I try to be fair-minded. I praised Senator Jeff Flake for denouncing Trump’s assault on the values of civility and honesty that are important to an open democratic society.
But I have to share with you Charles Pierce’s searing denunciation of the Republicans who voted to strip away consumers’ protections from the predatory actions of big banks and credit card companies. Those who voted for this dreadful action include the Tepublican dissenters.
Those who will be hurt most are the members of Trump’s base, whom he regularly lies to. Those who will be hurt most are those who can’t afford to hire a lawyer. Two Republican senators dissented: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Kennedy of Louisiana.
Charles Pierce is one of my favorite writers today.
He writes:
“In the dead of Tuesday night, with the applause still ringing in his ears, Flake voted to strip the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau of a rule that allowed Americans to file class-action suits against banks rather than being forced into an arbitration process that generally is as rigged as a North Korean election. From The Los Angeles Times:
The rule was unveiled in July by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and praised by Democrats and consumer advocates as giving average people more power to fight industry abuses, such as Wells Fargo & Co.’s creation of millions of unauthorized accounts. But banking lobbyists argued that the rule would unleash a flood of class-action lawsuits, and that the cost of fighting those suits would be passed on to consumers. Republicans quickly moved to repeal the regulation.
“You have to love their timing, too. This move comes hard on the heels of the Equifax calamity, and just as the Congress is shilling for a massive upward shift in the country’s wealth that is disguised as a “middle-class tax cut.” Further, it proves that our political system learned absolutely nothing from what happened in 2008, when the masters of the universe nearly blew up the entire world economy…
“You know who’s going to get hosed now, Senator McCain? All those veterans and military families that you’re always so tender about. You know who’s going to take it in the ear, Senators Corker, Flake, and Sasse? All those middle-class people in all those little towns that you spend most of your time praising as the reservoir of Real American Values. None of those people mattered a damn to you Tuesday night, and it wasn’t the president* that forced you to make this vote. You did it with cold deliberation and calculated forethought…
“Just gaze in awe. Wells Fargo opened three-and-a-half million unauthorized accounts in the names of actual customers. To hell with a class action suit, these people should have been keelhauled under the Staten Island Ferry for a year. Now, though, Wells Fargo and the other banks, and their armies of lobbyists, have choked off the most effective way through which the people so swindled could get some form of justice.”
Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to screw his fellow Americans.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We have predatory corporate governance. This is one part of a long line of projects to demolish all “protective” legislation … name the topic. The cabinent members have been handpicked to ensure Congress will defund and defraud many of those who voted for Trump, not that Democrats are free of veniality.”
LikeLike
DICOTUS (the Distractor In Chief) and all his little distractors (including Flake) … meanwhile the beatings continue …
LikeLike
The cynic in me speculates that our Dear Leader and Flake may have had a pact to distract the masses from this vote. Surely not the case, but it would make a good short story!
LikeLike
Or poem? Hint, hint.
LikeLike
“The Great Distractor”
While press was distracted
By Flake and his fluff
Republicans acted
On all of their stuff
Protected the banks
From suits by the proles
Republican ranks
Were taking their tolls
The press thought him spanked
But Donald had trumped
For Flake had been thanked
And press had been whumped
LikeLike
The Consumer Protection Financial Bureau was established by President Obama and all those co-opted Democrats who – I am told by some progressives – do the bidding of Wall Street and corporations.
At least when we excoriate Jeff Flake for supporting this disgusting repeal, can those progressives finally acknowledge that the Democratic Party is NOT entirely owned and operated by their Wall Street and corporate masters?
Or if they want to keep making those claims, then what is the big deal here?
In order to think it is a big deal, you have to assume that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is NOT simply a cynical cover that the Democrats put in for their Wall Street and corporate masters to fool voters into thinking they weren’t entirely owned by banks and corporations.
In order to think this is a big deal, you have to believe there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Sorry to be so cynical but the hypocrisy gets to me.
LikeLike
Thank you, SDP!!
LikeLike
Greg,
Flake wrote a book called “Conscience of a Conservative,” the title of Barry Goldwater’s book many years ago. That is when he began complaining about Trump having soiled the conservative brand. If he quit his position in the Senate to distract people, that was quite a sacrifice.
Read this and tell me if you think this was all staged to help Trump:
The title: “Enough”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/enough–it-is-time-to-stand-up-to-trump/2017/10/24/12488ee4-b908-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.aabb48f4f7b3
LikeLike
Diane, I should have put a smiley face on my remark. I was imprecise. I do not in any way think these events are linked, I just thought it would make good fiction (or poetry).
I have casually followed Flake since he was elected in the House. He has made a career of sounding rational only to vote for and support the most reactionary policies possible. For example, he said all the right things after Gabby Giffords was shot only to follow the NRA agenda unconditionally. The final straw for me was when he went on Colbert and, with a straight face, claimed that 200,000 were paying fines for not having signed up for the Affordable Care Act. Colbert, who usually has a better grasp of facts, completely let him slide. It is a huge lie and Flake delivered it without flinching. He is the worst kind of liar, the kind who speaks softly and sounds reasonable.
He is just like my senator, Rob Portman, who got the endorsements of the two most prominent newspapers in NE Ohio over Ted Strickland because they said he was “independent” and “thoughtful.” I believe he has voted 100% with our Dear Leader’s agenda. His weekly constituent email is a travel log fantasy meant for unthinking drones. Flake and Portman are the very worst of Republican tendencies. Two soft spoken smiling white guys who will shiv anything their funders demand.
LikeLike
Flake is a Goldwater conservative. Toes the line for reactionary causes like NRA. Let’s hope he is not replaced by even more extreme Kelli Ward, who has been endorsed by Bannon.
LikeLike
I know you don’t like talk of conspiracy, but Flake’s book is obviously part of the grand Trump conspiracy.
No doubt about it.
LikeLike
” I am really glad that Jeff Flake spoke up but what really matters is not words but actions.” Um I wonder who that was hint CPFB.
