To stop the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, Democrats must find three Republicans to join them in opposition. Senator Al Franken said that no Democrat would vote for her.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/27/opposition-devos-swells-hope-her-rejection-builds
Priceless comment by Indiana Republican:
“A group of Indiana teachers on Thursday held a sit-in at the office of Sen. Ted Young, a Republican who received donations from the DeVos family, who are heirs to the Amway fortune.
“Why would she pay so much, with so much desire to have this job if she were unqualified for it?” they asked.”
Meanwhile Senate phone lines are jammed with anti-DeVos phone calls.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
You beat me to it, Diane. I think this situation has positive potential. Many of these Democratic Senators have been in lockstep promoting the Ed Reform agenda. Even a party line failure to defeat DeVos can lead to a shift in the thinking of a sizable portion of our policymakers.
LikeLike
Calls and letters to Democratic senators should be a short and sweet “Thank you.”
I doubt that any Republicans will turn, but they should be bombarded and, more importantly, reminded of their votes every time a bad DeVos decision is made. This is an extended strategic campaign, not a tactical battle.
LikeLike
I agree. Keep the heat on.
LikeLike
It is good news……still…..the subject of Obama’s responsibility for the groundwork laid by Bill Gates needs to be dealt with.
LikeLike
Good….She needs to be eliminated…a message sent to the billionaires…your money can’t buy everything; especially when you intentionally hurt children through education.
LikeLike
A very progressive member of the st. louis elected but powerless school board has had good things to say about republican senator Blunt……he might be a possible one of the three. I am going to call him.
LikeLike
It’s ridiculous to have someone who opposes public schools leading the US Department of Education.
Would there ever, ever be a Secretary who opposes charter schools? Not in a million years. In fact. I could hear the howling from here if we ever had a Secretary of Education who was even SLIGHTLY critical of charter schools. So why treat public schools so shabbily?
Would KIPP or Success Academy hire people who spent their entire careers working against charter schools? No. They would not. Why should public schools?
She doesn’t value public schools. She refers to all of them as the “status quo” and immediately launches into promoting charters and vouchers. Obviously, that won’t work out well for public schools. I am honestly baffled why there is so much disregard (bordering on contempt) for the schools 90% of children attend. I don’t even see how this is a practical or productive approach, frankly.
Someone tell her public school parents don’t consider our schools an enemy to be vanquished and she’s not my designated defender in some war of her own making.
LikeLike
Why do you think that Ms. DeVos opposes public schools. I watched the confirmation hearing, and she made no statement to that effect.
LikeLike
Charles, I don’t know if your comments are naive or distracting or both.
LikeLike
Or he’s deliberately trolling.
LikeLike
DeVos will say she loves public schools. They should be a choice too. But her millions say something else.
LikeLike
senator blunt….202 221 5721…I spoke with someone in his office, and mentioned that democrats should not be so sacrosanct about DeVos, who does need to have confirmation opposed, given the terrible mistake made by Obama…is allowing Bill Gates so much influence.
LikeLike
If Betsy DeVos had instead made the disparaging comments she has made about public schools about charter or private schools instead would she have been the nominee?
You know the answer to that. It’s “no”. Why is it okay to say it about public schools? We’re the designated punching bag used to achieve her ideological agenda?
You’ll forgive me if I reject that. I fail to see why any public school parent or supporter would accept it.
Call me crazy but I’m old fashioned and “traditionalist” enough to believe the public employees at a public entity like the US Dept of Ed should actually have some interest in or enthusiasm for public schools. That’s too much to ask? I would think it would be a rock-bottom job requirement. I don’t feel I’m asking for a whole lot here. The best I can get is a weasel-worded, reluctant promise not to decimate public schools and only after she was asked 15 times? Wow! Thanks for that! Extremely generous of her. This is gonna go great, I can just tell.
LikeLike
Sooooooo……..
What will all these supposedly wonderful private and charter schools do about children who have special education needs? Who are English Language Learners? Who have behavioral problems? Who come dragging into school because they have not had enough to eat, or who are upset because somebody got shot in their neighborhoods, right outside of where they live? About the homeless kids who don’t know where they’re going to be sleeping that night?
I am betting that, if any of these kids present any kind of problem, they either will not be admitted to these schools in the first place, or they will be kicked out (or “counseled out”) pretty d@mned quick.
And then they will wind up in a public school (which is mandated to accept them) with fewer and fewer resources, because much of their funding has been shifted over to vouchers or charter schools.
😔
LikeLike
Bingo Zorba!
LikeLike
There is another side to look at here.
If DeVos isn’t confirmed, surely the next person put up will be A) obviously a reformer/privatizers/union-buster, and B) more palatable to Democrats. As I’ve said before, the dems are pretty much on board with DeVos’ reform/privatizing agenda, they just don’t like that she is so blunt about it, doesn’t have their required Ivy pedigree, and was of course, a super-crass pick of Trumps (among a stinky lot).
