Here’s a pet theme of mine (I know, I have so many pet themes, I could fill a kennel, or zoo, or something): You should not have to sacrifice your children to some kind of educational-political ideology. You should not have to send your children to public schools, if those schools are failing — or even if they’re not — in order to prove your fealty to public education.

I knew people, when I was growing up, who viewed sending your kids to private schools as an act of disloyalty — to the community. I also remember a potent fact — believe it comes from the 1980s: Forty-three percent of Chicago public-school teachers (that is the number that sticks in memory) were sending their kids to private schools. These were the people who knew the public schools best.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anyway, why am I yakking about this? Bill Cosby has done much, much good in recent years. And this article talks about his recent visit to Detroit. There is a movement called “I’m In” — as in, “I’m in” the public school system. I’m sticking with it. And Coz went around trying to convince parents to forget charter schools and the like and “support” the regular old public schools: by sending their kids there. He was extracting pledges, in a way.

The issue is not cut-and-dried. But here is a rule: A school that has to beg you to attend it — a free-of-charge school that has to beg you to attend it! — is probably not one you should be keen to go to.

Another pet theme, or pet peeve, of mine has to do with “safe zones” — my recent term for zones free of partisan politics. (These might include concerts, church, city tours . . .). A reader wrote me to say that he was sick of the intrusion of politics into the sports pages — hear, hear. Been singing this song forever. Those politics always — always — come from the left. And it’s easy to see why. More about that in a sec.

Anyway, my reader was irked in particular about this column, concerning Tiger Woods. The columnist wanted Woods to be more open to the media. And he wrote, “It’s not like we’re trying to pull President Obama aside for a couple of questions while he’s trying to save our country from itself.”

Yeah, yeah. Okay, here’s my theory: The sports guys are a tiny bit embarrassed — at some level — to be sportswriters. And they need to prove they’re every bit as serious — every bit as left-wing, every bit as “engaged” with the world — as the news and editorial guys. “Hey, don’t look down on me because I write about sports: I hate Bush too!”

You know?

Recently, I was riding through Nîmes with Tony Daniels. (I know, that’s a show-off sentence.) And he was pointing out the imposition of the ugliest, most repulsive buildings in the middle of this elegant and beautiful old town: an act of cruelty and disdain. Wanton incongruity, vandalism, in a way. To point this out is not to express a dislike of the modern. It is to express a dislike of the stupid, offensive, and destructive.

Over the years, Daniels, David Pryce-Jones, Roger Kimball, and others have made me more attentive to this. And, walking through Manhattan the other day — golf range to office — I snapped this picture. It shows an old bank (not so old, compared with Roman Nîmes!) next to a newer gray box. Why would you put one building next to the other? Why, in fact, would you erect a hideous box at all?

An old friend of mine had an expression: “It makes my eyes go yuck.” So many moderns have been dedicated to making people’s eyes go yuck. (Ears, too.) What has happened to humanity, artistically, in the space of a couple of generations? Was there nothing left to do but ruin? To “subvert,” as the cool people say?

I think I’ve told you my favorite piece of art criticism ever. On a National Review cruise — the Rhine — Paul Johnson was approaching the Cologne Cathedral. Catching sight of the recent monstrosities around it, he muttered under his breath, “Barbarians.”

A language question: Is all muttering under your breath? I don’t think so.

In a column last week, I wrote about a man named Che — not Guevara, but the new principal of my old elementary school in Ann Arbor, Mich. (His name is Che Carter, to boot!) A reader wrote, “Che is a name I hate, but should I? Maybe it should be confined to the one and only Che. Somewhat like Adolf.”

Have I ever told you this story? I think I have. Wait a second, let me Google. Okay, I’ve done it: I did tell it, in October 2002, when Adolph Green died. Here is my story:

About three seasons ago, I was in Carnegie Hall. It was halftime — but the lights were dimming, and people were scrambling back to their seats. I heard a woman say, “Adolph?” I thought: “Adolf? How unfortunate to go through life with that name. It couldn’t be other than a quite old man. In fact, I bet it’s Adolph Green.” I turned around, and there was Adolph Green, being called by his wife, Phyllis Newman.

 

Mind you, my thought process — or whatever you want to call it — took about 1.5 seconds. But it sort of amused me. It had to be Adolph Green. I couldn’t have even told you that he lived in New York.

(Green, incidentally — pardon if this is condescension — was a prominent writer of song lyrics.)

So, you want to hear about Diane Watson? Plenty of readers do. She is the congresswoman from L.A. — Democrat (really?) — who recently heaped praise on Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, the Cuban health-care system — you know the drill. Couldn’t be more typical. I commented on it in the Corner, here. If you can stomach wading into these subjects once more — knock yourself out.

From MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, comes a report of a beauty pageant in Saudi Arabia. Bear with us. MEMRI translates an Arabiya report, saying, “Female beauty is no longer dependent on looks alone. This has been replaced by moral values and conduct — the new criteria in the first contest of moral beauty queens in Saudi Arabia. In the contest, which was organized by a women’s festival, several girls competed for the title.”

The clip shows a bunch of ladies sitting around in burqas. It’s pretty funny, I suppose. But, you know? I kind of like the idea of this contest — kind of admire it. I think my record against “the Saudi way” is pretty clear (and extensive). This, I kind of like, and can see the point of. Is that terrible? Well, if so, so be it.