LikeLike
The CPFB? Obama’s program that the Democrats passed? Are you suggesting there is a value to preserving it?
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
The Hillary Troll strikes again . She can’t stop blaming progressives for the failures of the the Wall Street Democratic Party . Wall Street seems to have a new BFF. Those of us on the left could have told you that Corporate America would stand them up in a heart beat.
“At least when we excoriate Jeff Flake for supporting this disgusting repeal, can those progressives finally acknowledge that the Democratic Party is NOT entirely owned and operated by their Wall Street and corporate masters?”
Not entirely, those that are not fully owned by the donor class call themselves progressives . There was a reason that Warren whose baby was the CPFB was not appointed to run it . That reason was not that Obama wanted her to run for Senate .
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/inept-obama-anybody-but-warren-stance-reveals-fundamental-bank-v-middle-class-fault-line.html
LikeLike
Joel,
Interesting article. No doubt you think the outrage by people here about the CPFB vote is silly, since Obama intentionally pushed out Warren to make sure the agency did the bidding of big banks.
What’s the big deal? Since Richard Cordray doesn’t call himself a “progressive”, the entire agency was obviously a sham.
“those that are not fully owned by the donor class call themselves progressives” Sometimes I wonder if you really mean all the sweeping smears you direct at Democrats.
Here’s a little hint: The “progressive” candidate for Virginia Governor got the DFER award and a huge donation from Arne Duncan’s organization. The “non-progressive” (or as you would call him, “corrupt, right wing tool of the donor class) actually stands up for public education.
As so did those corrupt, right wing tools of the donor class democrats Tim Kaine and Terry McAuliffe.
Better get rid of all those pro-public school dems now so the DFER “progressives” can show us how NOT to do the bidding of the donor class. Unless the donor class tells them to undermine public schools and promote charters. Of course, they won’t be doing it for their donors, but because of their strong belief that public education just needs some of that reforming.
It’s ironic that the Republicans attack those non-progressive Dems just like you do for being tools of the “donor class”. Only difference is that the Republicans call the “donor class” the teachers’ unions. Never realized how much you have in common with them.
LikeLike
NYCPSP – you really need to work on learning to hold two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time. It’s tough, but it can be learned. Just because many of us loathe right-wing corporate owned Democrats, that does not mean that we love Republicans. Why would we love them when they’re owned by the same oligarchs? You’be be able to play better in the sandbox if you’d understand that point.
LikeLike
The book that Flake wrote was actually titled “The Con science of a Con servative”.
He just left out the spaces in the title to con vince people to buy it.
LikeLike
I am with Greg actions speak louder than words and this is business as usual . If the good Senator(s!) were truly concerned with Democracy they could take the bold step of caucusing with the Democrats till the issue was resolved .
How does that rank on the level of valor . Is that the equivalent of throwing oneself on a grenade to save ones brothers . running into a burning building to rescue a baby. Is it the equivalent of signing the Declaration of Independence with King George’s troops hunting your head. Is it the equivalent of directing traffic in front of the 59th st Bridge.
Their pretty speeches are the equivalent of supporting the farm workers during the grape boycott on the way into the super market to buy grapes. At least John McCain has done what needed to be done ,depriving Trump and those who hide behind their legislative agenda to support him a victory.
LikeLike
As a wise man once said
“I knew Barry Goldwater. You, Mr. Flake, are no Barry Goldwater”
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
Here is what you do not get . The Republicans have spent near 4 decades on two messages “Government is the problem ” and “both parties are the same “.
Now the overwhelming majority of Trumps supporters a bunch of ——-
——– who can not be reached . However a sizable majority of the American people are clueless when they walk into a voting booth and only 58 % +- of them do vote .
Every issue that Trump raises has some validity . Trade has cost the loss of American manufacturing jobs since the 90s . Yes immigrants legal (H1B) and undocumented are used as a wage wedge in certain industries lowering wages and creating “jobs that Americans no longer want to do ” . Yes Washington is a swamp of competing powerful moneyed interests an oligarchy .
The obvious answers to each of those charges is that he surrounded by the Republicans are the epitome of the cesspool not the swamp . The largest abusers of undocumented labor and the biggest supporters of devastating trade agreements . Each of these areas have progressive solutions from increased labor protections that would not allow the abuse of undocumented labor. To targeting inflation higher , with fiscal and fed policy that stimulates the economy, lowering the value of the dollar making American made products more competitive . Of course that is a shared responsibility that would raise the cost of living for many Americans. So take your choice, higher wages or higher costs .
But to the average low information voter and most are very low information regardless which party they vote for. They only see the swamp .
They see the get out of jail free card . They know not one Banker went to jail . Even as they don’t quite comprehend that fines were traded for reductions on mortgages. Mortgages they no longer owned. If your a teacher who was worse Bush or Obama, If your a parent Common Core had become a rallying cry on the right . The last time I checked most of its critics with any background in pedagogy have been progressives.
When you muddy the waters , you play into the Right Wing game. The Democrats have been been dumping truckloads of mud.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-hud-big-banks_us_55c4f2f2e4b0923c12bcc4b1
LikeLike
dienne77 says: “Just because many of us loathe right-wing corporate owned Democrats, that does not mean that we love Republicans. Why would we love them when they’re owned by the same oligarchs?”
I know that. As Joel pointed out, the CFPB has one of those right-wing corporate owned Democrats in charge. Ergo, what’s the big deal here since it was simply a tool of the oligarchs? You seem to holding two contradictory thoughts:
Democrats are owned by the same oligarchs
The CFPB has a rule in place that the oligarchs want to repeal.
By your logic, this entire post is silly since the CFPB is a tool of the oligarchs anyway. To acknowledge that they have a rule in place that might help consumers destroys your entire world view that there is no difference between the Dems and Republicans.
Joel, I agree with much of what you say, except the first comment:
The “both parties are the same” message needed help from progressives to gain any traction. They got it. The sweeping attacks made on Democrats by progressives like dienne77 seem to show no nuance. They end up hurting progressives as well as the right wing Dems since the ENTIRE PARTY is smeared.