My fear is that whomever is chosen next will be, in fact, more competent than DeVos. That is NOT good. We do not want a competent reformer/privatizers or anyone that smacks of competence. I’m starting to think that as awful as DeVos is, she is actually not a particular strong threat. Her IDEAS are an existential threat to us, as were Duncan’s and King’s, but her ability to actually put real, lasting fangs to those ideas in a competent way?? Questionable.
I’m not saying this is totally my thinking, but we need to begin thinking better in general. No Sec of Ed pick from Trump or any mainstream Dem for that matter WON’T be a privatizers/reformer. So, perhaps we should let them out in a super-incompetent. We don’t want the Ed reform A-team. We’ve gotten our asses kicked by the B-squad pretty routinely so we shouldn’t invite them to grab someone who is competent! Duncan and King, had awful ideas, but an air of competence, resumes that inspired confidence in many (not us), and the ability to connect to corporations and political power brokers. DeVos? Not so much.
One thing that is NOT on the table, hasn’t been, and probably won’t be on our lifetimes: a sec of Ed pick that is for teachers, their unions, and all in on public education being kept at a distance from corporations. So the best we can hope for is an incompetent.
Something to think about.
LikeLike
I agree with your thinking, NYSTEACHER. DeVos may be the catalyst for breaking bipartisan Ed Reform. In my opinion, Duncan was the most damaging Secretary of Education, because he was every bit as destructive as any of them but carried unbelievably high respect from the entire political establishment (who could ever doubt an Ed Secretary capable of becoming MVP of the NBA Celebrity All-Star game?). If a DeVos confirmation helps to stimulate opposition, we very well might be best off with her over a more qualified but equally destructive Ed Reformer. Party line (51-48 confirmation) might be the best thing for us right now.
LikeLike
I completely agree…
And here’s something else to think about: Jerry Falwell Jr, creationist President of Liberty University, turned the job down… Might he reconsider? Is there another individual with leadership experience at a Christian University who might take the job.
LikeLike
Conservative Leaders for Education (CL4E) had a post recommending Dr. Carlos Campo, former president of Pat Robertson’s University and education consultant to the Gates Foundation. Campo is currently president of Ashland University. Included in CL4E’s posted list of recommended candidates, a Fellow of the Gates-funded Pahara Institute (Hanna Skandera) and DeVos. The list provides insight into the extreme right wing’s abandonment of opposition to Common Core.
LikeLike
That is very brave of them.
So how will they vote when they are needed to filler-buster a bill, on any issue. How will they vote.when poison pills are placed into bills that otherwise they may favor. How
will they vote when the connection to their donors conflicts with the needs of their constituents or the needs of their constituents conflicts with the greater good. How many LBJ’s are there who would get us into mess by trying to end slavery. (Jim Crow). .
I am afraid the oldest dog and pony show is that those in safe districts will always
be there to pass destructive legislation . I have to respect the Republicans , would there have been one vote for any of these nominees if the shoe was on the other foot.
long ago they became a party of the lunatic fringe who keep their eye on the ball.
Does it matter who he appoints to cabinet level positions if Devos is rejected it will be Palidino
You don’t have to be an expert to destroy Government agencies any idiot can follow their simple script.
So except for putting them on record its a great show. The American people don’t know the name of their US Senators (Only 35% can name their US Senator. )
they are never going to remember the Secretary of Education.
LikeLike
I feel your anger and frustration oozing out of this post, Joel. Don’t disagree with you. But this is one of those rare historical opportunities for the American people to learn and live some real civics lessons. The Women’s March (check out the Time Magazine cover) was the spark that shook out of our depression.
So far I’ve already had to correct about 10 friends and neighbors that their representatives are not the ones who will vote on nominations; they now have a better understanding about that whole “advise and consent” thing. People who I thought would know better. The more Donald does, the more they want to learn about the mechanisms available to them to do something. That gives me hope.
I’m under no illusion that we will lose many big battles in the coming months and years. But, as I wrote before, I’m more confident that we can make these Pyrrhic victories. Trumpism will overreach and there will be a backlash. The questions are: how much permanent damage will that overreach cause and how consistent and unified will the backlash be? And probably more importantly, can we build sustaining coalitions to govern when the excrement hits the fan?
This is the hand we’ve been dealt and we can either play it—and play it as best we can—or fold. You’re not going to fold, Joel. Especially after what you experienced this past Saturday. Nor will 90% of our friends who fill up Diane’s living room. We have to recruit our allies, one person at a time.
LikeLike
Not giving up. When the Black Swan moment occurs it will be the outrage in the streets that moves the Nation not the Democratic Party of Chuck Schumer and Corey Booker.
Till then the Spring is coming..
Lets see what happens with the DNC chair . The problem is not the Republicans it is the lack of an opposition party to them.The progressives have been marginalized in the Democratic party . That Trump is talking the language of working class Americans is revolting. More revolting are the 13 Democrats who sold the American people out 2 weeks ago.. Corey Booker among them.
That You Tube was followed by another Reich, explaining authoritarian leaders a true teaching moment. However the one you posted was specifically what I was referring to. .
“How will they vote.when poison pills are placed into bills that otherwise they may favor. How will they vote when the connection to their donors conflicts with the needs of their constituents or the needs of their constituents conflicts with the greater good.”
The YouTube only covered one area of concern with that infrastructure plan. You were reading my mind again . The other area represents a 90 year set back .
LikeLike
Good to read this! I was getting worried. As an old New Orleanian would say: It’s up to us, babe.
LikeLike
Of Democrats voting against cheaper prescription drugs, Booker received the most funding from Big Pharm and Menedez was number two. No surprises here!
LikeLike
Abigail, sadly NJ pols supporting pharma is like Louisiana and Texas pols supporting big oil. It’s understandable, but doesn’t make it right by any stretch.
LikeLike
GregB,
Does anybody represent the interests of the so called people? I am becoming very discouraged.
LikeLike
Abigail, as I wrote above, it’s up to us. The Women’s March gives me hope for the first time in a very long time. We literally have to explain to our family, friends and neighbors why public education matters and how it’s connected to everything else. And then they have to pass it on.
I’m re-reading Diane’s “The Death and Life of…” (actually reading the revised version, which makes the earlier edition a bit archaic) and it’s reminding me of where I got ideas I thought were mine all along. Today I read about why “conservatives liked” VAM, because “it could be accomplished with little or no attention to poverty, housing, unemployment, health needs, or other social and economic problems.” We know better. If you get why public education matters to our social fabric, then you also get why all the other issues matter. We get it and that has to motivate us to act.
We’re realistic and we have to refuse to be cynical anymore.
LikeLike
Greg, thanks for reading the revised edition.
LikeLike
Doesn’t seem like it when we see Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren vote for up-by-the bootstraps Carson. But wait, watch the newcomer who is 100% doing the people’s work and voting against the whole deplorable bunch. California Senator Kamala Harris is in league with Al Franken to be honest legislators who work for the people, not Wall Street.
LikeLike
Civics lesson (but not about education or DeVos): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96myiBa16Y
LikeLike
Everybody. Watch GregB’s link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96myiBa16Y
LikeLike
Today Trump tried to get Congress to pass a NO filibuster bill, but Mitch McConnell said it cannot be done since only Congress controls who can filibuster, and in the Repubs own interest a bill was passed two years ago protecting the filibuster…it is a long explanation which you find online…but essentially, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
BTW…Mitch is looking very old and frail lately. Wonder if that factors in to his wife, Elaine Chaio, getting her appointment.
LikeLike
He’s 74, turning 75 in a few weeks, btw.
LikeLike
Joel,
Yeah man. I don’t think people on our side get the real scope of what we are facing here. The Republicans have been building what can only be seen is a sustained, multi-generational, coordinated, cultural, political, and economic refutation of the New Deal, Keynesian economics, and the post-WWII order. It is not just a political resistance and rejection of those things, but a cultural one, having harnessed broad narratives about family, life, guns, individuality, and faith, and granularly created what amounts to a reorganization of American history and society. It is not just cultural either, having manufactured a new economic philosophy that has been skillfully marketed for its simplicity and placement of the rhetoric of the individual at its enter. That this new economic philosophy is baseless and absurd when tested with basic reason is neither here nor there. Finally, its not just economic, but also political in that the Republicans have been willing to build a generational, multi-decades movement that has sought to capture the United States at what can only be seen as not simply a 50 State agenda, but a nearly every COUNTY agenda. The stakes were and always have been not just the New Deal and all of its descendents, but the privatization of all of the commons.
The left, broadly, never grasped what these stakes were and what the right was up to, in its totality. The left, assuming that the post-WWII New Deal reality was a given, fought every battle against the right as if it were just that battle and not connected to a larger whole. They accomodated, negotiated, and compromised their way into never seeing the broader reality of what was going on. Furthermore, as the 1990s dawned and many Democrats had real distance from labor, they actually invested themselves in the economic thinking of the right (neo-liberalism). The Left probably lost the whole thing at that moment.
Bush, now Trump…..that these two have ascended is actually proof of the Right’s broad victory over the New Deal. The government is now the dying thing with an absurd insane man at the helm. Absolutely appropriate. Killing government and moving it out of the way for corporations and privatization was always the ultimate dream. Here we are.
So yeah, call your congressman. Call your senator. March!! Finally!! Mobilize and carry signs!!
One must have something to occupy themselves with. Just know that all that is just to make yourselves feel better.
We have already lost. Education? Haha! Right. Thats gone too.
All we can hope for is a sustained movement, starting at the ground level, and willing to risk things, that will start the process of, in a few generations, rebuilding another United States….maybe one that recalls some of the New Deal. We must know that we will not see that change in our lifetimes.
That some people actually think that DeVos not getting confirmed has any real meaning or suggests that our side is, in any way winning, is evidence enough of how so many on our side still don’t see.
Public education as we know it will not be a thing in 15 years. Vouchers, Charters, technology in the classroom……thats all happening.
LikeLike
NYSTEACHER
I mostly agree with your analysis. They haven’t truly refuted Keynes
every time they seize the White House they adore him.
I see the marches and protests as raising awareness, such that when a Black Swan moment comes along the momentum is there.
We have an economy that can not generate sufficient demand to raise wages. It has been that way for the better part of 30 years . Only interrupted by two financial bubbles. So what gives me optimism is that we are on an unsustainable path . The only question is will there be a real opposition the next time the system implodes. .
LikeLike
Even Thomas Friedman finally came to this conclusion and edited Earth is Flat…but he did love off shoring.
The last Dem presidents played Keynsian, but were firmly allied with Wall Street.
And yes, Joel, a Black Swan is probably right around the corner. Trump is now taking full credit for the Dow 20,000. Maybe this zombie billionaire will finally be laid to rest.
LikeLike
NYST, I cannot swallow this narrative, it comes too close to conspiracy theory in assigning so much influence to a cadre of pols playing the long anti-New-Deal game, and to short-sighted liberals– but so little to the hoi-polloi & the pull of cultural history.
Franklin & some others intuited that only a large middle class with lots of land to play with could counter the rich-man/ poor-man classist hierarchy of England, but our early leaders were mostly patricians whose vision did not encompass natives, slaves, near-slave indentured servants, nor the masses of England’s persona non grata shipped over ostensibly as laborers, who mostly ended up scrabbling for sustenance in non-arable southeast territory.
My dad was a descendant of the latter group, raised on a dirt farm in IN, divided up among relatives, where the long memory was that govt had never helped & only family & immediate community had one’s back. Where the pie was always way too small to share. During the Depression/ successive droughts, his dad survived by renting garden-plots for pennies to immigrant unemployed steelworkers who ate what they could grow there.
My dad was one of those unique self-starters Franklin counted on. He alone escaped his clan’s mentality early via steel-mills & Navy, traveling east & working his way via trades into the middle class. The people he left behind still today struggle on the fringe, one paycheck away from moving in w/a cousin.
There is a tremendous number of such folk in ‘fly-over’ country. It is their attitudes that must be overcome. Debt to them means dependence on outsiders who always screw you eventually. Taxes mean taking away their sweat/ blood & giving it to people who come from the same poverty but didn’t work to survive. Isolationism is how they have lived for generations. Many of them survive emotionally via fundamentalist religion which parrots back their fear-based notions about debt, taxes, sharing w/outsiders. The mistake in your narrative: the New Deal is a blip on their historical memory which may have helped briefly but ultimately left them the same or worse off.
To rebuild, to change minds and raise consciousness at the grass-roots level, yes, sure. I believe massive marches like on Jan 22 help do that. Actions like that could also help stem the tide on ed-privatization. But attitudes are one thing, eating thanks to a job is another. The ingrained attitudes I listed ultimately can be changed only with living-wage jobs. If the American underclass stretching between the coasts is afforded a minimum of economic security, sustained over a few generations, we may see a liberalization of attitudes.
LikeLike
Politico’s recent article about CAP, quoted the organization’s president, who was at the top of the HRC campaign, along with Podesto, “Our goal is to …hold Trump accountable for the promises he made.” FYI- one Trump promise is privatizing schools.
The article author continues, “CAP pushes (to make) Dems once again the opposition”, which begs the question, when did Dems stop being the opposition. CAP receives funding from the Waltons.
Going forward, one of two things has to happen- (1) The tech billionaires, hedge funds, 0.1% villainthropists and discount retailers must be forced into the party that fits them-Republican, where they can attempt to push social liberalism or, (2) the better alternative, quick and decisive abandonment of the Democratic Party , in favor of a third party that advocates for economic justice, and social liberalism.
LikeLike
Long and late and likely redundant. Current interest in school choice is directly related to the prospect of substantial deregulation of schools and the availability of vouchers or direct tax credits allowing parents to choose among a variety of education service providers.
The most commonly cited paradigm is the GI Bill. This example is misapplied to public schools where attendance is compulsory, students are not yet of age, not usually screened for admission, and failing students don’t go away unless and until they are of dropout age. Further, the theoretical aims of choice, vouchers, and market-based education are to reduce the overall cost of education, whereas the GI Bill provided new and substantial increases in funding.
Vouchers (and variants like opportunity scholarships) are promoted as a tool for securing market-based education as the new national norm. Attempts to privatize and deregulate public schools are linked to an economic theory of democracy rather than a political theory of democracy.
Critics of political democracy think that this form of governance, by elected representatives of the people, is flawed. It is flawed because powerful lobbies, acting in their self-interest, give money to elect legislators who also want votes from the people represented by lobbiests. Laws, regulations and tax benefits thus flow to special interest groups. This process creates a self-perpetuating bureaucracy dependent on regulations for its own existence.
Nobel Economist Milton Friedman is credited with proposing an economic theory of democracy. Democracy in its purest form is the same as a free-market economy where consumers and producers compete for scarce resources that have alternative uses. Government is portrayed as a monopoly that restricts competition, prevents innovation, limits the production of wealth and restricts freedom of choice. Further, under free-market conditions, private enterprise can offer better public services at lower costs. Free-market thinking has appeals to profit-seekers. It is promoted globally by agencies such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
In the United States, profit-seekers have constructed a false and argumentative narrative about public education as a government-run monopoly. We are told that public education serves the interests of teachers unions, politicians who want their votes, and all other education bureaucrats whose jobs depend on a monopolistic system. These self-interested activities, combined with laws for compulsory education and taxation for schools, limit parental choice in educating their children. Government-run schools also represent an undemocratic intrusion of preferred ideas and values into matters of culture (through state-approved standards and curricula). What children are taught is often at odds with the values of parents.
In addition to these complaints, public schools also require parents who want private schools to pay twice, once for “other people’s children,” and again for their own. In free-market education, customers have freedom of choice among educational services. By definition, the best education satisfies parental wishes for their children. Further, in a free market, only the best goods and services survive the test of competition—or so the story goes.
Moral values enter into the argument for parental choice and parental responsibilities. For example, when parents are conscious of paying for the education of their children, then greater oversight of the value they receive is likely. Choice encourages responsible parenting, fiscal self-discipline, and with some likelihood that children will be diligent learners. Free-market thinking is thus construed as promoting moral virtue.
Rhetoric about free market education is noteworthy for some contradictions.
First, in a true free-market environment, compulsory education laws would have to be repealed. By its own logic, free-market education is a myth if laws guarantee a flow of customers and subsidies are provided to any of the parties. Proponents of free-market education actually want compulsory education and school taxes to continue, the latter to flow to the private sector.
Second, many more people pay taxes for schools than are direct customers of them as parents. The model assumes that schools serve no public interest beyond that represented in the choices of parents as individuals. Adults who are not parents of school-age children are assumed to be indifferent to education and thus deprived of voice in how others invest their taxes for schooling.
Third, the free-market model treats democratic governance as no different from a market, where people vote with their pocketbooks and the deepest pockets get more perks. While there are many reasons to be cynical about the role of money in political life, it is another to imply that free-markets have anything to do with a just, equitable and civil society. The pure free-market model assumes that vital public services should be financed on a user-pays-the-cost basis, with little regard for how those choices affect others. Free markets have nothing to do with equality of opportunity, or an ethic of caring for others, or justice.
Fourth, the model assumes that parents will make fully informed and rational choices about education. The irony is that not even leading economists believe that rational choice operates in the market. The stock market, for example, responds to such vague measures as consumer confidence. Similarly, if people made rational choices, investments in aesthetically persuasive advertising would be pointless. Choice in schooling means that taxpayers will be footing the bill for advertisements designed to recruit parents/students to schools and sell services labeled “educational.” Taxes for education become incentives for fraud, waste and abuse. See this example http://thenotebook.org/articles/2016/08/18/how-can-we-improve-the-performance-and-accountability-of-pennsylvania-cyber-charters
Fifth, the free-market model assumes that for every parent and child, the market will provide an affordable and desirable choice, without much reference to the real-world association of cost with quality. An excellent education may, in fact, be one that allows students to transcend the horizons that parents set for them. In this respect, the free-market is intended to create segmented “customers” for education, and target their preferences without regard for the common good and requisites for living together in a multi-cultural society. Choice is a means of creating segregated schools and communities.
Sixth, advocates for “choice” in a marked-based system will go to great lengths to suppress this fact: School operators seek profitable students and the operators are the primary beneficiaries of choice. They can and do refuse to accept students who are costly to teach.
Advocates of market-based education aggrandize customer choice and competition as “virtuous levers” that will get rid of bad schools and allow good ones to flourish. They do not want to publicize the fact that “ choice” functions as a zero-sum game with winners and losers and powerful incentives to secure as many resources and profits as possible, irrespective of the consequences for others. Within the now dominant system of public education, all students are to be educated as thoroughly and thoughtfully as possible. Even if not perfected in practice, public schools are the best hope for sustaining a democracy while pursuing equity, justice, and respect for diversity.
LikeLike
Yes, Laura, this is “Long and late and likely redundant.” But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said and written over and over and over again. It forces us to articulate our beliefs. It helps us to develop our own personal “stump speeches” to educate others. So being long, late and redundant is a good thing. We’re not all as articulate and succinct as a certain person who brought us together and wrote, “Public schools have been a foundational institution in the success of American society. Why should public policy put them at risk?” You’re saying the same thing in your own words and that is essential. Thanks for sharing with us. Allow us to plagiarize.
LikeLike
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2017/01/is-trump-pawn-in-psychotic-billionaire.html
Laura, Greg, Joel, Joe, NYC, et al
In light of all of the above, particularly Laura’s insights, please read this article today from Down With Tyranny and comment. It struck me hard and is frightening.
Also, Time Mag features an article by Gorbachev saying the world is preparing for war….so some very astute analysts agree that this whole scenario has been well planned and executed over a long period of time.
Even keeping passports up to date, there seems to be no where on this doomed planet to flee to. I now am going to eat as much See’s dark chocolate nougats and high calorie coffee ice cream as I can.
LikeLike
Uffda, Ellen. This article hit me where it hurts. I wrote an article last year about how the applications of big data were so important in cancer research—and they are. And then I read Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s “Move” about how big data is essential in modern transportation infrastructure—and it is. But I’ve only recently considered its applications in the behavioral sciences. This article explained why. Now I’m completely confused. Big data is THE example of a double-edged sword. I’ll have to think about this.
Yes, saw Gorbachev article, gave me pause as well and lines up with Masha Gesson’s comments. We just have continue to be the hysterics in the room!
And finally, if we need to use the passports, let’s meet in Berlin and gorge on chocolate here: https://www.rausch.de/en/schokoladenhaus/
Used to spend ungodly amounts of time and money here when I went to go there for business trips in a past life. Scroll down and watch video. Interesting that Berlin has become the most non-judgmental and free city in the world.
LikeLike
“Attempts to privatize and deregulate public schools are linked to an economic theory of democracy rather than a political theory of democracy.”
This link needs to be broken completely. Presently, the economy is what are supposed we live and die for. It seems to me, the most important goal to achieve would be to change this fossilized belief in people’s minds. Then everything would fall into place: education wouldn’t be serving the economy, and market ideas wouldn’t enter health care.
The second important goal would be what you are talking about: ensure (true) democracy. That would mean, in particular (but not exclusively) an equal opportunity for all to compete in the economy. Contrary to what Friedman was saying, this means not less government control but actually having more appropriate and straightforward laws that would ensure fair chances for all.
In terms of freedoms, we could say, we need to be controlled more to be really free.
While this sounds paradoxical, a society with little government control provides freedoms only to the strongest, meanest, greediest, luckiest few.
LikeLike
On the other hand, Warren votes for Ben Carson. Whether somebody is qualified for a job or not is immaterial for these politicians. “He promised good stuff even in writing” is basically Warren’s argument.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/01/26/elizabeth-warren-ben-carson/
LikeLike
What is Bernie’s rationale?
LikeLike
Warren’s is called “rationale” only in politics. Unlike Warren, Bernie’s rationale was reportedly so genuinely real life that he even got to use the word “competent” twice. His secret memo got leaked, and I am leaking it here further for your benefit
“Dear friends of my revolution,
I found Mr Carson highly competent in housing matters.
For starters, he lives in a darn big house in an urban area. I mean, his house is really darn big. I’ve seen pictures. He attached them to his application forms; transparency, my friends, transparency.
Furthermore, Mr Carson not only drives his car and sees houses on his way to work, as some of you might also have had the opportunity to do, but I just found out that he, and get this, regularly flies his private jet to work, so he has great birds’ eye view of all kinds of houses and their development. I mean he looks at roofs like only roofers are able to: from above. I call this Competence folks, with a capital “C”. I think you now understand why I had no choice but endorse Ben Pilot Carson’s confirmation as secretary of HUD, and I did so enthusiastically.
LikeLike
Máté, do yo work for The Onion?
LikeLike
Sarah Palin could see Russia from her house, making her expert in international affairs.
LikeLike
My senator, who I considered one of the last four good ones (w/Sanders, Warren, Franken), Sherrod Brown, also voted for Carson. Wrote and called in the first very negative comment to him ever. Very, very discouraging.
LikeLike
I could have understood voting for Carson for HHS or NIH. But he is totally unqualified to run HUD. It is actually insulting to him.
LikeLike
Here is a summary of comments by Richard Haass on the issue of the world’s “disarray” from Los Angeles World Affairs Council meeting today….it pretty well covers what some of us have written here for the last few months.
Summary:
A World in Disarray
Friday, January 27, 2017
Dr. Richard Haass
The world is in a state of disarray, and the diminishing US role overseas is no small part of that, according to Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations. At a LAWAC breakfast meeting on January 27th, Haass gave a wide-ranging review of the challenges facing the US in the world, and said the early signs were that the incoming administration could further complicate America’s global relationships. “There is no doubt the election campaign eroded America’s image in the world. And the inaugural speech [of President Trump] gave a very unfortunate message of how he sees the world.”
But Haass said that the global world order was in decline long before President Trump’s election. “There is a gap between global challenges and global responses,” said Haass. For a long time the world was grateful for American leadership, but partly due to intervention fatigue in Iraq and Afghanistan, and partly out of concern about domestic problems, the US had begun to retreat.
“President Obama wanted to dial back, and I think he was dead wrong… and Donald Trump is in the same category. But the problem is that the world will not self-organize. It is going to be a world that unravels.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where the lack of an assertive US role has allowed chaos to spread. Calling the Middle East “the least successful part of the world”, Haass said the US should avoid two extremes – the Bush approach which led to the invasion of Iraq, and the Obama approach which led to the overly rapid withdrawal from Iraq, both of which Haass said were mistakes.
