those of us with a darker twist to our personality…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.