Blind To Our Own Vulnerabilities

 

Growing up playing baseball, one of the most important things to learn was my own vulnerabilities:  Every pitcher looks for "the hole" in your swing. 

On Deck, Obadiah Youngblood

I could never hit inside pitches all that well--and curve balls, forget it. The first thing my good friend, (who was a pitcher) who really knew baseball, did for me was to introduce me to a hitting coach, who taught me how to hit the curve. Once I got that down, it was much harder for the opposition to get me out. (I continued to see a lot of inside pitches, but even that could be finessed.) Knowing that vulnerability and fixing it allowed me to win a lot more confrontations. 

Lovely Diversity

Now, the Democratic Party is failing because it does not see its own vulnerabilities, and if Trump is good at anything, it is to identify vulnerabilities, and to pitch to them. "Little Marco. Sleepy Jeb."

So Trump has picked on transgender politics and liberal DEI orthodoxy as the most obvious vulnerabilities. 

Transgender politics is the perfect example of taking a Democratic position, which affects a tiny percentage of people, and making it stand for all that is extreme and absurd in people who value consistency of thought and principle. 

Taking the small and making it the big. 

Exploiting reductio ad absurdum. 

If you believe in transgender rights, well,  then you would be willing to allow some transgender male to female to run over your daughter on the field hockey field, or to demolish her in swimming meets. That's how unhinged you are!

Mediocre Male Swimmer, Now Champion Female Swimmer

I've addressed what is wrong with the Democrats' approach to transgender politics ad nauseam in other posts and it boils down to "I am all for treating everyone with respect and kindness and sympathy, but that doesn't mean I can embrace transgender athletes."  Nobody objects to a former girl playing on a boy's team; what upsets people is a former boy playing on a girl's team. Rare as that may be, it makes you look like an unrepentant extremist if you refuse to see the problem there. You look like you are on the side of the bullies.

And don't get me started on pronouns. As if the entire English speaking world should switch from "she went to town to get a haircut and facial" to "they went to town..."

Not going to happen.

As Dave Chappelle has said, "I support anyone's right to  be who they want to be. My question is: To extent do I have to participate in your self image."

And then there is DEI.  It sounded so good, initially. Sure, I'm all for Starship Enterprise, a nation where everyone has a fair shot and the outcome of that, we all thought, would be school photos of classes with kids of every race and girls and boys all smiling happily in one big family. Like those United Colors of Benetton ads.  But that is not the way it worked out. 

United Colors of Benneton

What happened was the outcome of those happy, diverse groups we had hoped for did not happen automatically. Diversity is a virtue in a group, but it is not an individual virtue. An individual cannot be diverse; at most an individual can have a different perspective and contribute to diversity as that group meets and discusses things. But choosing a Black face does not mean the individual that face belongs to actually is much different from people with white faces.  

Preference was given individuals because of their color or gender and that preference overwhelmed the stated rules which had previously defined meritocracy (test scores, grades.) 

Resentment grew and in response to that, DEI proponents started setting up loyalty tests: New faculty in engineering and science were asked, "What will you do, if you get this job, to advance diversity, inclusion and equity in your classroom?"  In an engineering classroom? In a physics classroom? In a mathematics classroom? You had to declare your allegiance to the idea, to the gospel of DEI to get hired. I pledge allegiance to the banner of DEI. 

The fact is, diversity is a joy and a value we can embrace as a feature of a group, but if diversity comes down to assigning a virtue value to your non White face, that is a different story. Diversity is a value in a group; diversity is not a personal merit.  

As George Carlin said, you can be proud of something you have personally accomplished, but being proud of being Black or Irish or Hispanic is absurd. That is an accident of birth, not an accomplishment. And that is also true of diversity, being a face of color--this is not a merit and should not be assigned points in a meritocracy.

Now, of course, it is also true that there are many jobs and college freshmen classes which could be filled by a lottery without appreciably affecting the quality of those work crews and classes. 