“You cannot suddenly transform this area with democracy and bring peaceful government to every strip of land,” he said. But nor should the US wash its hands of the Middle East, as there is important work to be done in counter-terrorism getting rid of ISIS and figuring out what to do after ISIS, keeping a ceiling on Iran’s nuclear program, preventing worse conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and helping ordinary people in Syria. Haass said he does not think much progress can be made in the short term on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, as neither side has a leader who wants to negotiate. But he said that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, while providing no upside for the US, could have significant downside if it ignited conflict between Jews and Palestinians over the holy places on the Temple Mount – a conflict that could incite Muslims across the world.
Haass also warned of the dangers of the current administration’s outreach to Taiwan which could potentially disrupt the One China policy that he says has served to keep the peace and allowed both China and Taiwan to thrive economically since it was first instituted 45 years ago. “Pushing China on Taiwan will not give us any leverage – it will shut down US-China relations.” Taiwan, along with Tibet, are issues that no Chinese leader can give any ground on – to do so would mean instant political suicide. Haass said that wrecking US-China relations would be counter-productive for many reasons, not the least of which would be losing any hope of China bringing influence to bear on North Korea. “The single biggest foreign policy challenge facing this administration will be North Korea,” which is within a couple of years of building ICBMs with nuclear warheads that could reach Los Angeles. If we do not want outright war with North Korea, China is the only power that could intervene diplomatically. “So we would be scoring an own goal with China. We just scored one with Mexico [demanding Mexico pay for a border wall]. We would score another own goal by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. We could go to 5-0 or 6-0 really quickly!”
On Russia, Haass said the US should adopt “a honey and vinegar policy.” The US should look for selective areas of cooperation, while at the same time reintroducing military forces into NATO, particularly in the Baltics. The US should also help strengthen Ukraine’s defenses. But it will also require some moves by Putin – “he is a one-man band – he has a degree of power we haven’t seen since Stalin.” Haass says that Putin appears to think we have “a secret plan to unseat him and cause a liberal revolution in Russia.” The US should find a way to persuade him that is not the case, and even offer to drop some of the sanctions – provided the Russians give something back in return, notably by limiting their aggressive behavior in Ukraine.
On Europe Haass said that “we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Despite the shortcomings of the EU, it has served to keep the peace in Europe for 70 years – but now Europe is again in play, due to bad policy decisions by its leaders, the sudden influx of migrants from the Middle East, Putin’s aggression and a generalized disaffection with globalization. He said that British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called for the referendum on “Brexit”, which would have brought no benefits to his party if they had won, but had tremendous downside, was “not a mistake, but what Bismarck would have called a ‘blunder’.”
Looking forward, Haass said that because Trump’s policies do not fit the orthodox Republican view, “I think we will see increasing distance between Trump and the Republicans, particularly in the Senate.” Already Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been critical of some of Trump’s announcements, and Haass expects those disagreements to continue.
But underlying much of the populist revolt against the perceived elites in the US and Europe is a deep-seated anxiety about the consequences of globalization. The biggest task facing the US – and many other developed countries – will be helping societies deal better with globalization. One key task will be educating people to make them more globally literate. And that will require Americans to remain open-minded and outward looking, and not to turn inwards and try to ignore the world outside. Which is why we have organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations – and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
Sincerely,
Terry McCarthy
President and CEO
LikeLike
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
Expertise in U.S. foreign policy; international security; globalization; Asia; Middle East
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a keeper. Thanks for posting this summary, Ellen
LikeLike
“Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where the lack of an assertive US role has allowed chaos to spread.”
I’d say, the “assertive role” the US takes all over the world is part of the big problem. It appears, Mr Haas was pretty high, in more than one sense, while making this speech.
LikeLike
Mate…your conclusion is the same as Noam Chomsky in his book of about 10 years ago, Hegemony, which Hugo Chavez held up in his famous speech to the UN.
LikeLike
“President Obama wanted to dial back, and I think he was dead wrong… and Donald Trump is in the same category. But the problem is that the world will not self-organize.”
Leaving out the Marshal plan and the post war history of Western Europe (and we do
not have to) . When has American foreign policy been anything but directed to what is perceived as our National Interests and which Americans interests are represented in that consensus. So what is the “organizing ” he is referring to .
Further; where exactly have we dialed back. I hope he doesn’t consider Honduras, Argentina and Brazil as examples of dialing back as examples of where those people will be grateful for our intervention.
Seldom do our interventions result in the long run, in outcomes the planners have intended.
Unless of course they planed for Vietnamese made sneakers.
LikeLike
Not impressed by the statement. More Amurikan Exceptionalism at its finest/worst. Been hearing this tripe and seeing it put in place for the last 40 years. Amurika, the world’s policeman and sovereign protector. Not!
LikeLike
Here’s Haas, making sure we didn’t misunderstand him before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZpcZoZZu38&t=12m05s
LikeLike
OK, Great! She is deplorable. Are we fighting as hard against the other (male) cabinet members?
LikeLike
YES!!! If not moreso in the cases of Price, Puzder, and Pruitt. This ain’t about gender.
LikeLike
..and TILLERSON…
LikeLike
If DeVos turns out to be the only cabinet nominee rejected, your point is taken.