You can be a non-progressive Democrat – like Northam and Tim Kaine – and be BETTER on public education than a progressive dem who does DFER’s bidding. That is because despite yours and dienne77’s smears, it’s possible to be conservative on some issue just because you are conservative and progressive on some issues because you are progressive. When you insist everyone meets some litmus test devised by progressives, then I am disgusted.
I get to support a non-progressive Dem who stands up for public education against a progressive Dem who does DFER’s bidding without being told I am voting for a tool of the oligarchs by people like dienne77.
And when self-described “progressives” attack the “corrupt” non-progressive democrat who stands up for public education and help the right wing do their dirty work, then I will call them out on their hypocrisy.
LikeLike
^^And if you want an example of what I mean, just check out some of dienne77’s posts where she talks about how her “spidey sense” tells her that Bill de Blasio is just another one of those corrupt Democrats owned by the oligarchs.
She “plays in the sandbox” by reading some propaganda put out by the right wing or something that says he isn’t 100% perfect and jumps to the conclusion that a democrat is just another one of those corrupt tools of the oligarchs.
With help like that from dienne77, no wonder the right wing has people believing there’s no difference.
LikeLike
“progressives like dienne77 seem to show no nuance”
“…yours and dienne77’s smears….”
Oh, seriously, just stop, you’re getting ridiculous. Stop looking in the mirror and blaming what you see on everyone else.
Please, Diane, you need to rein NYCPSP in. This is getting out of hand. Just yesterday NYCPSP declared that someone was “100% wrong” and then s/he has the nerve to claim that anyone else “shows no nuance”. Worse, s/he whines about the attacks against him/her, while attacking others. Please help NYCPSP learn to play nicely in the sandbox.
LikeLike
^By the way, I have yet to hear dienne77 say: “My spidey sense was wrong and Mayor de Blasio is not a tool of the oligarchs.”
dienne77 would rather attack and smear the one man who is actually a thorn in the side of a Dem who IS a tool of the oligarchs – andrew Cuomo – than recognize that there are plenty of good democrats out there even if they don’t meet whatever litmus test the propaganda she reads tell her they have to meet.
LikeLike
Diane, seriously, is this the way you want commenters to speak of each other in your living room? Is it okay with you that NYCPSP constantly brings up something I said one time, distorts it, and flings it in my face every single time s/he disagrees about something (while accusing me of having no nuance – ha!). You have had no problem chiding me, but never have you chided NYCPSP, despite many complaints (besides me) about his/her behavior here. As you are fond of saying, enough, this is getting tiring.
LikeLike
In the recent comment thread on the Success Academy parents’ letter to Eva Moskowitz, my name (de plume) appears a whopping 65 times. About 15 of those were from my own comments. Nearly all of the other 55 were typed by you-know-who, in the typical form of “FLERP! says” and “FLERP! thinks” various things that I neither said nor think.
LikeLike
50, I guess. Math. Hard.
LikeLike
Exactly, FLERP! And five or so of those might actually have come close to accurately representing what you actually said. Maybe.
LikeLike
I’ve got her doing it again now below, this time with the old trick of the out-of-context pullquote. Now’s your time to run for cover.
LikeLike
I wrote the above before I read dienne77’s post.
Please cite a time that I whined and asked Diane Ravitch to stop someone from “attacking” me.
dienne77, I apologize for my tone. I admit it makes me angry to hear the same kinds of sweeping condemnations of the democrats now that I heard during the campaign. When I talk about nuance, I mean this:
There are democrats who are (#1) pro-business but pro-public education. There are also democrats like (#2) Booker and Cuomo who seem to do whatever their biggest donors wants. There are also (#3) progressives that are supportive of charter schools and favorites of DFER.
Let me state for the record that candidates like #3 are good candidates who should be supported and they are NOT corrupt or tools of the oligarchs. Let me state for the record that I recognize that those progressives who believe DFER is a good organization are STILL able to do good things. Let me state for the record that there is absolutely nothing wrong with their character. I can have a policy disagreement with progressives described in #3 without smearing them as no different than the Dems in #2.
I genuinely wish you felt the same way about democrats who are in the #1 category. Because I know that their strong support of public education is the only thing standing between the dangerous and serious attempt to undermine even more public schools. So I want progressives to stop the innuendo that there is no difference between candidates like #1 and candidates like #2.
Because right now too many Americans believe what you believe — that there is no difference between #1 and #2. Nuance. That’s what I hope for in this debate.
LikeLike
I’m not big on apologies, NYCPSP. If you’re really sorry about your tone, please stop using it. It’s that simple. But apparently you’re not because there you go right at the end implying that I lack nuance when you are the one who has failed to hear what I (and others) have been trying to tell you and willfully distorting what we write.
LikeLike
““I don’t have much of a personal opinion about Eva Moskowitz, although I’ve met her and she was friendly and charming. Professionally, she is obviously extremely ambitious.”
dienne77, the fact that you are embracing a person who reads and posts on Diane Ravitch and claims to have “no personal opinion about Eva Moskowitz” might tell you something.
If there is ANYTHING that we should agree with, it is that Eva Moskowitz has proven herself someone who is worthy of criticism and it is awfully disingenuous for someone like flerp! to claim he still needs more information before he can render any criticism of her.
LikeLike
^if you think I am “distorting” your friend’s view of Eva Moskowitz, all your friend has to do is correct the record and offer the least bit of criticism, beyond “ambitious”. Which I pointed out sounds like a job interview candidate answering the question about what her biggest flaw is: “I’m friendly and charming but my biggest flaw is I’m too ambitious”.
LikeLike
Because I’m a complete idiot who is apparently incapable of learning from past mistakes, I will note that the point I was making in the quote you excerpt is that I don’t have much of an opinion of Ms. Moskowitz’s personal character, because I don’t know her, and my extremely brief personal interaction was perfectly pleasant and unnotable. I went on to offer my critique of her schools, which included my personal distaste for the SA school model, as well as my broader policy view that SA and the charter industry in general need to be reined in, because they exhibit a appetite for growth that I fear can only be sated by the destruction of the public school system. I did add that I’m reluctant to criticize people who choose SA schools, to the extent they have fewer options than I do.