Most of our "qualifications" are arbitrary and absurd. There's a wonderful ad on TV with a man interviewing a woman for a job, and he tells her she could clearly do the job well, but "the job requires a college degree, any college degree" for her to be hired. 

And she says, "I need a college degree for this job I've done for the past 10 years without one?" 

"Yes," he tells her. 

"And what was your college degree in?" she asks.

"Dance," he replies. 

"Dance?" she says.

And there you have it, meritocracy in practice.

We can all see the absurdity of this idea of meritocracy in the ad, but are our cherished SAT and high school grades any less arbitrary or absurd? Can you tell me a single question from the last SAT exam?   How much do you know about the SAT exam? Last I saw, the SAT predicted the performance of students for the first semester in college but had no correlation to who made Phi Beta Kappa or went on to other scholastic honors in college. And yet, it's taken as an IQ test.  And it is very much a test which you can pay money to prep for and do better as a result.

And high school grades?  Look at who is doing the judging in high school. When you look at the high school teachers at Winnacunnet High, do you see folks you think should be choosing the freshman class at Harvard or Brown?

We could fill most positions by lottery, after a low hurdle is passed. The virtue of a lottery is at least we all know it is by definition, arbitrary. It's luck.

And now we have a meritocracy at colleges which looks to your embrace of the gospel of "Diversity" as a merit badge.

And the gospel does not affect just new hires. The president of Harvard, Larry Summers, a graduate of MIT, ruminated on the relative paucity of females at MIT and in Harvard's engineering and math and science classes and he, impolitically, thinking out loud, asked  if females might have less aptitude for math and science.  

He might have asked, "Does the Y chromosome give males some sort of advantage in these areas?" But he wasn't that smart, and the orthodox folks at Harvard, who accept as a matter of faith that women and men have equal capacities in all academic disciplines (which is likely true, but still) howled bloody murder,  and the liberal outrage deposed him and he was gone. 

Summers detractors on the Harvard faculty could have said, "Well, Larry, interesting question, but show us the numbers, the studies, which show that women have lower math/science aptitude than men. Surely, that is a testable hypothesis." 

That response was never even a consideration. He had uttered heresy and had to be removed as president. Can't have a president of the college questioning the basic dogma. 

This was intolerance of questioning; this was punishing anyone who had the temerity to challenge the gospel, intolerance of challenging orthodoxy, and it meant he would not be tolerated on campus.

After 50 years of affirmative action, there are now more women in medical schools and colleges than men.  And that was not mostly because of some special preference. It happened for a variety of reasons, but no special program or preference was needed. 

Somehow, however, once affirmative action preferences were removed for people of color, the percentages of Blacks and Hispanics at universities across the nation plunged.  Interestingly, the presence of Black males has been especially obvious. Black females continue to hold places in universities but Black males are becoming increasingly rare, for reasons I do not understand.

Liberal orthodoxy has meant that certain questions cannot be openly examined, that challenges to the way transgenders are treated are verboten. When Paul McHugh questioned whether the approach to transgenders might be wrong--given the 40% suicide rate at almost all transgender clinics nationwide--he was hounded out of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Now, Mr. Summers publishes an op ed  in the New York Times about the capitulation of universities to the inquisition from Trumpworld, which aims to dismantle elite universities, or at the very least, to replace the liberal orthodoxy with a reactionary orthodoxy:

"The Trump administration’s threats to withdraw billions of dollars in funding are little more than extortion. They must be resisted using all available legal means. Columbia University’s recent capitulation, in which it agreed to a raft of changes in an attempt to avoid losing hundreds of millions in funding, must not be emulated. Each act of capitulation makes the next one more likely. Each act of rectitude reverberates.

As in most confrontations, the merits in this one are far from one sided. Critics of elite universities, including Harvard, where I am a professor, are right that they continue to tolerate antisemitism in their midst in a way that would be inconceivable with any other form of prejudice, that they have elevated identity over excellence in the selection of students and faculty, that they lack diversity of perspective and that they have repeatedly failed to impose discipline and maintain order.

