The problem with 7% inflation

On May 22, 2020, Joe Biden, the Democrats' candidate for president, appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" and promised the American people, 

"Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period! Bingo!"

Then on Aug. 23, 2020, candidate Biden doubled down on ABC's "20/20" and pledged to every American that, 

"I will raise taxes for anybody making over $400,000. … No new taxes [for people making less than $400,000]; there would be no need for [any]."

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a fig whether Congress increases federal income taxes to 90% on billionaires, or imposes a 90% confiscatory tax on their wealth.


If a billionaire has $1 billion stashed in his savings account, or in gold bars or in stocks or bonds, and the government confiscates 90% of it, the billionaire should be able to still get on rather nicely with his remaining $100 million.


And if the billionaire is allowed to retain $100 million of his $1 billion yearly income, he'll still have a lot more money to spend than anybody I know, and will probably not need SNAP benefits and an EBT card.

But what I am concerned about is what President Biden and his progressive brain trust are doing to the poor and to those on fixed incomes.f you voted for Biden, remember his promise:

"Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period! Bingo!"

The progressives, who have espoused Modern Monetary Theory, claim to believe that the government can create, or print, as much money as it needs to fund whatever program it sees as being worth funding, without any adverse consequences. History has repeatedly demonstrated that so-called "economic theory" to be hogwash. 

Around 1700, John Law tried it in France. The result was the catastrophic "Mississippi Bubble." 

The Weimar Republic tried it after World War I, and it destroyed the middle and lower classes and opened the door to Adolf Hitler.

Chavez and Maduro tried it in Venezuela and turned the county into an economic basket case.


The truth of the matter is that inflation is a tax. It's a regressive tax. It is a cruel tax that hits the poor and those on fixed incomes the hardest.

To demonstrate that statement, consider that in September of 2021, the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit was $1,559. That sum included the 2021 cost of living adjustment of 1.3%.

Now, assume you were one of the people getting that $1,559 check each month during 2021.

You got 12 monthly Social Security checks during 2021. Each one equaled $1,559. But during that time the cost of goods and services increased. The Bureau of Labor Statistics advises that, "over the last 12 months, the 'all items index' increased 7.0 percent before seasonal adjustment."

By Dec. 31, 2021, your $1,559 check's purchasing power was reduced by 7%. Your $1,559 check could then buy only $1,450 worth of goods and services — if that.


Now in 2022, you will be getting a 5.8% cost of living adjustment — an additional $93 per month. So your monthly 2020 Social Security check will be about $1,692 per month. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Think again. Your 2022 $1,692 check will have a purchasing power of $1,450 + $93, or $1,543 at the beginning of 2022.

And if inflation in 2022 increases by only another 7%, your $1,692 check will purchase only $1,435 worth of goods and services by December of 2022. If, however, inflation increases to 12% for 2022, by December your $1,692 check will purchase only $1,358 worth of goods and services.


What is true for Social Security benefits, is also true for welfare benefits and wages. If your take-home wage is $2,400 per month today, by year's end, with 7% inflation, your $2,400 will buy only $2,232 worth of goods and services — if you're lucky.


It is true that inflation affects the income and wealth of a billionaire the same way. But if a billionaire has a billion dollars in the bank, and earns $100 million per year, even if his wealth and income are reduced by 7%, he is still going to come out better than you.

In truth, inflation is a regressive tax that affects everybody in the country. The super-rich, however, always seem to find a "life preserver" or two, thrown to them by their good friends in Congress. Otherwise known as "loopholes."


If you voted for President Biden and progressive policies, don't complain. You did this to yourself.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 24, 2022

The answer to a teacher's strike

On Jan. 4, the membership of the Chicago Teachers Union voted to "suspend in-person teaching in the Chicago Public schools." That union represents 25,000 Chicago Public School teachers and staff. And 73% of those voting, voted to close the schools. Therefore, 340,000 public school students were locked out of their schools.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, labeled the strike, "an illegal work stoppage" and filed an unfair labor practice complaint. Chicago Public Schools and the union came to an agreement, which was narrowly ratified last week, but the schools were closed for days.

