“Value-Charged”

A panel, the Texas Education Agency, that is “advising” the Texas State Board of Education wants to deprecate matters related to the Alamo and its defense by a band of heroic Americans (yes, I used those two terms.  Both of them).

The 7th grade social studies curriculum used to teach the defense of the Alamo currently uses the phrase siege of the Alamo and all of the heroic defenders who gave their lives there.  This panel told the SBOE to use only siege of the Alamo.  “Heroic,” they insist, is “value-charged.”

You bet it’s a value-charged characterization.  We shouldn’t hesitate to point out, even to emphasize, to the children to whom we’re teaching our history the trials, the costs, the lives paid by—the heroism of—those who defended us.  Here is a concrete example of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he described the fertilizer of our tree of liberty.

Far beyond that, we should celebrate our heroes.  Here is a concrete example of Benjamin Franklin’s meaning when he said that our republic can stand only if we are a virtuous people.

This group of alleged experts—they’re represented to be educators and historians—didn’t stop there, sadly.

They suggested deleting the Travis letter because they think when teachers talk about the Alamo they will absolutely mention it, but not having it outlined specifically just meant teachers would spend less time on it.

Why on earth should less time be spent on a letter, Travis’ Victory or Death letter, so central to the defense of Texas?  Why should our children spend less time learning their Texas history and this critical episode in their American history?

This is the letter—which I was taught way back when I was in junior high and ‘way up north in Iowa—that these personages consider too trivial to teach our children [emphases in the original]:

Commandancy of the The Alamo

Bejar, Feby. 24th. 1836

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World—

Fellow Citizens & compatriots—

        I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man — The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls — I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days.  If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death.

William Barrett Travis.

Lt.  Col. comdt.

P.S. The Lord is on our side — When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn — We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.

Travis

This performance of this panel of “experts” is shameful.

A Townhall Campaign Event

This one in Navasota, Texas.  Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas Beto O’Rourke is running against first-term incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, and O’Rourke had his townhall event at the VFW hall in Navasota.

This is what drew my eye to what would otherwise have been a rather ordinary campaign event.  VFW Post #4006 Commander Carl Dry:

[T]hey wanted to take the flags down, I didn’t only say no, I said hell no, you don’t take the flags off the wall. I can’t believe any American would ask us to do that and I don’t know why he wanted them down or what he was going to put up instead.

Yeah.  Why on earth would anyone claiming to want to represent Texans want to take American and Texas flags down from the VFW hall’s walls?

O’Rourke is making a habit of being contemptuous of our nation’s flag; now he objects to our State’s flag and those of the other States, too?  Just who does O’Rourke really represent?

Another Miss

This time by The Wall Street Journal.  In an op-ed about the coward’s piece in The New York Times (if that individual actually exists, otherwise it’s the cowardice of the NYT editorial staff), the WSJ closed with this remark.

The tragedy of this Presidency is that his rants and insults—even toward people who work for him—threaten to overwhelm his policy achievements.

This is true only because the persons of the press choose to enable that. It’s their conscious editorial choice to give emphasis to President Donald Trump’s rants and insults over his policy efforts and achievements. It’s their carefully deliberated editorial choice to give primacy to form over substance.

Mind Your Place

Ken Harrelson, a broadcaster for Chicago’s White Sox baseball team and himself a some-time baseball player, thinks basketball player LeBron James should just shut up and play.

Well I used to watch LeBron [James] but no more. I wish these guys would keep their nose out of politics and just play because people didn’t come to hear their opinions on politicians[.]

Because everyone should just mind his place.

This stinks.  It’s of a piece with the Left’s identity politics: blacks are required to vote a particular way, women are only allowed specific opinions, whites have privilege, and on and on.  It’s the return of segregation, only it’s political segregation rather than physical, and political segregation doesn’t even pretend to be equal while separate.

There’s much with which I disagree in James’ commentary, but his status as a professional basketball player no more disqualifies him from commenting on political matters, or any other subject, than does my status as a writer qualify me to comment.

Oh, and on the subject of political commentary by sports figures, maybe Harrelson should heed his own advice and stick to calling baseball games.  He’s is, after all, “just” a sports figure like James.

Or not.  Because sports figures really do get to comment on politics.

An Interview Ducked

The New Yorker invited Steve Bannon to a panel debate, its New Yorker Festival.  Then, after “public criticism,” the mag disinvited him.  Other scheduled participants also…objected.

Shortly after Mr Bannon was announced as a guest, several film stars, producers and comedians declared on Twitter that they didn’t want to be on a schedule with the former White House senior adviser. Actor Jim Carrey, comedy producer Judd Apatow, and comedian John Mulaney all backed out, citing Mr Bannon’s participation as the primary reason.

New Yorker editor David Remnick made the laughable claim that

This…[is] a question of putting pressure on a set of arguments and prejudices that have influenced our politics and a President still in office[.]

From that, Remnick claimed, the Festival was not an appropriate venue for engaging Bannon.

What abject cowards are Remnick, Carrey, Apatow, and Mulaney. What better way to show up Bannon, to put[] pressure on a set of arguments and prejudices that have influenced our politics and a President still in office, than to debate him and expose the foolishness of his positions and those arguments and prejudices?

They’ve exposed their own prejudices, and they’ve shown they have no arguments to make to counter Bannon.