I admit all these statements as I stand before the truth commission. I would think there’s some common ground between my views and yours — particularly the policy view, which I think is the important one (as opposed to opinions about personalities). But it’s all or nothing with you. Always attacking, over and over, and usually focused on the speaker’s character (i.e. FLERP! is a liar, hypocrite, closet racist, whatever else). And it’s just relentless — there’s never a pause where you make a joke at your own expense, or make the kind of tension-reducing social gesture that, for lack of a better word, “normal” people do all the time. Can you just ease up and chill a bit?
LikeLike
FLERP!
Again.
I just want to say one word to you — and to Dienne, and Greg and Joel and anyone else who will listen.
One word.
Spaghettification.
LikeLike
It may be too late for me. My comments won’t post, so I’ve either been put back in moderation or I’ve been spaghettified.
LikeLike
Didn’t realize I was “embracing” FLERP! Pardon me, FLERP!, I’ll try not to invade your physical space in the future.
Anyway, NYCPSP, I just have to laugh at this point. You seriously just can’t help yourself, can you?
LikeLike
No worries, it’s tight inside this clown car.
To the extent anyone is actually interested in seeing my transgressive statements about Success Academy in context, head on over to the post called “The Parents’ Letter to Eva Moskowitz,” and prepare to be spaghettified.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
“The “both parties are the same” message needed help from progressives to gain any traction. They got it. The sweeping attacks made on Democrats by progressives like dienne77 seem to show no nuance. They end up hurting progressives as well as the right wing Dems since the ENTIRE PARTY is smeared.”
Actually that observation had nothing to do with progressives . It was pointed out by many . But by none as well as an Eisenhower Republican Congressional staffer whoyou should read. Lofgren’s “Confessions of a Republican Who Left the Cult.” is a 22 year long insiders view of the state of American Politics . In 2011 he calls the 2016 election .
The progressive did not create that policy the Republicans very intentionally did and long before the progressives came after Corporate Democrats . By 2010 they had gained the house by 2014 the Senate and close to 1000 seats nation wide .
So look for another scapegoat .
But the CPFB was a band aide when a chain saw was in order and Warren whose idea it was, was definitely not appointed to run it because Wall Street objected to her .
The Banks should have been Nationalized. That may sound like SOCIALISM to you . But rest assured it is a process that happens every day in US courts. A Federal Judge oversees the bankruptcy of corporations.
Rest assured we would have survived .Had CitiBank execs taken a shave instead of picking the entire Obama cabinet . Survived had a few Bankers been taken away in shackles and chains . Even Reagan who should burn in hell put a 1000 on trial. The Federal Government long ago discovered how to drop money from helicopters . Which is exactly how we clawed our way out of the hole . 17 Trillion dollars of on going support from the Federal reserve which still has not unloaded its balance sheet .
The Fed had 900 Billion in 08 . Today almost 10 years later it holds 4.5 trillion dollars in assets .That were unloaded from banks.
But you are winning bigly, why try another approach.
LikeLike
dienne77,
I’m amused at the people who say they support public education attacking me because I called out FLERP! for her quite noticeable and very odd reluctance to say anything critical about Success Academy Charter Schools’ CEO Eva Moskowitz.
Except that she is “extremely ambitious”.
Do you know anyone on this board besides Tim and FLERP! who go out of their way not to directly criticize her?
Do you know anyone on this board besides FLERP! who claims she doesn’t yet have enough information to judge whether she can say anything critical about the “friendly and charming” Eva Moskowitz except that she is ambitious?
SomeDAMpoet, et tu?
LikeLike
Joel, you mischaracterize me by using the word “scapegoat”. I agree with much of what you say, except that I see too many progressives who are “scapegoating” the entire Democratic party instead of applying some nuance about who is and who isn’t the tool of oligarchs.
Now back to a discussion about whether a commenter who posts that Eva Moskowitz is charming and friendly and ambitious but professes not to have enough information to judge her beyond that (despite constantly posting on discussion boards about education!) is being disingenuous or not.
What do you think?
LikeLike
I tried posting another version of this comment but it disappeared. Perhaps Diane is exercising her better discretion as moderator. Anyway, I’ll try it again.
First, by writing this, I am proving myself again to be a complete idiot who cannot learn from past mistakes. I will note that when I wrote that I don’t have much of a “personal opinion” of Eva Moskowitz, I was trying to convey that I do not have much of an opinion about her personal character. I realize that a lot of people here, especially NYCPP, do have intense opinions about Moskowitz’s personal character. But I don’t. I don’t know her, and the only time I’ve met her, she was very pleasant and charming, and the whole experience was unnotable.
I also went on to state my views of Success Academy, which included my personal distaste for the Success model, and my policy view that Success and the rest of the charter industry must be reined in, because they have an appetite for growth that I fear can only be sated by the destruction of the public school system as we know it. I confess I also stated that I was reluctant to criticize the choices of parents who use and like the Success schools, particularly if those parents have fewer education options than I do.
Now, as I stand before the truth commission, I admit all these statements.
But the point is this. One could certainly disagree with some of the above, although I would think that there is plenty of common ground on the policy view I articulated. But with you, NYCPP — and I’ve experienced it a thousand times myself and I’ve seen it play out over and over with others — it’s all or nothing. It’s relentless attack, attack, attack, with the attacks usually focused on the character of the speaker, as in “FLERP! is a liar,” or a hypocrite, or a closet racist, or whatever. There’s never a detente. You never crack a joke at your own expense, or make any of the common social gestures that people use to ease tension. Could you please ease up a bit?
LikeLike
^(sorry, posted too soon)
I mean, Eva Moskowitz strongly endorsed Betsy DeVos! It’s pretty hard not to have an opinion about her unless you are giving Moskowitz the benefit of the doubt that she really, really believed DeVos was a terrific choice and she would be a great boon to school children.
