21 car century insurance: You should face "consequences," warns left-liberal

"Possibly my most controversial opinion," wrote the "Chief H

istorian" at the Brooklyn Public Library last week, "is that there should be more shame (and consequences) for people who send their kids to private schools instead of their neighborhood schools."

Our friend Corey DeAngelis then brought attention to this post, and before long it was deleted and DeAngelis was blocked.

The blocking part I don't object to: each of us gets one shot at life, and nobody is obligated to spend it involuntarily interacting with people on social media. I use the block function liberally and feel no shame about it -- I'm not an egalitarian who thinks all the world is entitled to colloquies with me.

But yikes, the post itself.

What exactly would these "consequences" be? The post was taken down before we could find out.

Would those "consequences" be applied to Barack Obama, who sent his daughters to private school, or would he be mysteriously exempt from our historian's desired penalties? (I think we know the answer.)

Then I happened to read this, from Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Dyslexia, Diverse Learners and Social Justice at UCLA (that sounds like a dispassionate, scientific outfit, right?): "I even think it's really wrong for parents to ever try to push reading before 5."

I was reading just before age 3, and daughter Regina was reading at 3 (she is our most voracious reader by far), and I don't think either of us suffered any negative consequences as a result.

Tim Carney, in response to Maryanne Wolf's comment, said: "One project in certain corners of the educational establishment is to just remove parents as much as possible from the education of the child. Among other things, equity is impossible as long as families play a role in educating the young."

You may have noticed there's a certain kind of person out there who really, really wants to butt into your affairs, and isn't exactly thrilled about the idea of you yourself taking charge of your own life and your own family, and doing it well, without their permission.

They want a docile population that waits to be told what its allowed to do.

You and I are going to spend the rest of this year -- the final 90 days -- doing the exact opposite.

While they write posts about the" consequences" that should befall people like us, you and I are going to go and build something -- before this year is out. I've been working toward a goal of my own, and starting tomorrow night I'm going to pursue it right alongside anyone who wants to come along.

The Final 90 kicks off tomorrow, and here's what it isn't: 73 videos and a workbook. You'd need the whole 90 days just to do that.

What it is:

Four evenings with me, each one short and efficient.

We start tomorrow, and the early-bird deal expires at midnight.

You can do four evenings. And don't think: I can't add anything to my plate. The way The Final 90 works, there is no net addition to your life tasks. It isn't another thing to do when you're already busy. On net you won't have anything more to do than you already are.

But at the end of the 90 days, you and I will have achieved something we can be proud of, when everyone else (who had the misfortune of not being a Woods subscriber -- for shame!) had already given up on the year.

Clock hits zero at midnight. See you there: