From Jeff Childers

In a self-owning article this week headlined, “‘Not Good for Learning’,” the New York Times reported that covid school closures were crazy destructive to kids. The subhead explains, “New research is showing the high costs of long school closures in some communities.”

Now, I’m old enough to remember back when public health experts ASSURED US that remote learning would be JUST AS GOOD as in-person schooling, and because the experts had four-year degrees in public health, they were the most qualified among us to mandate how to best educate millions of American children.

But, given all the uncertainty around the developing pandemic, could we have possibly done anything differently? The Times asked that question and then answered it. First, it asked “Were many of these problems avoidable?” Then the Times answered, “The evidence suggests that they were.”

Oh. Well, so it turns out the experts LIED about school closures. Now what? Should we blame the experts?

Not according to the Times. The article explained, “Extended school closures appear to have done much more harm than good, and many school administrators probably could have recognized as much by the fall of 2020.”

Oh. See, it’s SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ fault. Not the CDC or Fauci or Walensky. The CDC only issued “recommendations” after all. The School Administrators were the ones who actually did the closing and stuff. Still, it was all for our own good, right? To slow the spread and so forth?

Apparently not. The Times explained, “In places where schools reopened that summer and fall, the spread of Covid was not noticeably worse than in places where schools remained closed.”

Okay, it WASN’T for our own good. So what was it good for?

Obviously, I’m snarking and most of America has already realized what the Times is just now waking up to. I think this has HUGE political ramifications. Remember when we found out the CDC crafted its school closure guidelines after consulting with teachers’ unions? Here’s the fallout: the Democrats have now completely lost their ages-old position as the party that “protects children.”

Dems ran on that platform in every single election that I can remember. Every one. But now they’ve been exposed. Not only didn’t they protect kids, but their uselessly-insane policies pleasing teacher’s unions actually HARMED kids. Not just a little. A LOT. And most people recognize that now. Which is why you have brand-new parent activist groups like Moms for Liberty blooming all over this country like wildflowers in spring, wildflowers with razor-sharp teeth, which are tearing liberal local officials new southern apertures, to the point that the effeminate head of the Justice Department, Merrick Garland, even called them domestic terrorists.

So what is the Times up to? I think it’s battlespace preparation for Democrats to try to reclaim the soccer moms. Get ready for Democrats to nauseatingly start championing childrens’ issues to “repair the damage caused by the pandemic.” Probably by increasing funding for teacher’s unions.