So to profess that it’s possible Moskowitz just made a little mistake so you don’t want to make any sweeping judgements about her character, which you still don’t have enough information to criticize seems rather suspect.
I suspect SomeDAMpoet and dienne77 will disagree with my opinion that flerp! may not be a disinterested party.
LikeLike
“To the extent anyone is actually interested in seeing my transgressive statements about Success Academy in context, head on over to the post called “The Parents’ Letter to Eva Moskowitz,” and prepare to be spaghettified.”
I don’t want to be “spaghettified”, so if anyone can find a comment by flerp! that directly criticizes Eva Moskowitz among flerp!’s many comments, please let me know.
I see flerp! willing to criticize a SA principal for being wrong and saying the parents are right to complain. That’s the kind of thing that Eva Moskowitz herself says during those press conferences where she has the principal fall on his sword and take all the blame.
FLERP! sometimes acknowledges mild criticism of the entire Success Academy network which mirrors the kind of acknowledgments that Eva Moskowitz herself makes when someone gets caught on video doing something wrong.
But FLERP! isn’t critical of Eva Moskowitz herself. If anyone can find any direct criticism of Moskowitz by FLERP! among his many posts, please let me know.
LikeLike
“…attacking me….”
Oh, I’m so confused. I thought you said you didn’t whine about people attacking you? Okay, so actually, you’re probably not whining. You’re probably gloating because you think it proves something in your favor. Nonetheless, the fact remains, you have dished out far more than you’ve taken.
Diane, seriously, I was in moderation for months for far less than NYCPSP has done. Please, could s/he at least get a reprimand?
LikeLike
I wrote the comments above before flerp!’s explanation posted:
As flerp! knows, we both agree that parents who have few options who choose Success Academy shouldn’t be criticized. I never criticize those parents (in fact, usually I defend them when Moskowitz characterizes their children as violent). flerp! keep repeating that point as a straw man despite the fact we have no disagreement about that and never have.
We also agree about reigning in the rapid growth of charter schools.
The ONLY thing flerp! and I seem to disagree about is whether there are real, legitimate reasons to criticize Eva Moskowitz directly for her dishonesty or whether the jury is still out as to whether she she has done anything worthy of criticism.
flerp! says “I wrote that I don’t have much of a “personal opinion” of Eva Moskowitz, I was trying to convey that I do not have much of an opinion about her personal character.”
Given that Eva Moskowitz fought very hard and very publicly to legitimize Betsy DeVos as a champion of students and demanded that Senators approve her nomination, I find it hard to believe flerp!’s claim that he has no opinion about Moskowitz’ personal character. I won’t list the rest of the things Moskowitz has said over the years about the need for suspending large numbers of violent kindergarten students, etc.
Although let’s not forget Eva Moskowitz released the private records of a 6 year old child who criticized her “infractions” policy to characterize him as a violent first grader!
It reminds me of Trump supporters who say they have some policy disagreements with Trump’s policies but they don’t have enough information to judge whether he is an honest man or not.
I believe flerp! is being disingenuous and I admit to being very suspicious as to why flerp! is so disingenuous when it comes to criticizing Eva Moskowitz directly.
But others on here are free to accept what flerp! says at face value. He doesn’t criticize her directly because he has no opinion of her character or whether the things she says are the truth or not.
LikeLike
dienne77 says I’ve dished it out far more than I have taken it?
Despite endless personal attacks on me from flerp! and dienne77, I have never once asked Diane to step in and put them in moderation. I have simply replied and tried to address each attack they make on me with facts and argument.
I happen to think it is important to have these debates and I hope Diane Ravitch doesn’t put anyone in moderation.
dienne77, I “argue” with you and Joel because I respect you enough to think that my arguments might change your minds. As I believe Joel knows, we agree on many things.
Although perhaps we don’t agree about whether flerp’s explanation as to his unwillingness to criticize Eva Moskowitz directly is believable or not.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to post again, but I can’t let flerp!’s dishonest rhetoric about me go unanswered:
“It’s relentless attack, attack, attack, with the attacks usually focused on the character of the speaker, as in “FLERP! is a liar,” or a hypocrite, or a closet racist, or whatever.”
flerp! presents all sorts of straw men to knock down and uses innuendo to imply that I have criticized the at-risk parents who send their kids to Success (which I have never done).
Why is it impossible for flerp! to offer even the mildest criticism or acknowledgement that Eva Moskowitz is not honest? Is it remotely possible flerp! has read Moskowitz’ comments and public statements and follows education closely and still doesn’t have enough information to decide whether Moskowitz tells the truth?
Why is flerp! so angry at me because I noticed something very odd about his posts?
And I don’t find it remotely believable that any disinterested person could have read everything Eva Moskowitz has said and done in the last few years — and even had the opportunity to meet her in person — who still believes they don’t have the knowledge to criticize a single thing she does.
LikeLike
NYCPP, all I can say is this is disappointing. Not 100% shocking, but it’s disappointing.
LikeLike
I have met Eva a couple of times, though not recently.
Like FLERP, I found her charming and personable.
But I hate what her schools do to children.
LikeLike
flerp!, as usual you find it far easier to sit in judgement of me than of Eva Moskowitz. I’m sorry I “disappoint” you by not accepting at face value your explanation of why it is impossible for you to acknowledge even one of the many reprehensible actions that Eva Moskowitz has done over the years.
I repeat: It is impossible for you to acknowledge that any action taken by Eva Moskowitz or any statement Eva Moskowitz makes is worthy of criticism. Because – if I understand what you want us all to believe – you just don’t have enough information yet to know whether anything she does is worthy of criticism.
You want us to believe that you have no idea whether Eva Moskowitz is an honest defender of charter schools or not. So you don’t feel it would be right to criticize her directly when she says something that (to me) seems quite outrageous.
I don’t recall you giving the same benefit of the doubt to the NAACP when you were critical of the NAACP’s moratorium on charter schools.
I find it odd that you find it easier to criticize the actions of the NAACP than to criticize the actions of Eva Moskowitz!
