Home | About | Donate

Even for a Bully Like Trump, Attacking Children Is a New Low


Even for a Bully Like Trump, Attacking Children Is a New Low

Rachel Tiven

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education rescinded the Obama administration’s 2016 Title IX guidance clarifying the rights of transgender students.

We all know that Donald Trump is a bully, but this attack on transgender children is a new low. Yesterday's move could endanger the well-being and safety of children across the country.


Just how low can Trump and his Republican stooges go? This is only the beginning. You can always depend on Republicans to conveniently sweep all their hate, bigotry, racism and assorted filth under a rug they call state's rights. Whenever that phrase surfaces, you know they are out to punish some group. It's Republican speak for "we hate ___".


And don't expect Betsy Devious to keep promises any more than her mentor in chief.


"...We hate...teachers and kids."

All this is smoke and mirrors, a place-holder, if you will. Check out HR 610, which is proceeding nicely through the House. When passed, there will no longer BE a Title IX, nor will there be Titles I through Title VIII. The plan is to scrap the bipartisan ESEA (1965) and start over. Then the Feds will simply issue block grants accessible to states (?) individuals(?) whomever.

Oh, and as a bizarre and typically mean Republican add-on they will do away with nutritional school lunches and breakfasts. From www.congress.gov:

"No Hungry Kids Act

The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children's nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)"

And we thought it was bad when Reagan had ketchup labeled a vegetable! Oh, for the good old days. Not.


What does Rachel Tiven mean by "a new low" here?

Can we support the idea that Donald Trump has not previously attacked children? Does Tiven care to do so?

I think that we cannot. I think that she would not. But t also suspect that the literal argument made is irrelevant to what Tiven intends: by characterizing Trump's move as "a new low," Tiven seems to intend to imply that attacking children is not a typical move for people in Trump's position.

If so, this is rot. It is also very dangerous rot because it indirectly supports the attacking of children that has been done regularly by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

All of the moves that presidents typically make that increase poverty and inequality, all of the moves that presidents make that sacrifice environmental values for the short-term profits of associates attack children, and children above all. But, more obviously, drone-bombing children and their families and blowing the limbs off their bodies attacks them, and suffusing their living environment with the radioactive detritus of so-called "depleted" uranium ammunition attacks them, manufacturing and delivering and deploying dragon-tooth personnel bombs attacks primarily children. The latter two distinguish themselves by attacking primarily those not yet born.

There is nothing wrong with attacking Donald Trump's positions, for the love of mercy. And I will hold for the silly ad hominems that are blossoming all over too, up to a point. They don't prove much, but he fishes for them enough, and if it's fun, I guess people can have a good time without proving anything. But the Democratic Party cannot run over a half-dozen open wars of aggression during eight years of its administration, back a candidate that takes foreign bribes to expand them, and then expect to hold any high ground as regards attacking children.

It's really a pity. Trump's is a policy that could use attacking, and Tiven has some good points, but the sorts of rhetorical riders in this undercut that severely.


Makes we wonder if Trump will try to rescind Obama's pardon of Chelsea Manning.


Not even ten days and the blond billionaire bimbo is doing her dirty work. Did anyone see what is going on in her home state wherein Governor Snyder and his legislative/administrative lackeys are seriously considering CLOSING 38 PUBLIC SCHOOLS because they are "underperforming?" WTF...bet DeVos and the Kochs are chomping at the bit to buy up the shuttered school properties and either sell them for an immediate profit or create profit-making charter and/or Kristian Skools in their place (while using public funds from taxpayers throughout the process). I would bet that the "underperforming" schools are in impoverished neighborhoods where there are no tax dollars to be had to create revenue for learning programs and projects for these schools. They will also use the "underperforming" mantra to continue the public relations campaign undermining and demonizing public education.

Who gives a S- - T about the disastrous results these school closures will have on the children, their parents, and their communities: not the powers-that-be who can only see $$$$ and are blinded to the plight of the victims of their (authorities') terrorism.


Block grants and vouchers are favorites of Ms. Devious' (to borrow from another commenter) as borne out by her activities in Michigan (in addition for the special places in her black heart for charter and Kristian Skools).


I had a bad feeling about Jeff Sessions from the start. Watch for more attempts to take us back to the "good ole days". Good for straight white males, that is. Not so much for anyone else!


You left out "misogynistic," "supremacist," and "racist" adjectives preceding "males."


Eric Prince could have her eliminated I would think ,he is a another ruthless person whispering sweet nothings 45's ear



Dantes Inferno doesn't have a level of Hell, low enough for this Orange Ogre.


You could see this coming months ago. The choice of pence as VP was one of the first real signs. But when it comes down to which is worse pence or trump its a toss up.


It really is a choice between the more effective evil (Pence) or the more volatile yet manipulable evil (Trump). I am not arguing that Trump will be manipulable by the left, more like he is manipulable by Pence, Bannon, and corporate donors.