And universities’ insistence that they be entirely left alone by their federal funders rings hollow in light of the enthusiasm they greet micromanagement when they approve the outcome, such as threats from Washington to withhold funds unless men’s and women’s athletic budgets were equalized."

--Larry Summers, NYT op ed

Ironically, one of the most famous examples of liberal intolerance to questioning orthodoxy, now calls for liberals to stand up and resist.

Until and unless liberals (and I am one) face the weakness in their own arguments, face the absurd places their own dogma has carried them, Trump, Vance and all those creepy crawlies who have emerged from under the rocks they had been hiding, will rule the planet.  

The magnificent dinosaurs could not survive the extinction events. 

Hopefully, Democrats will prove capable of fixing the holes in their swings.

Base Hit At Frederick, Obadiah Youngblood

Getting Noticed: Fifty Thousand Voices, All Talking At Once

45 years ago, Mad Dog exulted in the news that his first book was accepted for publication. 

Gustave Wiegand, Blue Lake

It was an improbable story, taken off the "slush pile," after having been rejected at 20 New York publishing houses, but one reader, an oddball gig worker named Brendan Boyd, who read manuscripts for a publisher with offices in Boston and New York, read it on his breaks at a Boston bookstore, where he worked, and told the publisher to publish it, and Mad Dog thought his ship had finally come in.

"Publishing is not a dream fulfilled," Brendan told Mad Dog. "It's a nightmare."

Gustave Wiegand, Springtime, New Hampshire

Mad Dog was too delirious to listen, but then he got sent down to the annual Booksellers Convention, this one in Washington, D.C., and he rode up on the escalator to the 2nd floor, where all the publishers had their displays, and stepping off the escalator, he looked around and saw Brendan's point. That year, 1981, there were 50,000 books published. Mad Dog looked around, and it was like trying to find one penguin among those throngs on the beach in "Planet Earth." 

Then it hit him: his one book, although published, printed, was a single peep among a huge expanse of birds.

In 2024, there were roughly 2.2 million books published.

How do you ever get heard, even if your idea, your voice, your story is the most magnificent of the year?

In fact, Mad Dog's book was nowhere close to the most magnificent of that year, and it was never heard of again. It was ignored, hardly reviewed, unnoticed, likely deservedly.

Actually, that's an over simplification, for purposes of clarity: The book did get one single, glowing review in the Washington Post Book World, front page, but what the reviewer liked about the book was its verisimilitude, its dark depiction of a hospital and the doctors, a sort of Nordic Noir, but Medical Noir, and the droves of people who streamed to local bookstores discovered the book had a bodice ripper cover which belonged on a romance novel, and so they left without the book, and if it ever had an audience, it never found it. So there is a case of a voice heard as a chirp, but then lost in the vicissitudes of marketing. So many things have to go right for a rocket to be launched. 

Gustave Wiegand

This Spring the Boston Museum of Fine Arts will do an exhibit of Van Gogh's paintings from his time at Arles, when he lived with the Roulin family, and he painted its members and he painted a number of scenes around their home.  When you get off the boat along the Seine, at Arles, you walk past a church and outside the church is a one foot square display of a Van Gogh painting of that church, and the town is dotted with other such displays in front of places he painted and you look at the things he painted, and you look at how he saw them, and you realize he was seeing things you could not see. 

Pink House, Obadiah Youngblood

Van Gogh was virtually unknown in his own time.

But, somehow, years later, we can all see his brilliance.

Andy Warhol gave away his paintings, strategically. Mad Dog was part of a group of friends from New York City who rented a summer house in East Hampton and one day, a woman named Nancy,  lying on her back in a bed in one of the rooms focused on what looked like a child's painting, which was unframed, but mounted on a board on the wall next to her bed. At the bottom of the painting was an inscription: "For Linda, From Andy."

