Washington Post politically correct (wishy washy) editorial shows the Editorial Board to be co-conspirators to NY Mayor deBlasio’s “War on Poor Children”

Screen Shot 2014-03-11 at 10.02.22 AM

Yes, I know the headline is harsh, but … the Washington Post Editorial Board, by it politically correct worded editorial missed the chance to change views and help children…poor children.  Instead, the editorial (below) suits the needs of the Board and Mayor de Blasio.  It is wishy washy at best.

Poor children and their desperate parents can’t speak for themselves sufficiently –  they need strong advocates, with conviction.  The Washington Post editorial had a chance to do that but took the easy way out.

With this editorial (below), the Post’s Editorial Board members can now brag at Georgetown cocktail parties (pretend indignation at what the Mayor of New York is doing) and yet their editorial does not lay a glove on their friend (the democratic mayor of New York.)   It is a “two-fer” for the Post.

There is a hint of political correctness in its headline.   It gently says de Blasio is “undermining” and not destroying.  And what is he undermining?  objects – “schools.”  That’s all – just undermining objects, buildings.  What could be wrong with that, right?  just buildings!  The truth is he is destroying the future of some poor children.  That is what the headline should read.

If you read the editorial below you will see the Board even bends over backwards to praise the Mayor, to say he is correct about something, to pat the Mayor on the back for something.  Why did they feel that so necessary?  Politically correct?

If the Washington Post is going to jump into this discussion (and it has), it ought to have the courage  and conviction to call it like it is…and what Mayor deBlasio of New York is doing is a “War, not on all children, but on POOR children!”

Children of rich parents – who can fight battles for them –  don’t need charter schools.  Those children go to fancy private schools whose names all seem to start with “The.” Charter schools are for the underprivileged seeking to have a chance in the world.

The black text is the Editorial Board and the red are my thoughts as well as parts of the editorial I don’t want you to miss. 

PS I also note  that the Washington Post often feels bold enough to use freely the Democratic slogan “War on Women” but not a “War on Children….or POOR Children” when it comes to the Democratic Mayor of New York.  Frankly, while I agree things could be better for women, we women can defend ourselves a lot better than these poor children and their parents….so why is the Washington Post so weak in its editorial?


Why is New York Mayor Bill de Blasio undermining charter schools? [Really? undermining? and schools? Picking on buildings?  What’s wrong with the headline “New York Mayor Bill deBlasio has a WAR ON POOR CHILDREN and is doing what he can to take away their futures?”]


By Editorial Board, Published: March 10


DURING HIS successful campaign for New York mayor, Bill de Blasio (D) made clear that he had a different, less favorable view of public charter schools [not less favorable, he is against them, against these poor children having a chance] than did his predecessor. But even charter advocates who feared the worst wouldn’t have predicted that Mr. de Blasio would kick a high-achieving charter school out of its building, leaving hundreds of parents [of lower income and minority and poor children] wondering where their children will attend classes next fall.


Success Academy Harlem 4, whose students boast some of the highest math scores in New York state, faces an uncertain fate in light of Mr. de Blasio’s decision to deny it free space. The school, in operation since 2008, is part of the Success Academy chain, which serves minority and low-income children with impressive results. The chain’s chief executive, Eva Moskowitz, is a political rival of the mayor [deBlasio only cares about his own selfish political interests, not the poor children just trying to get a chance]; during the campaign, he said of her: “She has to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.” Mr. de Blasio also rescinded the co-locations of two planned Success schools that had been approved by former mayor Michael Bloomberg.


The de Blasio administration has pushed back on suggestions that its decisions were politically motivated. Officials complain that decisions about school space were rushed by the Bloomberg administration so as to tie their hands; they say that the majority of co-locations, in which charters share space with traditional schools, were approved, including five other proposals from Success Academy. That is small consolation to such parents as Maria Rodriguez, who told us that she is beside herself with worry over where her three children will go if Success Academy has to shut its doors. [deBlasio doesn’t care about her 3 children — his kids are taken care of and he is selfish.  This is about him.] “This is the future of my children they are playing games with,” she said, dismissing the nearby failing traditional schools as an option.


The city’s indifference [no, not ‘city’s indifference, but de Blasio’s War on  Poor Children] to the success of this school (shouldn’t performance be a factor in who gets space?) is, unfortunately, emblematic of Mr. de Blasio’s stance toward charters. His newly revised capital budget shifts $210 million from charter schools to boost other programs. Charter schools serve about 6 percent of the New York City student population. Mr. de Blasio is correct in saying they aren’t the silver bullet to fixing public education, but they play an important role, and it’s illogical to deny them the support merited by their importance to poor and traditionally neglected students. [The foregoing is pathetic.  First it softly and gently says de Blasio is “correct” that it is not a silver bullet.  They had to reach to pat him on the back.  And not a silver bullet? It sure is a silver bullet if you are a poor family trying to help your child!  The post goes on with its weak, wishy washy editorial by using the term “illogical” when it should say “disgraceful” and condemn his for what he is doing. ]