On Sunday, I attended a fund-raising event for Hillary Clinton.
I have met her on several occasions in the past, beginning in 1984, when I stayed overnight at the Governor’s mansion in Little Rock while visiting the state to give a lecture. Although she has met many tens or hundreds of thousands of people over the years, she always remembers me (as does Bill).
I had a few minutes to talk to her privately. I gave her my “elevator speech” about the disaster of the privatization and testing policies of the past 15 years, and the need for a revival of support for public schools.
If you look at the photos, you will see the progression of our meeting. She recognizes me; we hug; I give her my views. And then the great shot, all taken from my cell phone by one of her staff.
After she did the meet and greet, she spoke for about 25 minutes to the 50 or so people there.
She spoke about the importance of working across party lines to get important work done that benefits all Americans. She talked about building better relationships with our allies. She said that she would work closely with Senator Sanders to develop a realistic plan to make college tuition-free for those below a certain income level and to reduce the cost of public college overall. She spoke of the need to elect Democrats to the Senate and the House and to reverse the Citizens United decision. She spoke of defeating the gun lobby, which represents not gun owners but gun manufacturers. She was especially eloquent on the subject of guns. She said that hunters should keep their guns; collectors should keep their guns. But there should be careful screening of all gun purchasers. The fact that Congress refuses to ban sales of guns to people on the terrorist watch list is madness. When asked what she would do about the millions of guns already in circulation, she said she was not sure, but would look into the gun buyback program that Australia used. She spoke eloquently about protecting and bettering the lives of all Americans.
She is knowledgable. She is experienced. She speaks with wisdom, judgment, and clarity. She has the stamina of a person of 30 (this was her fourth event of the day, and she never sat down, not once. And she had two more similar events to go that day.) Don’t believe the Trump nonsense about her health. She looked and sounded great. She is informed, and she is ready.
#Iamwithher
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Link doesn’t work- did you delete the post?
Sent from my iPad
>
I hit the send button too soon. It will be posted at 9 am tomorrow.
Good assessment of Hiliary. Diane says Hilary is ready and has lots of ways to improve. I’m with Hilary!!
Sent from my iPad
>
Diane,
I sincerely hope that she listens to you, for all our sakes.
David Osborn
On 29 August 2016 at 11:35, Diane Ravitchs blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: “On Sunday, I attended a fund-raising event for > Hillary Clinton. I have met her on several occasions in the past, beginning > in 1984, when I stayed overnight at the Governor’s mansion in Little Rock > while visiting the state to give a lecture. Although” >
Me too, David.
Where is the post? I want to comment. Thank you for being “With Her!”
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Diane Ravitchs blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: “On Sunday, I attended a fund-raising event for > Hillary Clinton. I have met her on several occasions in the past, beginning > in 1984, when I stayed overnight at the Governor’s mansion in Little Rock > while visiting the state to give a lecture. Although” >
9 am tomorrow.
Posted in error!
Did Hilary state what her education policy is? I feel like that’s been kind of nebulous.
She talked about funding higher education and making it affordable–and below a certain income level, free. She did not say what she planned to do in K-12. The small audience at this elite fundraiser (my son bought my ticket) are the very people likely to fund charters, thinking they are giving poor children a chance to attend an excellent private school. I was glad she did not get into it in that setting.
In private, I gave her an earful.
Thank you, Diane. There’s no one I trust more to give an earful than you!
Well, I hope she took the elevator speech to heart, even if she didn’t get a quarter million dollars to do so.
She raised a lot of money, but not from me. My usual contribution ($100) to political campaigns would not have gotten me in the door
@dianeravitch
Thank you for representing so many of us by sharing your views with her. That is so awesome!
I’ve worked in a charter school for many years and now I work in a regular public school. Charter schools are a mess and I’m glad that you let her know that public schools are the best for accountability and success of students.
I’ve decided to put as much into her campaign as I did Bernie’s. If I had time I would even volunteer.
What an historic moment!
I wonder if you can work your elevator speech into a hologram and haunt the Oval Office for the next few years.
Akademos,
I will haunt her personally if she gets elected. I have said before that my expectations regarding education are low, considering that the Democratic party is in bed with the reformers, but on every important issue, she is smart, wise, tempered, and ready. Considering the frightening alternative, it is truly a no-brainer.
I hope that Clinton takes what you told her to heart. That hope and a couple of bucks will get me a coffee. Time will tell.
“But there should be careful screening of all gun purchasers.”
That already occurs with legal gun purchases. Having recently bought a “plinker” (.22 6 shot revolver) I went through the screening process. The question becomes how would one begin to regulate the after initial purchase sales. For example I sold a 12 ga shotgun to a nephew so that he could duck hunt, which I won at a DU fund raising dinner and for which I went through the checking process. I don’t know of any laws/regulations that require any oversight of this type of sale-as well there shouldn’t be. I have also given away a compound bow so that a youngster could learn to shoot it. It’s just as deadly as a gun. Is there a need to also regulate bows, then?
While I can empathize with those urban/suburban dwellers who have to live in such close proximity with those who choose to use violent means (many times using illegal guns) to get what they want, I don’t see how the genie of illegal gun ownership can ever be solved without infringing upon those legal gun owners right to buy, own, use a gun legally.
It’s an old saying but true “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Duane,
I am one of those urban dwellers who would love to see a ban on all gun purchases; or, failing that, a ban on guns that fire automatically and a ban on assault weapons. I don’t hunt. I don’t have a gun collection.
Hillary said, if I remember correctly, that more than 30,000 people died last year from gunshot wounds. One-third were suicides; one-third were accidents at home (a toddler shooting herself or her parent or sibling); and one-third were murders.
I lost one of my brothers to suicide by gun. If he didn’t have a gun, he probably would have yelled and stamped his feet and gotten over it. But there was the gun, and he is lost forever. As a friend of his said at the memorial service, “suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” Guns facilitate that. He would not have jumped off a high building. He would not have run his car into a wall. There was that gun.
That’s Texas, and there’s no hope for any gun control in Texas.
Another gun story. A nephew of mine married a young woman; they had two children. After the birth of her second child, she was in a deep postpartum depression. Someone had given her a gun for protection in this dangerous world. She killed herself in front of her children. That’s Texas too.
I can certainly understand your distaste for guns, Diane, considering what you have experienced.
However there are good and bad sides to almost everything in life. Guns have also saved many a life from those who sought to abuse, harm others. I have a friend who as a detective was chasing down a homicide suspect and ended up in an alley with the suspect who drew a gun. My friend said about the situation: “I had young children at the time and I knew only one of us was coming out of there alive. I made sure it was me.” Now one may claim that it is legitimate for law enforcement to have weapons. But that still doesn’t negate a citizen’s need to protect oneself against those who would harm/kill another human and there isn’t time for the police to get there. And that happens more frequently than most know/understand.
We don’t know what some, those with serious depression would have done without access to a weapon. Hopefully, they would have gotten help. Did the weapon make their solution easier? Perhaps but we don’t know and can only acknowledge what actually happened.
Your examples are tragedies no doubt, and I’m sorry that you have had to experience them but at the same time many other tragedies have been prevented by legal gun ownership.
Again, there is good and bad in almost all aspects of living.
In a perfect world, Duane, only law enforcement officers would have guns. In the Orlando massacre, for example, there was security with guns, but they couldn’t pick out the killer in the crowd and confusion. A good guy with a gun was unable to stop a bad guy with an assault weapon. I can’t think of any reason why any civilian should own an assault weapon like a Bushmaster or AR-15. Can you?
Well, I think we both know we don’t live in a perfect world, eh! Sometimes there isn’t enough time or opportunity for the police to get to a confrontation, therefore the need for the citizen to be able to protect him/herself. I can’t agree that law enforcement should be the only ones allowed weapons. That is a recipe for tyranny.
For me, that the security who weren’t able to confront the killer as efficiently as we would perhaps want, is a good aspect in that it shows proper training and restraint in the usage of a firearm otherwise there would probably have been more dead and injured.
That is one reason why I’m not a fan of open or concealed carry as most do not have the training to know how to professionally use a weapon. And that usage is not as easy as one might think because once the adrenalin starts flowing things get harder to control. I have been confronted by someone with a semi automatic rifle, I know how it-that adrenalin rush- feels. And at the time (I was in college) I had no guns.
And yes, I can think of reasons why someone would want to own and use a Bushmaster or AR-15 (notice I’m not appending the term you used to describe them as they are not “assault weapons” as they are semi-automatic and not automatic guns). I’m not much of a hunter but I enjoy shooting guns at targets as it is a challenge. And like any challenge some folks enjoy the challenge and others don’t. Hitting a 100 mph fastball is a challenge but not all would like to do so (yes it’s scary and can be dangerous). So yes, I can see reasons for owning and using those weapons beyond the capacity of self protection.
Duane,
Why should any law-abiding citizen own a semi-automatic, like the one used to massacre children and teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and the one used to massacre people in Orlando? The Bushmaster seems to be the gun of choice for mass murderers. I can buy one online. That is insane.
“I can buy one online. That is insane.”
I have to agree with you on that thought!
Although you may not agree, there are legitimate uses for semi automatic weapons. If I am being attacked in my home and I have to use gun (not that I ever envision that happening and I sure hope it never happens), I certainly do not want to have to physically take out a spent round and then put in a new one each time. Way too time consuming.
Or let’s say rabbit hunting when I may miss a first shot but can get in another and bag a rabbit. Same for waterfowl and migratory game hunting. If I have to take the time to physically unload the spent shell and replace it before being able to shoot again guarantees wounded animals escaping and suffering vs a dead one for the dinner table.
I know some don’t like hunting but I’m not sure mankind makes it to this point in Earth’s history without hunting/self-defense technologies to make up for homo supposedly sapiens lack of natural defense and hunting means.
That’s terrible, Diane. I’m so sorry.
Gun screening and the problem of error, eh?
Ay ay ay ay
Where’s the like button?
Guns don’t kill people, the bullets do. Ban the bullets, they are not specifically protected by the 2nd amendment. Actually, guns do kill people. When a child gets hold of an unsecured gun and it accidentally goes off (the gun falls out of his hands or whatever), it’s the gun that does the killing.
A man’s gun fell out of his holster while he was at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, the gun fired and wounded 3 other patrons. Guns damn well do wound, maim and or kill people.
SANFORD, Fla. – Dozens of customers were eating breakfast in a busy Cracker Barrel when a gun went off, sending people scrambling and one man to the hospital Sunday morning.
Bullet fragments hit three people, including the gun owner’s fiancé.Deputies said the weapon fell out of the gun owner’s holster while he was walking through the dining room of the Cracker Barrel at 200 Hickman Circle in Sanford.
Deputies said William Hoback was talking to the checkout counter when his gun slipped out of his holster and fired.
The bullet hit a kettle, which sent fragments flying.
Three people were hit by the shrapnel, including a restaurant manager and Hoback’s fiancé.
The third victim’s leg was badly cut and he had to go to the hospital.
The customer told detectives he was eating his breakfast when he heard a loud bang, which was followed by a sharp burning pain in his left shin.
After Hoback realized what had happened, he apologized and explained it was an accident.
http://www.wftv.com/news/local/man-not-charged-after-gun-goes-sanford-cracker-bar/26880670
Can’t agree Joe. It was careless human decisions/actions that caused those deaths and injuries. The gun owner was wrong about it being “an accident.” It was his fault for not properly handling his gun. My own sense of responsible gun ownership and usage is that those situations are from irresponsible usage by the owners.
And no doubt that what you describe is sad, idiotic and irresponsible behavior on the gun owners part.
The gun has no volition and no sense of right/wrong and therefore cannot be blamed for that accident. Pretty sad that the man was not charged with any crime. The least should have been some sort of negligent behavior. I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the laws, but I’d bet if I looked through all the statutes I could find something to charge the idiot gun owner. To me the tragedy is bad law enforcement and/or bad law making and not the gun itself.
“Ban the bullets. . . ”
As if the bullets have volition to put themselves in a gun and pull the trigger. Again the problem is not the guns and bullets it is the stupid human that doesn’t know how to properly handle those inanimate objects that is the problem.
Duane Swacker I truly don’t understand your logic.
People in law enforcement would still have guns. In fact, hunters would still have (less potent) guns. But your argument for semi-assault weapons seems like grasping at straws. They are allowed for recreational reasons? To shoot at targets?
Tough. There are lots of things that people might like to use “for recreational reasons” that are banned or very highly regulated. Like dangerous chemicals. Or heroin. At some point that just means everything goes. Why give semi-assault weapons special privilege?
Laws are created by democracies and they change all the time. The only limitation are bill of rights and things constitutionally protected. Does the bill of rights forbid any gun regulation? I don’t think so.
The majority of Americans — the vast majority — want sensible gun controls. Even most gun owners. The only reason we do not is a very rich gun lobby who owns far too many politicians.
I am not against “sensible gun controls”. We already have them by my sense of sensible. We just don’t properly enforce them.
My purpose in using the terms the way I did was because the term “assault weapon” was used in describing a Bushmaster (which one) or AR15 which are not “assault weapons”-by definition are fully automatic weapons and those have been banned since the 20s. Using “assault weapons” as the term of choice to describe semi-automatic rifles is misleading at best and a down right lie at worse.
Now I understand one can illegally alter a semi auto weapon and make it fully automatic but that is not our concern here. It is the misusage of the term “assault rifle/weapon”.
The debate as I see it and you stated as much is what constitutes “sensible” usage of a rifle and I happen to consider target shooting to be a very sensible usage. You don’t. And that’s where the political process must be used to determine what we as a society are willing to consider “sensible gun ownership and usage”.