Nancy pulled on her bikini and wandered out to the dining room table, where Mad Dog was mangling a  bagel, and she asked, "What was the name of that family on the lease for this place?"

Van Gogh and His Brother at Arles

As it happened, Mad Dog had signed the lease, and he somehow remembered: "Eastman," Mad Dog told her. "I remember because it's East Hampton and the name was Eastman. East, Eastman. Get it?"

Warhol

 

"Come with me," Nancy instructed, and Mad Dog followed her down to the bedroom, his hopes and curiosity rising in tandem--Nancy was a good looking woman. "Look at that," Nancy said. 

Mad Dog looked at the painting and said, "So?"

"So!" Nancy said. 

"Some kid painted..." Mad Dog said.

"To Linda," Nancy said, "Linda Eastman."

"Paul McCartney's Linda Eastman?" Mad Dog said.

"Yes, of course! Who would likely own a place in East Hampton she didn't use in the summer? And what Andy would give her a little sketch?"

"Andy Warhol?"

"Absolutely," said Nancy. "Who else?"

And that is one strategy for getting noticed. Give your stuff to famous people, rich famous people, and hope they hang it in their homes and then other people will want your stuff. 

If only Van Gogh had thought of that.

Three Hawks, Obadiah Youngblood

Somehow, some people with talent do get noticed.

Bob Dylan pursued Woody Guthrie, and he got Pete Seeger to put him on the stage at the Newport Folk Festival, and he played the Bitter End in Greenwich Village. 

Linda Ronstadt hung out with the Eagles, Joni Mitchell and Jackson Browne. 

Sometimes, groups of people can help each other get noticed.

But what if you want to start a political movement?

Hitler hung out at the beer hall in Munich.

Hamilton hung out with Aaron Burr and a bunch of friends in New York.

Locke 8, C&O Canal Obadiah Youngblood

But how many Van Goghs, Dylan's, Hamilton's never get noticed, never get heard? 

Gustave Wiegan, The Birches, Schroon Lake

In a Democracy, a government of, by and for the people means everyone has a voice, but if everyone is speaking and not enough people listening, what happens?

Marsh Family: THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

 

We have Donald Trump and his Simpering Scoundrels; we have pandemics; we have mindless embrace of unexamined orthodoxy on the left and mindless derision of those orthodoxies on the right. So there is a case we live in the worst of times. (Although, I would say 1968 was worse.)

But it is also the best of times.

Because we also have youtube and this morning I stumbled upon the Marsh Family and after they blew me away with an understated little song, I was able to google them and find out more and be even more inspired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPfwtXulKS4

This may provide a model for resistance. If we could only mobilize a thousand Marsh families--a tough challenge, given the level of intelligence and talent in this group--we might just bring Trump down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYILYILPrXs

We have 330 million souls living in America. Do we have even a hundred folks who can do what these folks do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvT3aQjLxdE

Relics of Hypocrisy: Thumb On the Scales of Just Causes

 

The first time ever I went to vote at the March exercise called "The Warrant articles" and elections, in Hampton, I thought this must surely be some sort of elaborate joke, or a community performance ritual, like Oberammergau Passion Play in some Bavarian village.

Town Hall Debate: Real Democracy

There were two or three ballot sheets with choices for candidates for the School Board, Library Trustee, Zoning Board or the Budget Committee, which needed no explanation.

But then there were forty odd "warrant articles" with several paragraphs each, like the one asking the voters to authorize a $1,000 fine for people who did not pick up their dog's poop from the beach. That one, I voted against, thinking $1,000 sounded a bit harsh for that, admittedly uncouth, offense. But I thought maybe I was missing something. 

Mostly, however, the paragraphs were undecipherable to me--stuff like whether the town should spend $10,000 for a study of water damage abatement along Ocean Boulevard and its effects on undermining the seawall. No clue there. Is $10,000 a reasonable amount for such a study? Do we even need a study? What happens if we don't do the study?  So I skipped most of those.