Then again, maybe some people here accept everything you say at face value. Sorry if I don’t.
LikeLike
Diane,
I probably wasn’t very clear in my posts — I didn’t intend to imply that flerp! was lying when he/she said that Eva Moskowitz was friendly and charming in person. I have never met her but I don’t doubt that she is friendly and charming when she wants to be.
What I find unusual is that flerp! goes overboard in avoiding any direct criticism of Moskowitz’ actions, her many dishonest statements, and the practices within the schools that are harmful to children and clearly target children whom the network doesn’t want to teach.
Instead of direct criticism of Moskowitz and the actual bad practices in her charters, flerp! uses what I think of as “reformer speak”. Flerp! says that he has “personal distaste” for the Success Academy model but never acknowledges that there is anything improper about those practices. It’s just a matter of “taste” — it isn’t that Success Academy is doing anything morally or ethically wrong. Reformers often acknowledge that a charter might be “personally distasteful” to one family but as long as there are other families who don’t find it “personally distasteful”, why shouldn’t those families be allowed to choose it? Having someone feel “personal distaste” for a school doesn’t lead to any oversight or investigation of its bad practices. It’s just “personal” so there’s no need to examine the school’s practices closely.
Diane, you said you hate what Eva Moskowitz’ schools have done to children, and that is a little different than my perspective.
I think that there are some children who are able to thrive at Success Academy. I suspect they are well-behaved (if they are poor), smart, learn quickly, and have an excellent family support system. I don’t believe that most of those children — the ones who make Success Academy look good and are allowed to remain — have been harmed by being there. After all, they have the benefits of being in a very rich charter which doesn’t have to spend resources or teacher time on hard to teach students. Any public school they chose would have a hard time competing since they DO have to spent resource and teacher time on the students who struggle most in schools, both academically and behaviorally.
The harm that Eva Moskowitz does is that she claims that her schools have found a solution for all those hundreds of thousands of at-risk students trapped in failing public schools when it is evident to everyone paying attention that she has no interest in teaching a very large percentage of those children.
The harm that Eva Moskowitz does is that politicians who make policy decisions that affect all public school students believe she is telling the truth about that.
The harm that Eva Moskowitz does is that in order to keep up her myth that her schools welcome all students and turn them into scholars with 99% passing rates, Moskowitz has to adopt practices that get rid of the students who won’t turn into scholars. And when their parents complain that their child was pushed out, Moskowitz denies that reality. She suggest the children were violent and the parents are lying. And since her reputation for honesty is so stellar, SUNY accepts Moskowitz word that it’s all the fault of the child.
The harm that Eva Moskowitz does is that she uses that false reputation for “honesty” and “caring about kids” to endorse Betsy DeVos and legitimize her in the eyes of Senators who had to vote on her confirmation. “Even a Democrat who cares so much about poor children is telling us how terrific Betsy DeVos is”. Why would Moskowitz endorse DeVos? Does anyone but flerp! believe she truly thought DeVos was terrific for children? Did the endorsement make some of her big funders happy?
If Eva Moskowitz was an honest actor instead of a dishonest one, I believe she could have done some good. Imagine an honest charter CEO telling Arne Duncan and the Republicans that even with all the millions in extra funding she receives, she has a very difficult time teaching many at-risk students. Imagine an honest charter CEO telling policymakers that the public schools that teach at-risk kids need small class sizes and significantly more funding because even her rich charters have failed with many of them.
Instead we have a very dishonest CEO claiming that her charters prove that turning at-risk kids into high performing scholars can easily be done without much funding, with inexperienced teachers, with large class sizes and if public schools aren’t doing what she is doing, it is simply that their teachers are inept failures who refuse to use her secret sauce and “best practices”.
If everyone acknowledged that Eva Moskowitz was about as believable as Trump when she makes those claims, she might not do much damage. Instead, too many people believe her. It means less for public schools and more for her.
So when I hear people like flerp! who profess not to have any opinion as to whether Eva Moskowitz speaks the truth, I assume they either pay no attention to education issues or they don’t want to admit she is anything less than truthful.
Especially when those very same people also use reformer speak like “personal distaste” and speak in vague ideas about “reigning in” their growth (maybe only 20 more schools and not 30?) Especially when those very same people do seem to have very strong criticisms of the NAACP’s desire to “reign in” the growth of charter schools in a way that would have real impact.
Maybe my cynicism about flerp!’s disingenuousness is misplaced. But I doubt it.
LikeLike
I agree with Charles Pierce (whom I usually find is spot on) that this vote to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was reprehensible.
Given the 50-50 vote, with Pence pulling the tying vote, it’s shocking that more of the corrupt Dems didn’t vote with the Republicans, isn’t it? (Cue the cynics who now say their corporate and Wall Street masters allowed Dems to vote against this so they could pretend to be different than the Republicans when we all know they are exactly the same.)
This is called democracy. I hate this vote. So I can work to elect members of Congress who won’t support it in 2018. That’s the ONE thing Jeff Flake and I agree about. That it is important that we recognize the institutions of democracy.
Of course Jeff Flake would support this! He has never pretended to be anything but a right wing Republican who believes in getting rid of any regulations that hamper corporation and banks from doing whatever they want to do. In that he is just like the rest of the Republican Party.
What makes Flake different than the the rest of the Republicans in Congress is that Jeff Flake is a right wing Republican who believes in the institutions of democracy and recognizes how dangerous Trump is to them.
This could not have happened without Trump being elected President. There IS a difference. It may not be as much as I would like most of the time, but there is a difference.
LikeLike
I was having a “conversation’ online with a Trump supporter earlier today. He insisted that Trump had brought peace to the Middle East and that he had caused the economy to improve in the 9 months he was in office. We are now on much better terms with N. Korea. Trump had done a magnificent job of undoing all the awful things Obama had brought.
I do not understand some people.
Why do Republicans work to actively hurt people? Why want 23 million to loose their healthcare? Why gut the CFPA when it has protected people from fraudulent activity on the part of credit card companies and banks? Why lie that the Trump tax bill is to help the middle class when it actually is a big giveaway to the wealthy?