I think I know because there are fundamental things one should adhere to in owning a weapon. And the example given about someone getting accidentally shot in a restaurant by some idiot’s irresponsible use of that gun and the authorities not do a damn thing about it shows that the laws aren’t enforced as they should be.
I don’t think any civilian should be allowed to buy or own a semi-automatic gun. I can’t imagine that a hunter goes after deer with one.
In regards to rifle hunting (which is what most deer hunters use, although some use shotguns and slugs) my and all of my friends who deer hunt follow the rule: If you can’t take a clean one time kill shot then don’t shoot. That said sometimes things happen such as the bullet striking a twig or stem of a tall grass, etc. . . and goes off mark. Deer don’t always move at the sound of a rifle shot and the hunter may get a second shot. Having to take the time but more importantly the movement involved in reloading would almost guarantee no second shot.
I don’t understand your reticence about a semi-automatic gun. There are many legitimate uses with the above examples being just a few.
Duane,
Play fair. Don’t hunt with a semi-automatic. Consider the deer. If you can’t fell it with a single shot, you don’t deserve it. I forgot to tell you that I don’t like killing things unless you intend to eat it. I don’t eat venison. I feel bad about killing anything, actually.
I’m not sure that in this struggle we call life and death that anything necessarily “deserves” anything. I generally agree with your statement of a single shot, but it doesn’t always work that way and sometimes it is necessary and a good thing to have that second shot almost instantly available. The vast majority of hunters don’t just “fling lead” and if someone did in my presence I’d walk out on them.
And I certainly don’t feel good about killing the fish that I eat. I don’t know any hunter or fisher who enjoys the taking of a life but it is part of the natural cycle of life.
If I could I’d have my dead body buried directly in the ground and anything that wants to take what it needs to live, whether animal or plants have at me. Tis the nature of life to energize itself on the death of other life.
I am profoundly sorry to hear about these terrible loses in your family from guns, Diane.
Thank you, Christine.
“Having to take the time but more importantly the movement involved in reloading would almost guarantee no second shot.”
I assume that’s one of the reasons why so many mass shooters have used the AR-15.
Not at all F L E R P!, not at all. You are being a good lawyer by confounding and confusing two totally different situations and the motives/intents involved.
Come on, I expect better commentary from you, F L E R P!
Replying to your comment at 1:06 am: Using your liarly, oops I mean lawyerly skills to deflect attention through absurd examples. Again I expect better arguments from you, F L E R P!.
I love to confound expectations.
I can understand that sentiment.
But I don’t worry about others expectations as they are what they are. I am concerned with analyzing with a “fidelity to truth” attitude. (except when I’m giving someone grief-ha ha)
I wrote a very long comment and then deleted it because I don’t think very many people are going to see the gray area I do. I don’t believe in gun control, but I’ll save my more powerful arguments for fighting privatization. I just want to say, though, that I love reading Duane’s comments. They have flavor. I wish I knew how to hunt and fish, a fantasy that an entire life in the city has made seem impossibly elusive.
LCT, you don’t believe in gun control?
Thanks for the kind words LCT!! I really like the “they have flavor” comment. And I would like to read your long comment. If you still have it please post it or email me it at dswacker@centurytel.net.
Come visit me sometime and I can at least help you understand what living in the country/woods is like. Do some target and clay bird shooting-don’t have to go far, just out back. Go canoeing, fishing and backroading. Don’t have much in regards to fancy lodgings but I live comfortably. Again thanks for the kind words.
Diane,
I know. Not very Leftie, is it. In a nutshell, I believe that if we disarm the People, we must also disarm the Power.
Something tells me LCT from reading what you write that you, as I describe myself politically, are “So far left that you are right!”
Also, I just have to respond about hunting with semi-automatics. I watch hunting shows on TV. They instruct hunters to immediately reload after taking a shot. If you miss and wound a bear, a deer, a moose, it is wrong not to take an immediate second shot and try to put the animal down. I do not like the idea of muzzle loaders for that reason. They take too long to reload. I’ve never seen someone hunt with a fully automatic weapon, but then again, I’ve never been in 1930’s Germany either.
This is why I like to hunt with semi-automatics and high-capacity magazines. If I squeeze off 25 shots in 30 seconds and wound a bear, it’s wrong to not take shots 26 through 40 to try to put the animal down.
TAGO! FLERP! TAGO!
Have you ever been chased by a bear? Wolves? Me neither.
Have you ever been chased by the KKK? NeoNazis? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?
Look, I don’t really want to argue about this. It isn’t really my issue. I stated an opinion and went back to correcting English papers. I’m not an expert. (Neither are you.)
That’s a good point about bears.
And my original point was that if you take away semi-automatic firearms and/or high capacity magazines from the People, you have to take away all those assault rifles and SMGs from the public and private — especially the private — military and police forces.
But, like I said, I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep.
“if you take away semi-automatic firearms and/or high capacity magazines from the People, you have to take away all those assault rifles and SMGs from the public and private — especially the private — military and police forces”
Conversely, if the military has tanks, missiles, and bombs, you have to allow the People to have tanks, missiles, and bombs.
F L E R P! wrote “Conversely, if the military has tanks, missiles, and bombs, you have to allow the People to have tanks, missiles, and bombs.”
Been saying that for decades, except I would include all military aircraft and naval vessels.
Duane,
I was hoping to get my own tanks, grenades, missiles, bombs, and other weaponry, as you can never be too safe!
My problem has always been “Where am I going to store all these weapons systems?”
Duane,
I didn’t think about that. I just moved into a new apartment, and I don’t have an empty closet. Do you think I would need a special parking permit for an armored personnel carrier or a tank on the streets of Brooklyn?
Clearly a parking regulation like that would infringe upon your Second Amendment rights. How can you resist government tyranny if the government has the authority to tell you where you can park your tank? You can’t.
Batting 1000, all homeruns!
That’s a little-guy problem. Not a problem for Mark Zuckerberg and his nuclear arsenal. Also not a problem for Apple Computer’s panzer division, Apple’s right to which will be guaranteed by the line of cases coming out of Citizen’s United.
First to Duane,
Yes!!! Yes!!!! You bet I sure as anything want to “set my feet on Southern soil and breathe that Southern air!” (I was listening to my Cash cd on the way home from school just now.) I’ve been to KC a few times, but never got to visit the wooded country. Thank you thank you thank you for your gracious invite and proposed hospitality. I’ll send you an email soon. And yes, you’re also right, and I have been thinking the same thing for some time: If you go far enough left you wind up on the right (and vice versa). The political spectrum is no longer linear. It is circular. That’s why the so-called bipartisan center is not really in the middle, and is not really moderate. Unfortunately, I did not save my long comment from before, and since I am busy teaching these days, I am not sure I’ll have time to reconstruct it (although what I wrote below is, while different in tone, similar in content to it). I’ll see what I can do this holiday weekend. Thank you, Duane. Thank you, sir.