Later, my neighbors explained I was supposed to go to the "Deliberative Sessions" held before the voting, where citizens could ask questions about each warrant article and get full explanations, and hear objections or support for each.

So, the next year, I did that, but they lasted for eight hours and most people seemed to drift and and out, so they could voice support or opposition to some particular article. There might have been 200 people at these meetings, and about 3,600 voters show up to vote on voting day, so it's a safe assumption, most of them have not taken the time to consider each of these articles.

Turns out: you really needn't have worried about people not showing up at the Deliberative Sessions, to deliberate, to consider the pros and cons of each article: Once the final articles are presented to the town, there is a helpful line printed beneath the paragraph presenting the article and directly above the boxes where you check your choice:

RECOMMENDED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD 6-0

RECOMENDED BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE 5 YES-2 NO

Then you check:

YES:   ____

NO:     ____

So, there you have it. You might not know anything about the article, but the town officials on the various committees tell you how to vote. Presumably, they have debated or thought about these articles.

So, if they have done all the hard work, who am I to vote against what they recommend?  It's as if a jury has sat through a week of testimony, hearing the evidence of guilt or innocence and then voted, and then asked me for my opinion, as if I should even have an opinion.

One might ask: Why go through the whole charade that citizens are considering these questions, if you are going to tell them how to vote, in the end?

Well, it helps folks give a patina of legitimacy to whatever cause they support: "Well, the citizens of the town voted for it!"

This always came up when objections were raised to using taxpayer money to support a church school in town: "Well, the voters voted to do it!"

Alicia Preston X

Alicia Preston Xanthopolus pressed this argument in her editorial in the Seacoast News:

What is wonderful about our form of government in our small town, is that we actually vote directly on these funds. That is quite an empowerment and if “we the people" want our tax dollars to go to a religious organization, we do and should have the right to say so.

And there you have it: it's democracy in action!

When someone at one Deliberative Session observed that Sacred Heart School is the only non public school to ever get a special taxpayer account in town, the reply was: "Well, anyone can get it. All they have to do is get the voters to approve it."

When someone then put forward an article to do that, the same SHS advocate objected, saying if we made money available to just any school, then a school for the Church of Satan might move to town and claim that money, and the idea was voted down.

Voting her Heart

When a citizen complained that the School Board and the Budget Committee had always voted to recommend the slush fund to the taxpayers, and that's why it always passed, and it wasn't really something the voters wanted; it was simply something they did not understand, that objection was met with stony silence.

Influencer

That's the way we've always done it here.

Until this year, when the School Board and Budget Committee voted to not recommend taxpayer funds for the church school, and members of the congregation howled bloody murder over the nasty practice of those committees putting their thumbs on the scales of justice.

The Fire Next Time: Alicia Preston Xanthopoulus

 

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--AMENDMENT ONE: RATIFIED 1791

Readers of this blog are understandably weary of the fight over the Sacred Heart School warrant article. The voting this year voted it down, but it will surely be resurrected (excuse the pun) next year. 

The Seacoast News, what passes for our local paper, carried this screed from a columnist for the paper in support of the warrant article slush fund for the church school and that it carried no rejoinder is all that we can expect from this amateurish journal. 

Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos 

So, knowing it will arise again, Mad Dog provides the rejoinder, for those not completely fed up with the whole debate.

Commentary: Here's why I support Hampton tax dollars going to Sacred Heart School

Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos

Sun, February 11, 2024 at 5:08 AM EST

5 min read

When I go to the polling location to vote in the Hampton town election on March 12, I will vote yes for $52,521 for non-religious costs (like a school nurse) for Sacred Heart School, as I do every year this question is posed to me. Which I think is every year I’ve been eligible to vote.

I am not Catholic. I have never attended a private school or religious one — unless Sunday School at the First Congregational Church counts. I am a product of the public schools in Hampton and feel I received a wonderful education and experience as a student. I'm still voting for that small amount of funding for Sacred Heart so students and parents who choose to attend can keep tuition reasonable and give them choice as to what is best for their child. I hope I am in the majority, but the opposition is getting louder.