Unfortunately, Gov. J.B. Pritzker last year signed a bill passed by the Democrats in the Illinois legislature that gives the teachers union the power to use students as bargaining chips during its negotiations with the Chicago Public School Board.

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, "House Bill 2275, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on April 4, repeals a portion of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that limited negotiations between CPS and CTU to issues related to wages and benefits.

"Now CPS will be forced to bargain over everything, including subjects such as class schedules, hours and places of instruction.

 "The bottom line: The increased number of issues that must be resolved during bargaining increases opportunities for CTU to disagree with CPS — and escalates the union’s likelihood of going on strike."

So if the teachers union can bargain over schedules, hours and places of instruction, why can't the union strike once negotiations deadlock? If the union and the board are at loggerheads over the "place of instruction" (in school or at home), how can the strike be illegal?

But here's what a Chicago parent whose child or children are locked out of the public schools can do: Send your child to a private school, if you can afford it, or if financial assistance is available. Or you can leave Illinois and move to another state where the teachers unions don't control the Democratic mayor and governors, and run the state.

How about Arizona? Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, has proposed to halt a similar "power grab" by Arizona teachers unions. Ducey proposes to give every parent education-related aid in the sum of $7,000 to assist them in placing their children in any school that's open!

The governor says the state is taking "preemptive action."

In a series of online posts he said:

"We're making sure in-person learning remains an option for all Arizona families and students. 

 

"With the new 'Open for Learning Recovery Benefit Program,' if a school closes for even one day, students and families who meet the income requirements will have access to instruction that best meets their needs. 

 

"It funds up to $7,000 for needs related to approved child care, school-coordinated transportation, online tutoring and school tuition. 

 

"We will continue to work with families, public health experts and school leaders to ensure our kids can stay in the classroom and parents have a choice – always."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has lauded Ducey's plan. "Governor Ducey's announcement that Arizona will give the education money to parents if their school is closed is the most creative response yet to the teachers union putting children last. Chicago should follow his lead."

In America, if you're wealthy, you can send your child to the private school of your choice. If you are poor, you don't have that option. The poor face a monopoly; the public school system monopoly specifies where your child will go to school.

When a state provides public funding to allow the parents to send their children to the school of their choice — whether public or private — that monopoly is broken.

According to the Chicago Public Education Fund, "in FY20, CPS has a total budget of $7.0 billion, excluding capital funding." [$20,588 per student].


At my old high school, Notre Dame College Prep of Niles, Ill., tuition for 2021-22 is $13,400. Alleman High School tuition for 2021-22 is $5,500, and is discounted for more than one child.

Chicago Public Schools and their unions are not revenue deprived. They are a virtual monopoly. They can strike with impunity because once they lock the school doors, most public school parents have no choice.

Ducey's plan to use revenues that would normally go to the public schools to allow the parents a choice, when the unions exercise their choice to close the schools, makes sense. Only a politician who gets major funding from such unions would object.

Ducey's plan should appeal even to the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She hates monopolies. She wants to give every American $1,000 a month even if they don't want to work. She voted to give convicted criminals in the state penitentiaries economic recovery checks. If she had no objection to how such money is spent, why would she object to poor parents spending free money to send their children to better schools, or at least schools with their doors open?

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 16, 2022

Medical science is not infallible

Should Facebook and Twitter ban postings recommending certain drugs for the treatment of Covid, but not endorsed by Dr. Tony Fauci? The CDC? The government?

Recently Dr. Fauci, the face of the Biden administration's war on Covid, told the world, if they criticize Tony Fauci, "they are really criticizing science, because I represent science."

Fauci's claim is not new. It is a claim of "eminent doctors" over the centuries to silence any doctor — or lesser person — who dared to propose alternate treatments to those endorsed by prevailing "medical science."

In 1537 in France, the masters of the medical profession were the physicians of the teaching faculty of the University of Paris. They were certain they were the medical "science" of their day. Gun shots were to be treated by pouring boiling oil on the wound. If the arm or leg received a serious wound, it was to be amputated as quickly as possible. To stop bleeding, you sealed the blood vessel with a white hot iron.