Second, to everyone else,
Shame on you. Shame on you for not wanting see the day of nuclear disarmament. Shame for not believing that police forces on our home soil should not be sold military weapons, including armored vehicles and bots with bombs. For not seeing the avarice of drone warfare. Of Big Data surveillance. You’re all joking around, but I am getting upset that you seem to think Academi (formerly Blackwater) and other private military forces should receive government contracts to protect our Big Oil assets (including CEOs) in Iraq and elsewhere. And what would the Black Panthers have to say about handing over their shotguns to the police that used fire hoses and dogs when protesters were unarmed! They wouldn’t put their hands up and chant, “Don’t shoot,” I promise you. No, the idea of handing over those guns came to be under Third Way rule, not the Cultural Revolution and the Great Society. You call for disarmament, but you don’t mean it. If you really cared about peace on Earth, you wouldn’t be so much afraid of yourselves and neighbors as of the powers that be; you would call for total and complete disarmament, not disarming the individual citizen. Take a long look in the mirror, I beg you.
“You bet I sure as anything want to “set my feet on Southern soil and breathe that Southern air!”
Missouri is in an odd position when it comes to whether it is northern, southern, mid western or, according to many of those who live east of the Hudson River (if they’ve ever given the Show Me State any thought), western. My experience with the northern/southern distinction:
I lived in Worcester, MA during the mid to late 80s. Most folks there claimed I spoke with a southern accent.
A few years after moving back to Missouri we went to visit my brother and sister-in-law in Jackson, TN. The Casey Jones Museum has a great Sunday breakfast brunch. As we were in line getting our food a couple of brothers, oh in their late twenties or so happened to get in among the seven of us and one brother said to the other in that quintessential southern drawl, “Damn, we’s surrounded by Yankees”. We all had a good laugh!
So, I’m not sure that I would consider all of Missouri as southern. The north part of the state is most like Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and the Dakotas in that is is part of the Great Plains, lot’s of large farms, whereas south of the Missouri River (which cuts the state in half from KC to St. Louis-there’s actually a 340 mile canoe race that takes place every year on the full moon at the end of July or early August-most entrants paddle at night-scary thought if you know what that river is like) one starts getting into the Ozark Mountain area and then, yes, the folks are more southern than not.
Doesn’t matter which side of the Missouri one is on, most Show Me Staters, whether urban, suburban or rural are quite friendly folk overall (and that is what I found with the folks in MA, lots of good folks).
We live in a great country from left to right, top to bottom. Great people, great land, and the cradle of democracy and freedom. My trip to Alabama years ago revealed a very different place from Kansas and Missouri, but from my viewpoint here in California, everything is either ‘East’ or ‘South’. And everyone East and South seems a whole lot nicer than us Angelinos. I can tell you are. Los Angeles is home to an aloof, cold blooded bunch. I guess what I long for is just what you describe in your comments: nice people and nature. And shooting clay pigeons sounds like a whole lotta fun. I just don’t know if it could happen until next summer.
If Clinton selected Dr. Ravich as Secretary of Education , it would be a signal to Americans and the world, that the USA government is vested, in nobility of purpose. It would show that influence-peddling in the capitol, is anathema to the profound and deep goodness of the American people. It would tell communities, world-wide, that the most powerful country, for which, so much has been sacrificed, from which, so much has been expected and, by whom, so much has been achieved, is routing the greed of multinational corporations. It would demonstrate America values future prosperity and society’s advancement, more than the self interest of present day oligarchs.
The likelihood of Clinton changing direction from the interests of the deep-pocketed? The likelihood of Trump bringing the nation to its knees- 100%.
In my fantasies, I picture Diane working powerful education voodoo combined with a strong hypnotic force field as well as the Vulcan mind meld on Hillary. It couldn’t hurt. In any case, kudos to Diane and thanks for doing her best to get the message across.
Diane,
Any specific reaction from Mrs. Clinton specifically regarding the privatization of public education and the need to defend public school teachers, not just making higher education affordable if not free for lower income people?
Thanks,
Y
No
More discussion needed
Very glad that you were able to give her your elevator pitch. It is appalling, however, that the only way you could access Hillary was via a large donation, when in a just world the Clinton campaign would be reaching out to you for policy advice. Most of the people who pay to get political access are not lobbying on behalf of public schools.
There should be publicly financed elections, with free tv airtime for ads donated by broadcasters (much as they are legally obligated to air public service announcements.)
The policy positions Clinton presented are mostly anodyne, but The Terrorist Watch List is an extrajudicial tool that should be revised and restricted, not expanded. Like the No Fly List, this list is based on suspicions about possible future actions, not convictions for past crimes. People go on the list for unexplained reasons, and there is no adjudication process to get off the list. People with the same name, or even just a similar name, to a suspect are put on the list, including infants, elderly people, and Yusuf Islam (the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens). Beyond the legal/civil rights implications of expanding the Terrorist Watch List, there is scant evidence that doing so would reduce gun violence.
I’m in favor of Australian-style gun control.
What is an “elevator pitch”? TIA, Duane
Condensing your message into a 2-minute spiel, like in the time it takes to ride an elevator.
Thanks, I had not heard that term. But then again I only have one floor in my home-ha ha. At least we’re not as flat around here as Kansas-ha ha!
Also, please explain what you mean by “Australian-style gun control”. Again TIA, Duane.
She described a gun buyback program.
We’ve had voluntary gun buyback programs and I have no problem with that type of action.
But Australia’s was a compulsory one and I have serious problems with that here in the US. I don’t know what rights the Aussie’s have that are similar to our Bill of Rights so perhaps, constitutionally speaking that type of program wouldn’t run afoul of those rights. It would here in the US.
An “elevator pitch” is just a very brief persuasive speech. It is actually a business term, like if you were a salesman and you found yourself on an elevator with a potential customer, what would you say to her before the elevator reached the next floor?
After a mass shooting in the 1990’s Australia enacted strict laws about the buying and selling of guns. Automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons are mostly banned.
You can read lots about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
“Australian-style gun control” That’s a process by which guns are melted down and turned into “barbies” (not the dolls but the barbecue grills). Slip another shrimp on the Bushmaster barbie, please.
Sadly, we could never get Aussie style gun control in this country, the best we can hope for is “sensible gun laws.” Gun owners should have to take out insurance on their guns much as car owners do but blah, blah, blah, there is no constitutional right to own a car so forget that, too. Around and around we go but the gun massacres continue. It’s sick.
I hope she listens because I’m living the charter disaster. Our district is 25% charter enrolled (Buffalo) and growing. There have been at least four charter school closures in a very small market (presently something like 13 charters in a total of 68 schools, 55 are public). The net effect of having such large charter enrollment has been to deprive children of educational opportunities and of having veteran teachers (as many charter teachers leave for “greener” pastures). This is the net effect of having charter policy and I will reiterate, that I *hope* she listens.
