Karen Wolfe reports that leading figures in the charter industry were booed when their names or faces appeared at a meeting of the state Democratic Party Conference. But the top candidate for governor, Gavin Newsom, is taking Charter Industry money and has the endorsement of the California Teachers Association. The California Charter School Association, which fights accountability, is probably the richest lobby in the state.
Will the Democratic Party fight privatization or sell itself to Eli Broad and the Silicon Valley Billionaires?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I believe that the number 2 candidate, villaraigosa, has targeted teacher unions specifically and aligned with the worst “parent trigger” groups. Only John Chiang has a clean record.
LikeLike
When you see Villaraigosa, think Cory Booker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, that the larger society understood your statement.
LikeLike
Make the fight. The biggest enemy is the majority of the news industry which does not recognize the fact that this is an issue worth pinning down candidates on. Not just in California…..and failure to promote full discussion is going to reward republicans, even as so called “moderate democrats ” will caution their party to just slide by, and do not do things that divide the party…..which usually means do not do things to promote fuller and more enthusiastic participation of………lowly voters with families.
LikeLike
Need to talk to parents in Virginia to see how they made public education an issue during the primary for Virginia governor. In the Democratic primary, Northam beat a candidate who was somewhat like Gavin Newsom because he was good on some issues but was also a favorite of the big money from pro-charter folks. Democrats in Virginia voted FOR public education — both in the primary and the general election. If the pro-charter Democrat had won the primary, he very likely could have lost to the right wing Virginia Republican running against him. Instead the right winger was strongly defeated by the pro-public school democrat.
Voters in California should make public education an issue in the PRIMARY. Force Newsom to make a stand.
LikeLike
Good point, NYC public school parent! This could help avoid buyer’s remorse later, as we did with Obama.
LikeLike
Yes. The fact that Northam is pro-public education & Periello is in the pocket of DFER was rarely mentioned as a factor for Periello’s defeat in the Dem primary.
When will Democrats learn to stop dismissing & fracturing their base?
LikeLike
Democrats booing an image of Eli Broad: music to the ears. That hideous monster needs to be expelled from California. He is public enemy #1. Sing with me, booooo! Beautiful, thank you.
As for Newsom, any Democratic candidate who thinks he doesn’t have to take a stand against the Koch-Broad agenda, that privatization forces and public schools can coexist, and that he can take money from the CCSA and still call himself a Democrat is extremely dangerous. We’ve seen it before. Don’t be fooled again.
LikeLike
You don’t have to lie on your back to become a whore.
LikeLike
“You don’t have to lie on your back to become a whore.”
I do like that line, flos56. Very colorful. 🙂
LikeLike
I doubt the Democrats will take a stand over charters as long as unlimited amounts of cash can be spent on campaigns. Their usual approach is to refuse to discuss the issue like Newsom, or try to talk around the issue like Clinton. Clinton was actually chided during the campaign for saying that some charters are not getting the types of results they promise. The Democrats are equally divided in New York where the image of Paul Tudor Jones would elicit “boos” from a Democratic audience. On both coasts the Democratic plutocrats are eager to destroy public education. They have no use for public education, and they never use it so they would love to turn into a cash cow for silicon valley and hedge funds. Most plutocrats also have no use for democracy as it gets in the way of their exploitative practice.
LikeLike
retired teacher,
Well said.
LikeLike
How come that didn’t happen in Virginia when the “mainstream” Democrat in the primary for Governor was the one standing up for public education and the progressive, Bernie Sander’s candidate in the primary was the one who had been named “education reformer of the month” and was getting lots of ed reformer donations?
If your theory that Democrats will always be pro-charter, then why didn’t that happen in Virginia?
Maybe instead of giving up on Democrats we start fighting for the ones who actually SUPPORT public education instead of labeling them all Democrats as sell-outs and believing that as long as a candidate claims the mantle of a “progressive” that means they will be pro-public education. It’s not true.
LikeLike
^^and if you watch the link that InService posted, you’ll see that Newsom was the only candidate willing to mention the dreaded “public schools” by name.
LikeLike
“Newsom or nuisance?”
Newsom or a nuisance?
A charter man for hire
His public school insouciance
Ain’t likely to inspire
LikeLike
Sell off!
LikeLike
To answer the article’s questions:
They are DEMOCRATS and therefore, NO!
LikeLike
“No ifs, ands or guts”
If Democrats have guts
They surely haven’t shown it
No ifs or ands or buts
On principle, they’ve blown it
LikeLike
They suck.
We’re out of luck.
Pelosi spends more
on her nip and tuck
than getting us
out of this muck . . . .
LikeLike
“Pelosi spends more time on her nip and tuck than getting us out of this muck….”
What a sexist and nasty thing to say. There is a strong and very nasty undercurrent of older woman hating nastiness coming from the left.