In those days, amputations and cautery were considered beneath the physician's dignity. They were left to surgeons, or to their barber assistants. One such barber was Ambrose Paré. He served France as a military surgeon in its 1537 campaign in Italy.

When he ran out of oil to boil to apply to the soldiers' wounds, he used what he had — a compound of turpentine, rose oil and egg yolk. He soon learned that those treated with his compound did far better than those whose wounds were treated with boiling oil.

Paré next began tying off blood vessels following amputation rather than using cautery. He found the amputees fared far better, not withstanding that the use of the white-hot iron was prescribed by medical "science."

Louis Pasteur was not a medical doctor. He was a chemist. In the 1850s, while dean of sciences at the University of Lille, he began analysis of the process of fermentation — the process by which grape juice changed to wine. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that fermentation was the result of an unstable body decomposing. After years of experiment, Pasteur proved that fermentation was not the result of an unstable substance dying, but of a wildly active multiplication of living cells. His "ferments"were microscopic living beings. Each type of fermentation was produced by its own specific ferment. These ferments were not spontaneously "born" within the fermented matter, but were introduced from the outside. Pasteur further deduced that microscopic beings might also be the causes of human sickness and death.

But at the time, the medical profession — "medical science" — attributed sickness and death to "morbid spontaneity," and not to a specific invading microorganism. Time and further scientific experimentation once again proved France's keepers of "medical science" wrong, and Pasteur right.

Pasteur begged doctors to use clean bed sheets in hospitals, to sanitize their instruments by flame, and to wash before treating a patient after performing a post-mortem dissection. "Medical science" of the day scoffed. His work to create an immunization for anthrax drew ridicule from doctors and veterinaries alike. But mere chemist Pasteur was right.


In the mid-19th century, while Joseph Lister was practicing surgery in Edinburgh, he noticed that 43% of the hospital's surgery patients there died. In Paris, 60% died; in Munich, 80%. The pattern was always the same. The operation went well, but then slight swelling developed followed by inflammation. Lister observed that simple fractures which were set, healed well; gangrene and septicemia occurred only in compound, open fractures. Lister concluded these infections were not the result of "spontaneous generation" or even the air. They were caused by tiny organisms in the air.

To kill these organisms, Lister began to use carbolic acid as a disinfectant. Instruments, bandages, ligatures were all bathed in carbolic acid. Lister set aside the traditional surgeon's black frock coat and wore a clean white apron. Acid was sprayed into the air. The result was an 11 year-old boy with a compound fracture came through the operation without infection.

Lister continued his experiment and kept detailed records. But while deaths dropped dramatically in his ward, his hospital colleagues followed the established "medical science" in their wards. For eight years, they ignored Lister's papers in The Lancet, as well as the morbidity in their wards, and the lack thereof in Lister's. It wasn't until 1877 that Lister's critics grudgingly admitted that he was right. That recognition came not from Edinburgh, but from London where he was made a professor at London's King's College.

Dr. Fauci has to know that medical science is not static. Best medical practice is nothing more than considered judgments based on observations, questions, hypothesis, experiments, interpreting results and making conclusions. Some medical judgments pass the test of time; others don't.

The most any doctor can say, is that "I am following what are judged to be today's best practices." Indeed Fauci has told the American people as much. He's said scientists need more information before drawing conclusions about omicron's severity.

Had Facebook and Twitter been around in the days of Paré, Pasteur, Lister, et al., would they have been blocked for proposing treatments not approved by the leading physicians of their day? Probably.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 10, 2021

Stephen Colbert: "We should change the law."

 Are you part of the mob criticizing the verdicts of the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial? President Biden was.

"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken ....," he said.

Biden then added, "I didn't watch the trial." Of course, the jurors did.

And then there was Stephen Colbert's inane criticism. 

"Cards on the table, I am not a legal expert so I can't tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law. But I can tell you this, if he didn't break the law we should change the law."

OK, Mr. non-legal expert. Since you don't know "whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law," why do you want it changed? And exactly what do you want changed?

Perhaps we should begin by abolishing the right to self-defense? Or maybe just the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense? Or the right to use a gun in self-defense?