The phrase “working across party lines,” insofar as it concerns education, is the Tell, whereby Hillary signals her buy-in to the Overclass consensus regarding the hostile takeover of public education.
Aren’t we always being told and shown how so-called education reform is a “bi-partisan” effort?
Watch for a lot of meaningless Clintonisms about supporting “great public schools and great public charter schools,” while the budgets and policy leadership reflect continuing support for privatization.
This is what I get for being late to the party. You beat me to it. Well said.
Thanks for doing this, Diane. I’d love to hear your elevator speech. I’m wondering what you pack into just a few moments.
Chances are, she’ll get elected and John King will go on being Sec. of Ed. But one can remain at least optimistic that she will bend slightly from the Obama doctrine on education and bring in some new faces.
I opened by saying that the Obama education policies had been a disaster, and she vigorously shook her head yes. I assume that she has meet and greet all day long, people give advice, and she listens and smiles without giving an answer. In this case, she did give an answer.
Good to hear.
I’d rather that she’d be with you than you be with her.
Seconded!
Like!
Well, if Hillary has the stamina of a 30 year old, you, dear Dr. Ravitch, must have the stamina of a 25 year old! Clinton has plenty of aides to surround her and fetch what she needs. You are the most tireless advocate for our public schools, the children they serve and the democracy they protect. You are also the most prolific blogger in the eduverse and you’re singing a solo!
Thanks for giving your fellow alumna an earful!
Seconded. Love you. May
May, I try never to miss any comment that you write. Your posts reflect a different world view and always widen my horizons. Thank you! 💖💖💖
Back in 2008 after his official nomination Obama did not attend the AFT convention – he sent a 12-minute video – I was worried, turns out my worries came to fruition. Hillary spoke in person at both the NYSUT state convention in Rochester and the national AFT convention in Minneapolis – both extremely supportive speeches … this election is far from over – everyone one of us, Bernie supporters, gun owners, all of us have to beat the bushes and get everyone of us to the polls. Hillary has to win to begin to turnaround our deformed education system and we are the voters.
We may not get everything we want from Hillary, but face it: Trump is a menace. The thought of him as President is frightening.
I think we can push her to do the right thing. I think she will hear us.
Trump listens to the voices in his head and loves the poorly educated. I assume he wants more of them.
HRC’s speech at the AFT convention in Minneapolis was supportive of public education and it was clear that she respects educators, something we have not seen in the White House for some time.
I also had the honor to be an elected delegate to the DNC in Philadelphia and after hearing speeches at the convention from those who know her, one thing is clear and that is the fact that she listens and that is a good start. I think the days of having corporate supporters, such as Duncan and King, as Secretary of Education will be a thing of the past and she will have an educator in that cabinet seat.
To mets2006:
What is the best choice that we, voters have in this SPECIAL presidential 2016 election? Experienced and conscience OR inexperienced and maliciously bullying? The third choice is inexperienced and lip service, also just a puppet for the power control. Most of all, the third choice MAY LEAD voters to have a malicious liar who loves to flip flop in order to have an absolute control in legal system. Gullibility is the roots to all chaos in all civic society. Back2basic
“She is knowledgable. She is experienced. She speaks with wisdom, judgment, and clarity. She has the stamina of a person of 30”
I believe Hillary Clinton is knowledgeable and experienced, although these on their own do not signal a great leader. A lot of bad stuff can be done (and has been done) with knowledge and experience.
Where we apparently differ in our analysis of Hillary is that she “speaks with wisdom judgment, and clarity,” and has a lot of stamina and vitality. I must have been studying carefully and watching closely a different Hillary Clinton than you over the past year. I have seen someone who speaks with political expediency and triangulation, and someone who obscures through vague statements and indirect answers/non-answers, and someone who is uncomfortable with unscripted media and audience questions to the point that she rarely puts herself in the position to take them. I have also watched her struggle very hard to maintain the perception that she can keep up with Bernie Sanders.
I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton *can* be personable at times, and in certain company (and not at other times, and in other company.) She is very calculated, and will quickly agree with you and tell you one thing — then do another. That is the legacy of Hillary Clinton. Somewhere in there is a very nice and caring person, but it often does not translate into nice and caring action, law, and politics.
I’m afraid you like her a lot personally, and may not be looking for these things.
If Hillary Clinton appoints someone like you, Diane Ravitch, to Secretary of Ed, and actually “fights for us” in other ways, I will very gladly say that she has redeemed herself. It would not be her own “greatness,” however, that brings something like this; it would be the pressure created by Senator Sanders, and continued by his ignited movement of activists — who stand up in the tens and hundreds of thousands to deny Hillary from flopping, folding, and making rash decisions from her aloof fortress of the .1%.
Hope and fight for the best. Prepare for the worst.
I am with you, Ed Detective.
All politicians speak with forked tongue, some more than others.
I do like Hillary.
Trump scares me. I hear his voice and it is like fingernails on a blackboard. He is ignorant, crass, crude, bigoted. Frightening.
I will take my chances with Hillary. She has a good brain and she knows how to use it.
Not unlike Pres. Obama who has been a grave disappointment in all things educational. Not to mention the TPP. Yes,I have my doubts about Clinton too.
Nicely said Ed Detective, a look at the transition team she is announcing should be all that is needed to see where we are heading.
Totally depressing .
So why is it that Social Security and Medicare have no income cap.
I remember now, the best way to destroy a program is to put income caps on it. Nobody asked your income at CUNY when it was free. They asked your grades. As a disclaimer my kids have all graduated a while back.
Wake me when someone wants to go to Washington the Saturday after the Election. Because the dog and pony show has been mastered by our Legislators. The phones can ring all day. They don’t care, it is some poor intern answering them. There will always be the one vote to pass legislation that hurts the American people. While putting money in the party coffers.
The only thing worse than a Clinton victory would be a Trump Victory.
Assange may drop an October surprise Trump is being paid by Hillary.
Assange is being paid by Trump.
Diane
That was tongue and cheek .
Probably paid by no one but and in it for the revenge. Where the emails come from another story
It seems fairly clear from what I read that the Russian government is doing the hacking. How do the emails get to Assange? I wish he would tell.
Russian Hackers have been around forever. That they may be operating with Government operatives or Government approval would be no surprise.
I am sure we do the same.
Stuxnet ring any bells.
I don’t see any point in speculating. If she wins we’ll know soon enough. If she packs her administration with the same people who have been in charge for 20 years it’ll be 3 consecutive ed reform “movement” Presidents.
I don’t think public schools will survive three, myself. They’re resilient but no public entity can survive a deliberate effort to privatize by lawmakers.
I’m still in favor of privatizing the US Dept of Ed. I think they should practice what they preach. Contract it out.
To Chiara:
Where have you been?
[Start your expression]
I’m still in favor of privatizing the US Dept of Ed. I think they should practice what they preach. Contract it out.