LikeLike
Can not make this stuff up can you . It will be the Democrats fault when his Medicare costs go up . Got to be a genetic defect.
LikeLike
Nobody can actually relinquish their access to the court system. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
LikeLike
Then why would banks spend millions to overturn the rule? Why are there so many innocent or over-sentenced people in prisons? Why do people settle for terms that obviously are against their interests? It ain’t complicated. Your statement ignores the actual gap between theory and practice. There is a price tag to justice. Not everyone can pay it.
LikeLike
Glad I read this response. Because it is my understanding it gave rights to class actions . Individuals always had those rights. Try getting a lawyer to sue Exxon or Goldman for chump change .
Good luck with that . But 5 million costumers suing for 500 dollars might get a bit of attention.
LikeLike
Congress can indeed limit access to the federal court system, because Congress created much of that access. The lower federal courts exist only because Congress created them. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
LikeLike
Money means access and lack of money therefore limits it.
If you make it too expensive — eg, by forcing an individual to hire a lawyer to represent them in an arbitration case — most people will not bother. No one with a brain would take the time and spend several hundred dollars on a lawyer to get back $50 in overcharges. And representing yourself against a very knowledgeable corporate lawyer is a fools errand. Some lawyers will make their fee contingent on winning the suit, but it is unlikely most would even take a case for $50 or even $100.
The big companies understand all this. They also know that if someone DOES try to get back the overcharges, the company can use their expert lawyers to fight the case in arbitration.
So, although individuals acting alone do have legal recourse, it is weighted heavily against them.
Class action suits level the playing field somewhat and also make it less likely that companies will purposely overcharge customers as part of their business plan (eg, as Bank of America was doing by subtracting checks in the order of largest to smallest rather than the date deposited to maximize overdraft fees)
Incidentally, most cell phone contracts already include a clause whereby the customer agrees to arbitration in order to settle overcharge disputes.
I know because I looked into this after a friend of mine was offered all sorts of incentives to switch to AT&T. After she signed the contract, AT&T would not honor any of them. AT&T actually claimed that they did not have a recording of any of the conversations my friend had had with AT&T customer reps in which the promises had been made. And she had not recorded them herself.
If you search online, you will find all sorts of complaints of this type, many of them lodged against AT&T, which I discovered is actually one of the worst companies in this regard. Avoid them like the plague!
LikeLike
Like the spoiled adult children they are, the leaders of the New Feudal Order will keep pushing and pushing until the toy breaks. Every day, a new outrage.
LikeLike
Flake is running for something …
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon …
And then you can run for your life …
LikeLike
Jon,
Trump has completely taken over the GOP.
What party would Flake run in?
Have you read about Kelli Ward, his likely replacement?
She is a true Trumpista.
LikeLike
Diane,
Running in a party is not the same thing as running in a pack. Well, it didn’t used to be. But right now Flake and Corker and all the other fake consciencestas are voting in a solid block for the Exxon KKKoch-Roach Wall $$$treet agenda. And they are perfectly happy to keep doing that.
What really disturbs the Old Guard GOP is only this —
The Picture of Dorian J. Trump that represents the true soul of the Republican Party is finally coming out of the locked room where they’ve kept it all these years. DJT has too many tells and he is tipping their once invisible hand.
LikeLike
“The Picture of Dorian J. Trump “..I LOVE your thinking. Too bad we can’t put him up in the attic.
LikeLike
“But banking lobbyists argued that the rule would unleash a flood of class-action lawsuits, and that the cost of fighting those suits would be passed on to consumers.”
This translates to “Don’t you dare to control big corporations and banks because they take terrible revenge.”
LikeLike
This is a frightening article. People support Trump because, “It was his ideas.” Are people really that stupid? His ideas fluctuate daily. The ones he has stood up for are racism and alienation of international allies. What is this country?
I’m now sick of the word, “Great”. Trump is ruining our vocabulary.
………………………………………………………..
As G.O.P. Bends Toward Trump, Critics Either Give In or Give Up
…On Wednesday, Mr. Trump painted a rosy picture of the party.
“We have, actually, great unity in the Republican Party,” he told reporters before leaving for a fund-raiser in Texas…
For now, though, the vision for a more populist-nationalist party sketched out by Mr. Bannon is being won as much through intimidation as through actual purges in Republican primaries.
What Mr. Bannon is trying to do — and what Mr. Flake’s retirement could further — is strike fear in the hearts of Republicans who do not display enough enthusiasm for the nationalism that Mr. Trump ran on….
Establishment Republicans are attempting to convince Mr. Trump that “if you join with Bannon, you cut your own throat,” Mr. Graham said, because it could lead to an impeachment effort by a Democratic-controlled Congress.
But these arguments cause the early Trump enthusiasts only to roll their eyes. The party establishment, these Trump backers say, wants to govern as if the election never happened.
“They still think the election was about Trump’s personality,” Ms. Ingraham said. “It wasn’t. It was his ideas.”
Source: http://us.pressfrom.com/news/politics/-94662-as-g-o-p-bends-toward-trump-critics-either-give-in-or-give-up/
LikeLike
I like people in the spotlight who speak out. I especially liked the wording, ““The Electoral College has sort of vomited this thing up…This man is a danger to the world.”
………….
Reagan’s Son: Donald Trump Is A ‘Danger To The World’ And Must Be Removed
Ron Reagan is calling for impeachment or the 25th Amendment.
By Ed Mazza
The son of former President Ronald Reagan is calling on lawmakers to remove President Donald Trump from office either via impeachment or by taking action under the 25th Amendment.
“Donald Trump is a deeply damaged human being. He is a sociopathic, malignant narcissist,” Ron Reagan told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Wednesday.
Reagan ― a liberal commentator for the cable network and a frequent critic of the president ― blamed the electoral system rather than the voters for Trump taking office.