 

I find the opposition, based on “separation of church and state” and “government shouldn’t be funding religious anything,” to be both constitutionally untrue and not in the best interest of our community and most importantly, our students.

First, on the constitutionality issue, quite simply the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect us “from” religion, it protects the freedom “of” it. It has been interpreted that way for generations.

 

No, actually, Alicia, this is not even close to being true. The First Amendment has two clauses: 1. The establishment clause (which is what the Sacred Heart School slush fund warrant article violates) and the 2. Free exercise clause, which is what you are talking about. The free exercise clause has not been predominate for generations; in fact, the opposite is true, although lately with the Trump Court, it has gained advocates. Of course, "Congress" is now accepted as meaning "government," state, city or town, and some have argued that making no law respecting establishment means no law for or against establishment, but that is such sophistry, nobody bothers to say that anymore.

More and more frequently, this issue of “government” money going to religious schools is being raised as a constitutional dilemma. I don’t find it to be. As a matter of fact neither does the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 2022, when it ruled that our neighbors next door, Maine, cannot exclude families who send kids to religious schools from its tuition reimbursement program.

The Maine case had peculiarities which do not apply to Hampton and the SFS slush fund. In Maine, children sued the state for refusing to pay their tuition to a religious school, saying there simply was no other alternative school for them to attend within a hundred miles. In Hampton, there are four public schools within a mile of SHS.

In the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor asserted with Robert’s ruling the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had virtually ruled that separation of church and state is unconstitutional. As the First Amendment is what embodies separation of church and state, SCOTUS had ruled, very peculiarly, that a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional. If we ever get a SCOTUS comprised of actual jurists, as opposed to the Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Barrett/Kavanagh cabal, this decision will be surely overturned.

While this is a very different case regarding state “voucher” programs, what it demonstrates is there is no absolute ban of taxpayer dollars funneling through a government to a religious school. In that respect, it is no different than Hampton taxpayer dollars simply funneling through Hampton to Sacred Heart.

Oh, no, Dear Alicia, there is a ban on state funds being granted to churches and church schools, and that is called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and even more unambiguous, the New Hampshire state constitution which says: “No person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination.”

What is wonderful about our form of government in our small town, is that we actually vote directly on these funds. That is quite an empowerment and if “we the people" want our tax dollars to go to a religious organization, we do and should have the right to say so.

The thing about the Constitution of the United States is that it applies all across the nation, from every mountain top to every hamlet, and it tells you what you cannot vote on. For example, you cannot vote to segregate your local schools on the basis of race, even if the local voters want that. We have nullified the Constitution in Hampton for 50 years, just as the governor of Alabama tried to nullify the Constitution, but we got away with it, and ultimately, he didn’t.  

Besides, we already do it all the time. We approve funding to St. Vincent de Paul to support its amazing efforts to assist low income families with needed food, clothing and even home medical supplies. We support money to assist with the “Christmas Parade," one of my favorite days of the year.

This is what is called the “common good” thing. It is accepted that government cannot do everything, and some charities which happen to be religious run soup kitchens and may ask for government money for this charitable purpose. But the distinction is they do not teach religion in a soup kitchen and you can have your soup and not sign up to be converted or taught a particular gospel. But, as Justice Robert O. Jackson noted in his Everson decision, a church would give up everything before it gives up its church school, because without church schools every church would be doomed to extinction with the next generation. The difference between SHS and St. Vincent de Paul and all the other examples of Catholic charities is that schools teach religion; charities do not.

We give tens of thousands of dollars to maintain our cemetery, a place that hosts more religious services than anywhere but a church itself.

This is an embarrassingly inept analogy: Our Hampton cemeteries have interred people of all faiths and government funds to maintain these or, for that matter parks, do not violate the separation of church and state. 