[End it]
In the past 15 years, it is obviously shown from Chicago, and now in Michigan. Back2basic.
To señor Swacker:
I am with you like the way Dr. Ravitch with Hillary in term of “people kill people” or NOT BECAUSE OF guns or money, BUT responsibility, sensibility and civility.
All leaders must be conscientious and responsible for their knowledge, ability, skills, experience and most of all being considerate for the welfare of humanity, starting with family members, neighbors, subordinates, colleagues, community, nation and foreigners. May.
It is only a win-win situation whenever we SURELY know ourselves AS WELL AS
“. . . in term of “people kill people” or NOT BECAUSE OF guns or money, BUT responsibility, sensibility and civility.”
Thoroughly agree with you May on that statement. By focusing on the wrong issue we inevitably come up with a wrong solution. Quite a common problem throughout society for which I have no concrete solution other than to say that I try to live my life with a “fidelity to truth” attitude rejecting those many falsehoods and errors that surround us. From Ch. 2 “Fidelity to Truth in Educational Discourse”:
Now, let’s delve into Comte-Sponville’s concept of “fidelity to truth.” What is meant by fidelity to truth, that of being faithful/true to truth? Preliminarily and primarily, Comte-Sponville states “All fidelity is—whether to a value or to a person—is fidelity to love and through love.” Since he considers love to be the greatest and hardest to achieve virtue that statement rightly precedes all his other thoughts on the subject. We can follow that up with the consideration that fidelity is the “will to remember” truthfully and that fidelity “resists forgetfulness, changing fashions and interests, the charms of the moment, the seductions of power.” Fidelity to truth means “refusing to change one’s ideas in the absence of strong, valid reasons, and. . . it means holding as true. . . ideas whose truth has clearly and solidly established.” At the same time fidelity to truth means rejecting discourse that has been shown to have errors, falsehoods and invalidities. However, “Being faithful to one’s thoughts more than to truth would mean being unfaithful to thought and condemning oneself to sophistry.” To be unfaithful to truth, to be in error, then is to reject that which makes honest communications, policies and practices cogent and a human good, a virtue.
The characteristics of truth in educational discourse can be understood as encompassing fidelity to truth in the following:
• Speech and/or writing accurately describes policies, practices and outcomes (discourse).
• Using the correct/intended meaning of a word in light of the context.
• Discourse serves to enlighten and not obscure meaning.
• Discourse is free of contradictions, error and falsehoods.
• The “control of belief by fact” (S. Blackburn).
• Discourse is based in skeptical rationo-logical thought processes in which a “scientific attitude” holds sway.
• Discourse based on/in faith conventions is eschewed and rejected outright due to separation of church and state constitutional concerns.
• Discourse of expediency based on the rationalizations of “Everyone is doing this”, “It is dictated by the State Department of Education” or “NCLB mandates that we have to do this” is firmly and rightly rejected.
Thank you señor Swacker for your brief of Comte-Sponville’s concept of “fidelity to truth.”
From the age of 5, now I am approaching 65, I have been through 6 decades of mind changing. Yes, I completely agree with Comte-Sponville that “All fidelity is—whether to a value or to a person—is fidelity to love and through love.”
IMHO, love is being considerate and forgiven for our own ignorance as well as for people’s ignorance.
However, gullibility (=easily or blindly trust) cannot be mistaken as love, and forget (=keep repeating the source of problem) cannot be equalized to forgive.(=awareness of past mistakes)
We must improve and sharpen our body, mind and spirit to the strength of a natural pure diamond. It will take many reincarnated lives on Earth (=fidelity to love, integrity and forgiveness) without a short cut to achieve the true love for humanity. (=detachment of emotion, desire, and selfishness).
Are you just like character “Dirty Harry” that Clint Eastwood portrays, or Charles Bronson in a movie “Devil that men do”? Hahaha.
Respectfully yours,
May
I am sorry that glitch happens to cut off my typing.
It is only a win-win situation whenever we SURELY know ourselves AS WELL AS we surely know our opponents. Doubt and speculation will only cloud people’s SHARP and LOGICAL mind. WE MUST BELIEVE IN our own goodness and the conscience in certain human being.
Respectfully yours,
May
Thank you Diane, for speaking for all of us who believe in public education. One can only hope that Hillary Clinton understands what has happened over the last several years with how inappropriate the standards have been for our children. Hope you gave her your book, “Reign of Error.” 🙂
To both Diane & Duane RE: gun control–I find you conversation fascinating, due to the P.O.V.s–that is, hunting country (Duane) vs. city (Diane). Both P.O.V.s are, without a doubt, valid. We who live in urban areas see more senseless killings (in Chicago, for example, where a young mother was just killed by a stray bullet intended for someone else–she was walking, w/her infant & 3 other children, to enroll the older ones in school–of course, you all know about this one–national news–because she was Dwayne Wade’s cousin, & it was offensively politicized by Trump {BTW, the killer[s] were apprehended}). That having been said–& what Bernie Sanders caught a lot of flack for–people from rural areas, such as those in Vermont, where hunting abounds, have a different viewpoint on gun ownership, which we city folk tend not to be understanding of but, it is out there.
Diane, I am so sorry for your loss, and the suicide-by-gun issue is so true. It has been said that there would be many more teen suicides if depressed teenagers had access to guns. I have personally heard kids say (in all seriousness) that if they had a gun, they would kill themselves. I was a trained volunteer for a suicide hotline, and the one time someone actually did commit suicide (while on the line with my colleague) was with a gun. It was a terrible situation, and my friend was wracked with guilt–why didn’t he
prevent this? How could he have, and what else could he have said to the caller? The effects were lasting.
On the other hand, we have a friend who drove in (to Illinois) from Kentucky. He had grown up in Chicago & lived in cities, but, in later life, desired a rural environment. When he came out, he had forgotten that he had his hunting rifles in the trunk. Luckily, he wasn’t stopped for any traffic violations (he had also brought some good Kentucky whiskey–bottle unopened). But, again, it was just an everyday thing for him to have his rifles. (They were regular rifles; no one should have a semi-automatic, in my estimation.)
Thank you Diane for meeting with HRC and speaking to her about the needs of our children and their teachers. I believe we are on the verge of tipping the scales in our direction. The next 18 months will be critical for public education #imwithher too!
Jamy, agreed. The public is beginning to wake up to the frauds that hurt kids and scam taxpayers. The tide is turning, ever so slowly, but turning away from those who would privatize our public schools.
I understand the reasons of Diane and the many others who are voting Hillary but I do not understand the strategy in terms of trying to pressure the candidate to improve. The too-early AFT and NEA endorsements effectively took K-12 education out of the campaign – it wasn’t barely ever discussed, even as the country is deeply divided over testing.
But the problems in education, like all others, stem from the problem of money-in-politics. Nomiki Konst revealed that Hillary specifically changed her big Philly speech in order to prevent 45% of the delegates there from a massive walk out embarrassing her on TV. This was the first and only time I heard her vow to end money-in-politics.