Or maybe we should change the procedures of trial?

Perhaps instead of the "presumption of innocence," all persons charged by the government with serious crimes, should be presumed guilty? After all, if the President or one of his U.S. Attorneys thinks you're guilty, don't they have solid evidence to back that up?

If a grand jury finds probable cause to indict you, aren't you probably guilty?

And if you are probably guilty, shouldn't you be presumed guilty?

Perhaps the requirement that the defendant be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should be abolished. Many defendants who are probably guilty are found not guilty because of that rule. And when grand jury has found that the defendant is "probably guilty," shouldn't the defendant have to prove himself not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Or at least prove himself to the jury's satisfaction that he is not guilty.

Or maybe we should abolish the rules of evidence? Why shouldn't the government be able to use a little hearsay if that will help convict a defendant who has already been found "probably guilty" by the grand jury's indictment, or the prosecutor's information?

In America, the judge is the sole judge of the law, and the jurors are the sole judges of the facts. The judge is a government official; the jurors aren't. And until twelve jurors – your fellow citizens – find you guilty, no judge can deprive you of your life, liberty or property.

Perhaps comedian Colbert would like to see that changed? How about allowing a simple majority of the 12 jurors to find you guilty? How about giving the judge the right to disregard the jury's verdict, and pronounce guilt himself?

How about allowing the judge to direct the jurors to enter a verdict of "guilty?"

How about abolishing the jury altogether? Why not get rid of an "independent judiciary?" Allow the President to appoint any of his officials to preside over your trial, even if the President, as in the case of Rittenhouse, used his photo in a 2020 campaign ad, claiming President Trump supported white-racism?

Or maybe an indicted man should be required to face trial without an attorney?

If you think such "improvements" could never be a part of American law, you are woefully ignorant of the history of Anglo-American law.

We have a record of the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. During that trial, the judges considered themselves part of the prosecution. They helped gather statements from witnesses to be used against Raleigh. They deemed it their duty to see that an indicted man was found guilty. Raleigh was denied counsel.

Because the judges believed a man on trial for his life might lie under oath, he was denied the right to testify under oath on his own behalf. Given the grand jury indictment, Raleigh was presumed guilty. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was at the time, unknown. Hearsay and hearsay upon hearsay were admitted into evidence against Raleigh. He was not allowed to confront and cross-examine his accusers. He was not allowed to call Lord Cobham into court to allow Cobham to testify that his deposition gathered and used by the prosecution against Raleigh was made after one of the judges told Cobham that he could face the rack if he would not testify against Raleigh.

Add to that the fact that the jurors knew that they could be punished by fine or jail for "perjury" if they returned a "false verdict" – if their verdict displeased the King.

So which of these improvements would funnyman Colbert opt for? It is easy to criticize a jury when in Biden's words, you "did not watch it." But that jury sat and heard all the evidence the prosecutor could adduce against Rittenhouse.

It watched numerous videos of the shootings. And then deliberated for three days before rendering its verdicts.

It is good that President Biden said, "we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." But for him to be "angry" with the jury without having seen nor heard the evidence that the jury did, is disgraceful. For Colbert to want to change the law with no specification of what he would change, is bizarre — not funny.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 3, 2021

When Partisan Politics Trumps Public Duty

In big America's cities, run by "woke" Democrat mayors who called for "police defunding," gun-violence reigns — not unexpectedly.


On Nov. 2, Minneapolis voters had a chance via the ballot to get rid of their police department and replace it with a new "Department of Public Safety" (DPS). The Washington Post reports that voters in the Minneapolis, where the "George Floyd Movement" began, soundly rejected a proposal to replace the city's police department."

"City Question Two would have amended the Minneapolis charter to allow the police department to be replaced by a Department of Public Safety."

The new DPS "would have taken a 'comprehensive public health approach' to public safety, including dispatching mental health workers to certain calls and more investment in violence prevention efforts."   The new DPS "could include" police officers "if necessary."


But was "Question Two" really soundly rejected? Fifty-six percent of the voters rejected it; 44% took stupid pills and voted to abolish the police department.