“The Electoral College has sort of vomited this thing up and it landed in the Oval Office, and it needs to be removed. It’s a stain. It’s a big glob on the carpet there. It needs to be removed. And that means impeachment or the 25th Amendment,” Reagan said. “This man is a danger to the world.”
The 25th Amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” which would set off a sequence of events that could result in removal.
LikeLike
Last time I try to post this reply to NYCPP (which keeps disappearing)..
First, by writing this, I am proving myself again to be a complete idiot who cannot learn from past mistakes. I will note that when I wrote that I don’t have much of a “personal opinion” of Eva Moskowitz, I was trying to convey that I do not have much of an opinion about her personal character. I realize that a lot of people here, especially NYCPP, do have intense opinions about Moskowitz’s personal character. But I don’t. I don’t know her, and the only time I’ve met her, she was very pleasant and charming, and the whole experience was unnotable.
I also went on to state my views of Success Academy, which included my personal distaste for the Success model, and my policy view that Success and the rest of the charter industry must be reined in, because they have an appetite for growth that I fear can only be sated by the destruction of the public school system as we know it. I confess I also stated that I was reluctant to criticize the choices of parents who use and like the Success schools, particularly if those parents have fewer education options than I do.
Now, as I stand before the truth commission, I admit all these statements.
But the point is this. One could certainly disagree with some of the above, although I would think that there is plenty of common ground on the policy view I articulated. But with you, NYCPP — and I’ve experienced it a thousand times myself and I’ve seen it play out over and over with others — it’s all or nothing. It’s relentless attack, attack, attack, with the attacks usually focused on the character of the speaker, as in “FLERP! is a liar,” or a hypocrite, or a closet racist, or whatever. There’s never a detente. You never crack a joke at your own expense, or make any of the common social gestures that people use to ease tension. Could you please ease up a bit?
LikeLike
If pointing out that a comment sounds disingenuous can be characterized as “attack, attack, attack” then I am guilty as charged.
“personal distaste” = reformer speak for “I don’t like the charter myself but I won’t acknowledge that there is anything ethically wrong with the charter’s practices and as long as other parents like it, that is their choice.” Acknowledging that some parents may have a “personal distaste” for a charter’s practices implies that there is no need for real oversight or investigation into the many complaints of parents who have tried it and found it “distasteful”. No investigation or oversight is necessary just because some parents find your charter “personally distasteful” since those parents can choose to leave.
“reign in” – vague expression that allows speaker to acknowledge what is more than obvious to the audience without committing to anything that would actually reign in charters.
Example: “Charter schools must be reigned in but I don’t support the NAACP’s moratorium on charters because I don’t believe a moratorium is the proper way to reign in the charters because charter schools should be able to proliferate as we discuss possible ways to reign them in.”
“I’m reluctant to criticize the parents with few options that send their children to charters” = reformer speak for “I refuse to criticize the CEOs of those charter schools but I don’t like anyone pointing that out, so instead I will pretend that I am being attacked for not saying anything bad about the parents who send their kids there.” No one is questioning the writer’s reluctance to criticize the parents – they are questioning the writer’s reluctance to criticize dishonest charter school CEOs. But nice distraction.
flerp!, you could make me look like a fool by replying with some real criticism of the actual practices that Success Academy uses on students that have been the subject of lawsuits, complaints, and news reports. You could make me look like a fool by acknowledging that Eva Moskowitz is quite often less than truthful in many things she says. You could make me look like a fool by acknowledging Success Academy has an outrageously high suspension rate for 5 year olds and it is not credible that all those 5 year olds are acting out “violently” because of their nature while the teachers and school practices are blameless. You could make me look like a fool by criticizing the SUNY Charter Institute for its refusal to investigate those high suspension rates despite numerous complaints by parents of at-risk children. You could make me look like a fool by agreeing that if the highest performing charter network in the state has a much higher attrition rate than almost every other (lower performing) charter network, it should not be allowed to expand at all until someone investigates why so many more parents are leaving.
You could make me look like a fool by acknowledging that Eva Moskowitz is being less than honest when she insists that the students her schools teach are no different than the students in those high poverty public schools and her schools welcome all students and never try to counsel out struggling or difficult students.
Or you could continue to complain that I attack you because you disagree with everything I wrote above but you don’t want to admit to it and show your true colors.
LikeLike
NYCPP, can we have a cease fire on this? I’ve tried to explain my views about Success Academy. You don’t think my criticisms of Success Academy are harsh enough. You’ve made that very clear. At this point we’re just overloading the comment threads with a back-and-forth that feels a lot more personal than substantive.
LikeLike
Thanks for not making me look like a fool! I was worried there for a minute that you were going to call my bluff! (But in truth, I would have been happy to look like a fool if it meant you acknowledged that saying a charter’s practices are “personally distasteful” begs the question of whether the charter’s practices need more oversight and investigation.)
I actually thought there was a 50/50 chance you would state for the record that you agreed with one of the specific criticisms that I listed above.
Let the record state the flerp! finds Success Academy’s practices “personally distasteful” but to offer any further criticism or acknowledge the need for serious oversight and investigation of parent complaints would be more “harsh” than flerp! wants to go.
Truce.
LikeLike
Usually when someone calls a truce, they just say “truce.” But I suppose this is the best I’m going to do.
LikeLike
Got it. Next time I’ll use the term “cease fire” so I can write a longer reply as you did.
Cease fire.
LikeLike
I find it hard to understand why Republicans support Trump. He is slowly tearing this country apart and giving it to the wealthy who have bought out too many in Congress.
…………………….
TheHill.com: Poll: Trump job approval dips to new low in Harvard-Harris poll
…Trump maintains a tight grip on his base, with 80 percent of Republicans saying they approve of the job he’s doing.
And the president is more popular than the GOP leaders in Congress or the Republican Party writ large.
Trump is viewed favorably by 41 percent of voters and unfavorably by 56 percent….
The Harvard-Harris Poll online survey of 2,159 registered voters was conducted between Oct. 14 and Oct. 18. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 28 percent independent and 4 percent other.
.http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356743-poll-trump-job-approval-dips-to-new-low
LikeLike