So my question involves the timing of endorsing Hillary – whether you are an influential public figure like Dian or even just an ordinary voter being asked by a pollster. Isn’t it wiser to hold out till the last possible instant in order to demand concrete action on the biggest issues? Bernie’s endorsement came along with a very specific concession – the big tuition announcement. What are the early Hillary supporters getting?
Senator Warren also said specifically regarding her views on Hillary, that the only thing that really changes the posture of candidates is when they are confronted with the reality that millions of people are intractably behind specific issues.
So I think all the leverage is before election day, not voting and hoping for the best. We saw what happened with Obama the minute he won, John Podesta swooped in and placed establishment figures throughout the cabinet.
So is this all about our failure to organize effectively? If 10 or 15 million people signed a pledge to vote for Hillary only after she ended her financial relations with Wall Street, would it be more effective than supporting her three months out and then spending four years trying to get her to keep her promises? Over 80% of Americans agree the rich have too much control over US politics, but are we so captive to the current media and political gamesmanship that we can’t collectively strategize to improve our country?
Thanks, Jake, for your comments.
I don’t think I would gain any leverage by withholding an endorsement of Hillary. Maybe the NEA and AFT could have. But it’s too late for that. We are 70 days away from the election. There has never been a candidate in my lifetime as unqualified as Donald Trump (my political consciousness begins with 1952). We are not faced with a choice between two reasonable candidates. One is knowledgeable and experienced. The other is a racist, ignorant bully. I am satisfied with my decision. I am sick of all the smears about Hillary. She will be a great President.
As Bernie said, no one person, not even the next president, can stop the 1% from advancing their agenda, it would take millions of people in a concerted effort to undo the consolidation of power of recent decades. Obama never set out to increase poverty or extend tax cuts for the wealthy, but it happened nonetheless. So it barely matters what Hillary’s intentions are – if there isn’t a massive groundswell of support for an issue, the status quo wins.
My point is that everyday voters only have one tool in the toolbox – their vote. But half of Americans choose not to vote in a given 4-year cycle. Of those that will vote in November, over 60% disapprove of their own choice and so it’s odd how few make their suport contingent on specific issues even though we have the technology to do so.
Polling data shows Hillary can lock in a comfortable win by courting Bernie-minded Dems and independents, but is consciously choosing the harder, riskier path, against an unpredictable opponent who is a bizarre disruptor filming one big reality show.
It’s amazing if we step outside of the sideshow of fearmongering and mudslinging to see how the very rich have the upper hand in yet another election, regardless of who wins. Even if we’re talking about 2020 or 2018, I wonder why the middle class cannot seem to come together to outfox the 1%. As a teacher, I feel education should have been front and center in the election and still yet can be for races at all levels, but it’s that money-in-politics again making it so hard to get anywhere.
I will re-post this for you. Apparently our European neighbors have a better understanding of Jefferson and Madison than we do. A better understanding of the rights and duties assigned to the people.
When facing a media wall owned by the .01%, the only way to change a narrative is mass movements. Diane says education is not the only issue. In reality it is party of a much larger issue Oligarchy !!
“The fact that TTIP has failed is testament to the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest against it, the three million people who signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped, and the huge coalition of civil society groups, trade unions and activists who came together to stop it. ”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/28/ttip-has-de-facto-failed-says-german-economic-minister
part of
I hope you mentioned the misery of the ed tech craze and competency based education. We are in the forefront here in Baltimore County Public Schools, and it is destroying public education. The Department of Education is a big fuel for this, so the next President will have great influence.
This was a great post. I’m glad you met her and talked to her of your opinion (based on your knowledge) of our education system and our issues. So happy you had this opportunity. I’m with her for all the reasons you mentioned and more. We are more connected globally than ever before. She can handle problems, and do well as she solves these problems, here in the US and around the world.
Only one presidential candidate categorically opposes privatization of schools via charters and vouchers. She is also on record as strongly opposing high-stakes standardized tests. She is advocating for free public universities for all. Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is the best choice for people that support *PUBLIC* education. She’s also great on a host of other issues.
Most importantly, Stein believes that the children in Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, and Syria’s lives matter too. A somewhat refreshing stance, not held by any of the other POTUS candidates.
I think Jill Stein is great.
I am voting for Hillary because she is experienced, knowledgable and ready to be president.
Also, the thought of having Trump as president is frightening.
What is Hillary’s specific stance though on standardized testing and common core? Obama left us down and I’m afraid she will too. I’m certainly not endorsing Trump but I don’t hear her saying the things I want to hear.
So glad you got some time with Hillary. I do hope that she will listen to you, and I hope you have given her your relevant books to read (if she hasn’t already done so). I would like to see Hillary put more of her energy into promoting public education. Keep lobbying her, Diane. You are great!
With this double-post I’m afraid the point I made yesterday got lost in the fray.
I feel it is very important though, so I’ll repost from here: https://dianeravitch.net/2016/08/29/if-you-got-a-post-a-few-minutes-ago-that-disappeared-you-will-see-it-at-9-am-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-2590525.
I think we would do well to take Dr. Ravitch up on her pledge to “personally haunt” HRC on the matter of …what, “our” platform whatever that is – ‘anti-privatization’ I suppose? …should HRC be elected.
But I’ve concluded that so many of these candidates really just don’t “get it” for the same reason that so many of our fellow parents don’t either. They none of them are down dirty in the schools to know what’s going on really. Either they don’t have any kids in the public schools, which is the case for just about everyone from the middle class on up, or they aren’t particularly observant or cognizant of what they’re seeing inside that “public charter school” they volunteer at. (Or they’re just racist, that’s another possibility).
Here’s what I observed earlier: “… Ms. Rodham, esq. has no experience of sending her own precious (not said facetiously) child to public schools. And as the parent of children who attended both public and private, I insist that *Experience Matters*.
This is well encapsulated by noting that these onerous ®eforms are all asserted for “other people’s children”. This is not just a toss-away observation: it is seminal. If you don’t know, personally, the results and sequelae of your prescriptions, then weird-ass stuff gets prescribed. There’s no check on the theory, no experience felt by the decision-makers.
I believe a goodly portion of ®eformers believe deeply in the social justice they are pursuing, so ineffectively. I think the disconnect lies in absence of experience. And hence, it matters that HRC is essentially unteachable. (She may nevertheless be a worthy choice for your vote though).”
I believe that if anyone can teach HRC it might be Dr Ravitch. I do trust HRC’s cred and reputation as being truly “for children”. Thirty+ years ago now I was assured as much by someone I respected who knew and worked with her and I retain loyalty for that reference.
However, I just do not like the evidence of outcome: the child married to a hedge-fund manager, the ignorance of reality in actual public schools, the besottedness with neoliberalogy, the promiscuity with monied interests. It makes me uncommonly nervous.