Activist Abou Amara, interviewed by KARE 11 in Minneapolis, explained the election result saying, "young people are clamoring for change. ... we know from earlier polling that those who are younger tended to vote 'yes,'"


So who voted 'no?' According to Abou, "You had communities of color — predominantly the African-American community — voting in high numbers for the 'no' campaign. And in addition to that, you had ... more affluent voters turning out to vote 'no'....."

Abou further explained those "no" votes.

"['Progressive Democrats'] were having an abstract conversation about the role of police, but those folks in north Minneapolis — Black elders, others — know that this is not an abstract conversation; [their] lives are on the line. When someone talks about a carjacking or a shooting, it's not an abstraction; it's the life they live each and every day."

In the wake of the George Floyd movement, with its demands to "abolish the police," crime rates had soared in America's large, Democrat-controlled cities.


According to Reuters, Minneapolis [population, 430,000] recorded its 79th homicide this year on Halloween. Minneapolis homicides were up more than 17% through the end of September, compared with the first nine months in 2020. Robberies and aggravated assaults also have increased. "North Minneapolis, a poorer area where more Black residents live, has seen the brunt of the violence. Nearly half of all murders in the city have taken place in Precinct 4, where residents complain of nights filled with shootings, carjackings and out-of-control petty crime."


Things are even worse in the American war-zone known as Chicago.


The Chicago Sun-Times reports that for the 12 month period ending on Nov. 1, 790 people have been shot to death in Chicago. The Chicago Police Department reports that through Oct. 31, 2021 there have been 3,030 shooting incidents.


Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who called for a $59 million cut from the police budget in October of 2020, now says the violence was driven by people who "have absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life." Now Lightfoot admits residents of Chicago neighborhoods that are "under siege," and calls for cooperation with the police to "stem the tide on his violence."

The Sun-Times labels West Garfield Park district, in which 95.58% of the residents are Black, as the "city's most dangerous community. ... 62 shootings [have occurred] in a single, eight-by-five block section of West Garfield Park." West Garfield Park, the newspaper reported, has experienced a per capita rate of shootings nearly 20 times higher than downtown.


An open-minded person might reasonably ask, how many of those shootings were done by cops?


Then there's Portland, Oregon [pop. 661,419] — the poster child for "defund the police," and "autonomous zones devoid of police?" As of early October 2021, over 1,000 people have been shot and 73 killed; 948 had been shot through Sept. 30, compared with 607 in 2020. In 2020, Portland, suffered an 83% increase in homicides. According to US News, Portland has had twice as many homicides in 2021 as Seattle, its larger neighbor.

The first duty of government is to protect the law-abiding citizens. Portland's mayor and the other idiots who run the city acted otherwise. Portland's KGW8 describes the resulting chaos:

Jacqueline Valenzuela was home with her family and baby when shots rang out "We were in the living room watching TV, five minutes before everything happened," she said. A bullet went through their home. "Our living room was where it struck." [Police] found the street littered with 57 casings and four live rounds. Two homes, four cars, one mailbox and one fence had been hit by bullets. The Valenzuelas "no longer feel safe in the neighborhood and hope to move out soon."

On Nov. 4, Portland's super-woke mayor finally removed his rose-colored glasses and surveyed the mess he, his comrades in city government and his fellow-traveling antifa-ites have masterminded. The mayor belatedly admitted, "Many Portlanders no longer feel safe in their city. Business owners have closed up shop, for fear of doing business in high risk areas. Commuters fear for their safety, whether taking public transport or going by foot. Parents are scared to let their children play outside."

The first duty of government is to protect the law-abiding citizens. Any voter who was stupid enough to vote for these idiots, deserves to live in the shambles they've created. The enabling woke mayor who made this mess possible should be required to live deep within the ruins of the neighborhoods that he allowed to be destroyed — and be required to send his children to public schools therein.


Did they know better? Certainly. But embarrassing Donald Trump and winning an election was a higher priority than protecting the public.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 19, 2021

Closing one's eyes to science - to the humanity of the fetus

Texas Senate Bill 8 bans abortions after an ultrasound can detect a fetal "heartbeat."