Reminds me of Paula Dean, Martha Stewart, Bridget Kelly and Marge Schott, all doing the same thing as the men, but only the women, punished
LikeLike
Linda,
This fight is not about gender. Had Trump appointed a male who was as unqualified as DeVos, we would fight just as hard.
This is our fight.
LikeLike
Speculating- Those opposed to other cabinet picks should have equal success in defeating them?
LikeLike
Diane–totally agree w/you RE: Carson for HHS or NIH. Expert brain surgeon~health-related profession~NIH/HHS. But…that would make too much sense. Fool all of the people all of the time.
Also-Mate–thanks for the “leaked” Bernie memo. Doesn’t make any sense to me, except as a sarcastic statement from him. Given that, I don’t understand why he voted for him.
Up is down & down is up.
LikeLike
“No Democrat will vote”
No Democrat would vote
For testing and for VAM
No Democrat would vote
For any other sham
No Democrat would vote
For Gates and Common Core
No Democrat would vote
For David Coleman lore
No Democrat would vote
For closing public schools
No Democrat would vote
For Arne Duncan rules
No Democrat would vote
For voucher and for charter
No Democrat would vote
To focus on the “smarter”
No Democrat will vote
For rule by billionaire
No Democrat will vote
Tautology is there
LikeLike
Kudos, SDP!
LikeLike
DAM good, Poet! (As usual.) You really should be on tour…or on SNL.
LikeLike
When freezing comes to Hell
The folks on SNL
Will crticize their own
Till then, just hold the phone
LikeLike
The red phone?
LikeLike
So, on this sunny Sat. morning…reading this roundup of erudite comments again, I am filled with wonder that Dems are willing to cross over and vote with Repubs (to hurt their own constituents as 13 did with Pharm’s proce gouging, and as 15 did with the Carson appointment) and against all that we assess to be honest and fair, but not a single Repub will cross over to vote with Dems. HOW COME?
Reagan seems to have taught them well with his 11th Commandment. Or is greed part of their DNA?
LikeLike
Not even the horrendous and vile Chuck Schumer is going to vote for DeVos? Hard to swallow.
LikeLike
“Political Crossover”
Crossing over, experts say
Mixes up the DNA
Only happens when there’s sex
Abstinence prevents the mix
LikeLike
SDP, you’ve just brought sex into party politics, and that made me think about a Swedish film from the 70’s where naked aging politicians got together in a sauna to discuss their votes. Thanks.
LikeLike
It is easier for Republicans to get all their ducks in a row. A diminishing group of Democrats has the gumption to stand on principle.
LikeLike
Yes, Abigail…where there is no principle upon which to stand, decisions to deform can be made rapidly. Guess that is now the Repub motto….Don’t Stand on Priniciple, Rush in and Destroy it ALL.
LikeLike
This is why the 2-party system is not fundamentally better than the 1-party system: I am sure that most of the senators don’t even think about the actual merits of a secretary candidate. Instead, they primarily think about political consequences of their votes and hence easily influenced by their own party members how to vote.
So scratch Reagan’s 11th commandment and replace it with
Thou shalt not form political parties.
and
Honour thy own thoughts.
Correspondingly, we are obliged to massage the Constitution a bit with the following amendments
A28: No member of Congress shall belong to a political party, past and present.
and
A29: No member of Congress shall allow other members’ influence their votes with other than professional merit. Should a member disobey this rule, Congress shall expel the member without delay.
LikeLike
Charles,
There is no hypocrisy in supporting public schools and paying to send your own kids to private school.
We have plenty of choices in this country. Public schools are a public service, supported by all taxpayers, even those who don’t have any children, even those whose children have finished school, even those who send their children to elite private schools.
The real hypocrisy is when people who send their children to elite private schools–where class sizes are 12-15 and facilities are gorgeous–want to destroy public schools and underfund them. Let me know when the choice folks begin advocating on behalf of vouchers worth $50,000 so that poor kids can go to the best private schools.
LikeLike
Anyone have leafs as to which republicans might turn? In order to focus calls on those folks?
LikeLike
Sorry – “leads” not leafs….
LikeLike
Try Toomey of PA
LikeLike
Also, I made lots of calls to McCain, Graham, Alexander, Collins,and Sasse over the past three weeks. Left messages about DeVos and others…to no avail it would seem.
Good suggestion, Diane, to call Toomey…will do that Monday. Who else? I also called a few of the traitor Dems and let them know that they will never get reelected.
LikeLike
Murkowski? Graham? Collins?
LikeLike
Here are a few just in from Haaretez…Repubs complaining about Drumpf and the Muslim Exec.Order…so maybe we can turn them away from DeVos, Tillerson, Pruitt,on and on..
“First Republican senators speak out against Trump’s ban on travelers from Muslim countries
Ben Sasse (R-NE), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Susan Collins (R-ME) criticize new executive order, while party’s senior ranks keep mum.”
Amir Tibon | 29.01.2017
LikeLike
Leafs, too for their naked emperor!
LikeLike
Ha!
LikeLike
“Turning a (new) leaf”
Turning leafs is not a thing
When you are Republican
Blowing leafs is more dramatic
Especially the Democratic
LikeLike