You might have cited other examples of violation of government establishing religion which would be more problematic: The “In God We Trust” on our coinage; the “one nation under God,” in our pledge of allegiance, the opening of Congressional events with a chaplain and a prayer. Yes, all of these mix state with religion, and the only thing one can say about all that is, "wish it weren’t true," but these erosions of separation do not make us a theocracy.

We’ve given, through our ballots, to Waypoint, who doesn't seem as religious now but was founded “as the Manchester City Missionary Society, a collaborative of several Protestant churches in the areas, whose purpose was to ‘save the unclaimed souls of the city.’ Primarily, it tried to church the ‘unchurched.’”

Should we look at the founding of an organization to see if it meets the criteria of “no religious connection anywhere”? Of course not. That’s absurd. Let’s remember, these funds we’re talking about do not go to any religious activities, so a religious connection is simply irrelevent. The only questions that matter to me when I decide whether to vote on one of these “donation” articles is, 1. Does it do good work for the community? 2. Is the amount requested fair and reasonable? When it comes to Sacred Heart, it checks both boxes so I will check mine “yes” in a few weeks.

Oh, Alicia, you haven’t been listening to the Deliberative Sessions. It is very clear from public statements (available on Channel 22) that the money given to SHS is not separable into money spent on religious things (like crucifixes) and money spent on non religious stuff. To try to separate monies is like telling the person who is allergic to peanuts it’s just fine to eat the stew because you can eat the carrots and the peas and use your spoon to separate out the peanuts.  The Treasurer who wrote the check for the SHS computers testified that she had no idea if those computers were used to stream services from St. Patrick’s cathedral. And even the principal of the school never denied that only 25% of the students at SHS come from families in Hampton; the other 75% of students at SHS come from families who are paying taxes in other towns, not Hampton. So what the taxpayers of Hampton are being asked to do is to fund a Catholic education for anyone who wants one, no matter what town they come from.

Some often say — not just regarding Sacred Heart but these types of issues in communities across the state and country — “if you want to donate, donate, but use your own money!” Whose money do you think we're talking about? The magic money tree in Depot Square, or our money, in the form of taxpayer dollars, that go to where we vote it to go to, after it just passes through the town on the way to its intended target?

I also don't understand the argument that is noted on this matter, as well as regarding our state Education Trust Fund Program, that money spent on a religious or private schools comes directly out of the coffers for public schools. How? If they don't have to educate that kid, aren’t they saving money? And these voucher programs and the non-religious funding for Sacred Heart is far less than the allotted "per pupil spending” local schools get. They're actually making out on this deal.

This is the old, “it’s cheaper to send kids to SHS than to the expensive public schools." Fact is, we have empty seats in our public schools, so paying again to send kids to SHS is like going to the cafeteria, where the meals are all set out to feed all the kids, and then saying, “Well, but for those of you who want to go eat at McDonald’s, here’s some cash to do that.” We are paying twice for these kids.

Across society and multiple topics, there’s a lot of “just because it’s always been done, doesn't mean it still should be.” Well, it also doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be either. For four decades we’ve assisted this school, and more importantly our fellow community members who are students, families and neighbors, I see no constitutional, fiscal or political reason to stop now.

Oh, back to the “we’ve always done it this way” thing. That argument is so worn and corrupted (as it was in the Jim Crow South) it hardly is worth mentioning.

"But we've always had Negro children going to Negro schools and White children going to White schools!" 

This is the old "hasn't done no harm," thing. We have nullified the Constitution here in Hampton and nothing bad has happened argument. "We haven't done no harm having the school teacher lead the students in the Lord's Prayer every morning. What's all the fuss about?"  

What you are really saying, dear Alicia, is that we have done it this way, offended principles this way, for years and you haven't felt harmed by it. That does not mean other people have not felt offended, belittled or outraged.

On March 12, this Protestant, public school product will be voting for funding Sacred Heart’s non-religious costs, and I hope the majority joins me.