I do think about voting for Stein. I do worry about realizing the unthinkable of an elected-Trump. I do believe a beyond-two party system is desperately needed. I don’t know how I’ll vote (I’m in CA so it’s unlikely to matter).
But I don’t know what other choice there is except to keep holding these people’s feet to the fire and tell your Truth as loudly as one of Dr Seuss’ Whos.
Diane, it’s one thing to say you are voting for HRC as a vote against Trump, but to say that she is good for education (or anything that is equitable) is naive or misleading. She is a darling of the financial sector and beyond her election cycle rhetoric, has always, and will continue to do the bidding of the financial elite (she is one with them) – including supporting education reform as we know it, as well as its newest and most insidious form known as “personalized learning” via ESSA.
In fact, her record with education has been as a corporate reformer dating back to the early 80s in Arkansas when her husband appointed Hillary Clinton to chair the state’s Education Standards Committee, a task force charged with reforming Arkansas’ education system. According to author Jeffrey Saint Clair, Hillary Clinton’s law,
“…showcased teacher testing and funding the schools through a sales tax increase, an astoundingly regressive proposal since it imposed new costs on the poor in a very poor state while sparing any levies on big corporations. The plan went through. Arkansas’ educational ranking remained abysmal, but Hillary won national attention as a “realistic Democrat” who could make “hard” choices, like taxing welfare mothers.”
The Arkansas Education Association (AES), unsuccessfully sued the state to overturn the law. Speaking of the law in 1983, AES president Peggy Nabors, claimed, “[t]he law was not designed to help, but was designed to be punitive in nature and to make teachers the scapegoat for education`s ills.”
Clinton continues to have close personal and professional relationships within the education reform industry and with some of its key venture philanthropists. Yet, with growing national opposition to corporate education reform policies, Clinton is currently playing it safe on the campaign trail about her support for these policies. DLA Piper, a corporate law firm that represents major companies in the global education market is a major Clinton campaign donor. So is Walmart heiress Alice Walton (the world’s 13th-richest person), who is a highly influential education reformer through her family’s Walton Family Foundation. Clinton also served as a board member and a paid consultant for the National Center on Education and the Economy, a leading education reform policy advocacy think tank dating back to 1988.
In a speech at the 1999 National Education Association’s convention, Clinton asked of the union’s leadership, “I also hope that you will continue to stand behind the charter school/public school movement, because I believe that parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the unique needs of their children.”
Mythos,
I have said that my strong support for Hillary is not based on education but on every other issue, as well as her knowledge, experience, temperament, and judgement.
If you judge people by what they did or said 15 or 20 years ago, then you would certainly not trust me as I agreed with the same bad ideas at that time. I have seen that they failed, and now I know better than I did then. I hope she has learned too.
Thanks for your response. While I agree with you about judging people on their past, Clinton’s record, worldview and alliances have been consistent with those earlier stances on most every other issue since. Beyond what she claims (or is silent about) on the campaign trail, it is easy to assume she will continue the current education reform trajectory.
Tim
Tim,
Whatever Hillary’s faults, they pale next to Trump’s ignorance, malice, and brutishness
In addition, no matter what you think of Hillary, Trump is an ignorant racist bully who isn’t qualified to run for city council.
Yes, I agree with you about Trump. You and also hit upon a couple of similar points in my article linked below, which my points above were copied from and closes with:
“At the very least, if you choose to support Clinton out of fear of a Trump presidency, then do so without perpetuating the multitude of myths and lies that portray Clinton as a champion of equity and social justice. Her record speaks for itself and it is horrific”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37054-hillary-clinton-s-record-a-us-horror-story
Mythos, call me names if you wish, but I think Hillary is a good person, a brilliant person, a knowledgeable person, and a person who wants to improve the lives of all Americans. She has been savaged for more than 25 years by the right, which hates, hates, hates her. Some of their lies have gone into the mainstream. I don’t know of any perfect people. I am not one. Anyone who runs for president has an Achilles’ heel, vulnerabilities, things they said that they wish they could retract, errors they made. I have said it before and I will say it again. I am not voting for Hillary as the Lesser of Two Evils, as I don’t believe she is evil. I am voting for her because I agree with her ideals and values. I don’t know what she will do on education issues; I will probably be disappointed. I think it is likely that I will be disappointed. But I will vote for her because on every other issue, I’m with her.
As for Trump, he will do whatever possible to get rid of public education and to make it reflect his white nationalist views. Horror show.
Diane, you’re with Hillary Clinton on her history of imperialism and neoliberal economic policy? On her siding with the elites in class warfare?
This is what I do not understand/accept. The evidence to support this is clear and abundant, and has been pointed out by plenty of people to the left of Hillary, including many clear-headed educators/detectives who post on your blog. Hillary’s deepest intentions may be center-left, but her political actions have placed her in the center-right to occasionally far right wing.
You always gloss over the horrible things she’s done under the defense that “nobody is perfect.” We don’t want perfect. We want someone who is honest and “actually” fights for “us.”
Like Trump? A serial liar, racist, misogynist, white nationalist?
No, Donald Trump is not honest, and he does not fight for us. I completely understand the argument behind choosing Hillary over Donald, just as I understand those who vote 3rd party. There are strong arguments for both those options — unlike voting for Donald Trump, where the only rational “reason” is simple anger at the establishment.
What I do not understand is when you say that you are with Hillary “on every other issue” than education. That would make you with her on advocating for unjust wars, economic inequality, and many other harmful elements of the political and economic status quo.
At this point, aside from voting Jill Stein (who will not be elected), I only see one good route for justice advocates. That is to elect Hillary, and immediately, simultaneously, begin to organize/fight against her. We can’t do that unless we are being honest about her major (not minor) flaws. If we are “with” her on most things, she will continue the downward spiral of everyone but the most privileged. Hillary Clinton may be fighting for gender and sexual equality and such, but men and women, gay and straight alike will suffer when the economy collapses, and when we throw our military at anything that looks at us in the wrong way.
Diane, I am not interest in attacking you or engaging in “gotcha.” I understand why you have your personal opinion of Clinton and I am not interested in dwelling on that. I’m only interested in having a civil dialogue, so a appreciate your responses.
My point here is not to argue against Clinton in favor of Trump, but to make the point that based on her public and private record alone, she represents an intensely damaging status quo that we can no longer tolerate and must actively resist during and beyond our undemocratic presidential election cycle. That starts by continually being critical of the undemocratic and violent interest she has always – and based on the evidence – will continually represent.
As for education, based on her ongoing alliances with the private interests that are truly driving ed reform, she is well positioned to perpetuate damaging policies against public education, including the imposition of the CBE/Personalized Learning agenda, which promises to completely financialize education and destroy public schools once and for all.
I (like others) believe that one cannot truly be an advocate of children, public education, teachers and equity in education if one supports CBE/Personalized Learning.
What is your take on that?
Tim