"A fetal heartbeat" is defined as "a cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac." Such activity can be detected by ultrasound as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Dr. Nisha Verma, a prominent obstetrician and gynecologist, who provides abortion services, argues that describing what ultrasound detects as a "heartbeat" is misleading. The term is misleading because embryos don’t possess a heart at that developmental stage. She argues that the activity measured on an ultrasound in early gestation is electrical impulses, not a true heartbeat.

"When I use the stethoscope to listen to a patient’s heart, that sound that I hear ... as the heartbeat is created by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves. And at six weeks of gestation, those valves don’t exist."

But is that the real issue here? "Electrical impulse" rather that the sound created by he opening and closing of the cardiac valves?

Or is the real issue whether the embryo/fetus is truly a human person? That is what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott believes: "Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion."


So who is doing the misleading? Who is obfuscating? The Texas Legislature? Or doctors like Dr. Verma?

For any person of good will, who believes in acting upon the true facts, and who isn't a "science denier," I would highly recommend a five-minute visit to WebMD, at: https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development.

That video describes "Fetal Development" as follows:

Development at 4 Weeks. At this point the baby is developing the structures that will eventually form their face and neck. The heart and blood vessels continue to develop. And the lungs, stomach, and liver start to develop. A home pregnancy test would show positive.

Development at 8 Weeks. The baby is now a little over half an inch in size. Eyelids and ears are forming, and you can see the tip of the nose. The arms and legs are well formed. The fingers and toes grow longer and more distinct.

Development at 12 Weeks. The baby measures about 2 inches and starts to make its own movements. You may start to feel the top of your uterus above your pubic bone. Your doctor may hear the baby's heartbeat with special instruments. The sex organs of the baby should start to become clear.

Development at 16 Weeks. The baby now measures about 4.3 to 4.6 inches and weighs about 3.5 ounces. The baby's eyes can blink and the heart and blood vessels are fully formed. The baby's fingers and toes have fingerprints.

Development at 20 Weeks. The baby weighs about 10 ounces and is a little more than 6 inches long. The baby can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon — if you haven't already — you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening."

An ultrasound is usually done for all pregnant women at 20 weeks. ... You can see the baby's heartbeat and movement of its body, arms, and legs on the ultrasound. You can usually find out whether it's a boy or a girl at 20 weeks.

Development at 24 Weeks. The baby weighs about 1.4 pounds now and responds to sounds by moving or increasing their pulse. You may notice jerking motions if they hiccup. With the inner ear fully developed, the baby may be able to sense being upside down in the womb.

Development at 28 Weeks. The baby weighs about 2 pounds, 6 ounces, and changes position often at this point in pregnancy. If you had to deliver prematurely now, there is a good chance the baby would survive.

Now, if you still doubt that the fetus is a human being with the same right to life that you enjoy, go to the WebMD site and look at the ultrasound images.

The Democrats — liberals and progressive alike — delight in calling anybody who disagrees with them on climate change, or the efficacy of wearing a Covid mask, "science deniers." And yet, when confronted with the heartbeat or electrical activity of a baby in its mother's womb, they cover their ears, and claim to hear nothing.

When confronted with ultrasound images of the child's undeniable development in the womb, they close their eyes and pretend to see nothing human. "It's merely a 'part of its mother' — just like her appendix or a wart on her finger." It is merely a "part of its mother" even though the embryo/fetus undeniably bears not only its mother's DNA, but its father's as well.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 26, 2021

A solution for Alleman

On June 30, Barb Ickes' article about Alleman High School appeared on the Dispatch-Argus' front page. The article included criticism of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria, and Alleman Principal Sara Stroud. Ickes reached out to Stoud for comment. Stroud did not respond.

Ickes wrote, "Enrollment at Alleman has decreased from 443 students in 2018-2019 to 381 last year. Enrollment for the upcoming years is at 330 students."

A number of my friends, close to Alleman, had told me that (1) the 2021 freshman class would number about 60; (2) 38 students expected back would not return; and (3) 17 Illinois families would be sending their children to Davenport's Assumption High School instead. More recently, I have been told that total enrollment this year is at about 280.


