The Right-Cheek Ass Clown for February, 2017

So many Ass Clowns, so few alternate Fridays ...

It gets harder all the time to single out individual recipients of this award, because the political, social, and economic environment in which we live causes them to increase faster than I can review their qualifications. But it's a job that has to be done, and so let's turn to the announcement of

The Right-Cheek Ass Clown for February, 2017

Education Secretary

Betsy DeVos

Possibly the most utterly unqualified person ever nominated to a cabinet post, Ms DeVos's performance during her confirmation hearings revealed her to be ignorant of the basics of educational policy and theory. Her own children have never attended a public school, her focus on "school choice" reflects an ignorance of the fact that many students live in rural locations where there is no alternative to good public schools, and her support of the use of taxpayer dollars to allow students to attend schools operated by religious groups reflects an ignorance of Constitutional restrictions* on government support of religion. Ms DeVos's sole qualification for the job appears to be the large amounts of money she has contributed to conservative causes. Opposition to her nomination was so strong that the Senate confirmation vote resulted in a 50-50 tie, which was broken by a vote cast by Vice President Mike Pence in his role as President of the Senate - the first time in history that a Vice President had to cast a deciding vote on a deadlocked cabinet nomination.

For the danger she represents to public schools, which are the educational bedrock of an informed citizenry, and for her complete ignorance of crucial topics in education, Betsy DeVos is named our Right-Cheek Ass Clown for February, 2017.

If you can read this post, chances are that you are a graduate of a public school. Think about it.

Have a good day. See you tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday ... more thoughts then.

Bilbo

* The first words of the First Amendment - sometimes known as "the establishment clause" - read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Religious partisans choose to focus on the second part of the sentence, interpreting "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean, "no law can force me to do anything that contravenes my religious beliefs, or facilitate anyone else doing anything that contravenes those beliefs;" while those favoring the separation of church and state focus on the first words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If the federal government uses my tax dollars to pay for a student to attend a school run by a religious group of which I disapprove, is it "respecting an establishment of religion"? It depends on your religious viewpoint, doesn't it?