In an effort to verify what I had been told, I emailed Stroud, asking, "Are the following facts substantially true?

1. The 2021 freshman class will number 60; only 10 are boys.
2. 38 students expected back are not returning.
3. 17 families are sending their children across the river to Assumption HS.
4. The former Alleman School Board was dissolved around the time Ms. Gau was terminated."

She replied:

"We have 70 students in our freshman class with 37 boys and 33 girls enrolled. More applications continue to come in; as of today. ... 5 students transferred to Assumption this summer."

I followed-up with a fifth question:

"What will Alleman total enrollment be this year?"

Mrs. Stroud replied:

"Our enrollment is still in flux but we are very pleased with welcoming 14 new students to our school! We are also very excited to partner with Partners in Mission to write our strategic plan this year where enrollment is one of 8 domains of focus, with academics being one of our most common topics of conversation amongst families most recently. The future is bright for Alleman and when we are positive, optimistic and rely on truth while allowing the Holy Spirit to flow, only greater progress will be evident!"

Since that non-answer, I have been told by three sources that attendance this year is "about 280.'


On Oct. 7, I wrote to Stroud telling her that, and asking, "Is that true? If not, please correct me."
I have received no reply.


From 443 students in 2018-19, Alleman's enrollment for the 2021-22 year appears to be somewhere between 330 and 280.

So, why are numbers important? Because fixed costs must now be paid by fewer student families. And because numbers are important for all extracurricular activities from football to theater; good programs draw students.


After the Ickes article, Bishops Jenky and Tylka wrote a July 3, 2021 letter, advising the Catholic community that a "strategic planning process" was being initiated, and "The strategic planning process will allow the school communities to provide the 'valuable feedback' needed to develop goals and objectives for the future sustainability of the schools...."

They further advised that they have hired a Boston-based consulting firm, "Partners in Mission," to provide "'valuable feedback' needed to develop goals and objectives for the future sustainability of the schools."

It is one thing to develop a long term strategic plan for the future sustainability of the schools in the diocese. It is an entirely different thing to deal with complaints that the Alleman leaders appear to have lost — or perhaps never earned — the confidence of a substantial number of donors and parents paying tuition to send their children to Alleman.

If the goal is to deal with the problem, rather than conduct a post mortem, the solution is obvious: Involve the Alleman community.

There are many distinguished Alleman graduates — men and women — who have proved their worth — both in their parishes as well as in the larger community: doctors, veterinarians, CPAs, lawyers, teachers, bankers and business owners, parents, etc.

Let the Alleman community pick its own lay board from among these Alleman grads. Trust the dedicated Catholic men and women chosen to act in the best interests of Alleman and the church. Reject the unsupportable notions that Peoria is infallible and that the Alleman community lacks competence to educate its own children.

Allow that board to run the school, to hire and fire all Alleman personnel, to raise sufficient funds to run the school properly, and to exclusively control all Alleman funds raised. Funds donated for Alleman must be entirely free of diocesan invasion.

I would suggest that a model can be found in my high school, Notre Dame College Prep, Niles, Ill.

In 2006, the Congregation of Holy Cross ended their sponsorship of Notre Dame. Ownership was assumed by a board of lay people on Jan. 1, 2007.

The Archdiocese of Chicago placed the Catholicity of the school under the oversight of the Notre Dame Education Association, an Association of Christian Faithful, composed of the lay board and other members. Under this new leadership, Notre Dame continued to grow and prosper.

If this diocese wants to climb out of its self-dug hole, the quickest and most permanent way of doing so is to treat the loyal Catholic laymen as full-partners in the education of their children. Follow the NDCP/Chicago Archdiocese model.

For me, writing this op-ed is not a journalistic exercise. My daughter was Alleman's 2004 salutatorian. I am a donor, and a great admirer of Father Mirabelli. I cared enough to serve at Alleman from 2002 to 2018 as a volunteer theatrical director. I don't want to see Alleman fail. I believe that fine Catholic high schools are more critical today to the welfare of American society that at any time during my lifetime.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 15, 2021