I disagree with some of Pelosi’s positions. I disagree with some of Diane Feinstein’s. But Pelosi has done many good things in her long career and your offensive sexism that belittles a woman who has actually accomplished quite a bit is typical of why so many people are turned off of your politics.
The fact that you can’t just recognize that an older woman politician might have a difference of opinion than you is not allowed in certain male-dominated progressive groups. You must smear and slime and belittle those older women as if they have spent their lives doing nothing good.
Nasty.
LikeLike
There’s no nastiness here at all.
If Pelosi were a man and had procedure, he’s have received the same exact comment. Micky Rourke looks ridiculous, and I know because iIm in the film industry.
Unless you are disfigured from disease or an accident or an attack, cosmetic surgery is a sad and poor excuse for living you life well. It means that you have given in to conforming what other people expect you to be, and that reflects a weakness on those critiquing your looks as well as you who holds the looks.
It also means that you don’t respect aging the wisdom of those older.
LikeLike
And BTW, Pelosi is a plutocrat and establishment Democract. She, who lives in an 18 million dollar home, does not believe in true redistribution of wealth.
Don’t digress.
LikeLike
But I won’t waste time on this lack of agreement with NYCSP because there are bigger herring to pickle in this battle for public education.
LikeLike
“because there are bigger herring to pickle in this battle for public education”
Really? I thought you wanted to turn this discussion of public education in the Governor’s race in California into a way to belittle older women Democrats for their plastic surgery.
Maybe if you had been on here bashing DFER’s “politician of the month” and recipient of pro-charter money Tom Perriello when he was running in the Virginia primary for Governor against the pro-public education Democrat, I’d believe you only mentioned Nancy Pelosi’s “nip and tuck” because you cared so much about public education.
Do you really care about public education or do you just like coming to this blog to bash Democrats. I don’t recall you bashing Perriello who was actually RUNNING for Governor and pro-charter and yet you change the subject here to bash Pelosi and her plastic surgery. Why?
Did you bother to watch the link to the Governor’s debate to see what the candidates were saying? Did you read anything? Or do you just decide that if they are mainstream Dems they must be bashed and if they are running against a pro-public school mainstream Dem, their endorsement by DFER must be ignored because any Dem bashing a mainstream Democrat is a friend of yours., even if he doesn’t support public education.
Just don’t be a hypocrite.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
You’re inferring a lot and it’s simply is not accurate. It’s okay to be angery, but direct it to the real enemy, and not the ersatz one here.
I am not a friend of any Democrat who is against public education, single payer healthcare, fair taxation, redistribution of wealth, woman’s right to choose, public funding for higher education, expansion of the SS tax, etc. Destruction of public education has been a bipartisan effort. You know that as well as mw.
The list is very long, and I won’t waste time responding to your anger. Certainly, I honor your feelings and struggle, but not your assessment of my mindset and motives.
Mainstream Democrats are better than the GOP, and Progressive, “Indivisible” people and Sandernistas are generally superior to the Democrats.
I have bashed DFERS if you keep up with my posts. I have based both parties for different reasons. I have supported Sanders, who with all his flaws, has balls, guts, and a mostly right agenda.
I come on this blog to bash both parties, and in a sense, the Democrats have lost very willful sight of fiscal justice for every imaginable category of people in this country save mostly for the very wealthy and the more than upper middle classes. For the party that supposed to represents the less rich and privileged classes, many many of them are traitors in their lackadaisical, indifferent, and lukewarm governance.
Yes, the GOP are OWNED by the plutocrats, but the Democrats are too willing to rent themselves out to the plutocrats. Rent or own, a corruption is a corruption.
You have quite a bit of heavy lifting to do, and I know you will succeed in doing it. I can sense you’re in the throes of it, and more power to you.
There is a reason why Norwegians en masse will generally never immigrate to the United States, and I don’t say that with any snottiness.
LikeLike
“the Democrats are too willing to rent themselves out to the plutocrats..”
Can you stop with smearing an entire party already? Some of the Democrats are willing to rent themselves out to the plutocrats and one of those Democrats who rented himself out to plutocrats on education happened to be the one that Bernie Sanders endorsed OVER the Democrat who didn’t rent himself out to the plutocrats on education.
Some Democrats may rent themselves out and some just have a difference of opinion on that issue that isn’t because they have sold their vote.
I generally trust Democrats who do their homework even when it means not coming up with easy slogans over those that mouth lots of nice sounded progressive platitudes without bothering to consider all that comes with it.
Just like Norway’s progressive policies are underwritten by oil production.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/10/norways-push-for-arctic-oil-and-gas-threatens-paris-climate-goals-study
“Norway’s plan to ramp up oil and gas production in the Arctic threatens global efforts to tackle climate change, according to a new study.
The research says 12 gigatonnes of carbon could be added by exploration sites in the Barents Sea and elsewhere over the next 50 years, which is 1.5 times more than the Norwegian fields currently being tapped or under construction.
The authors of the report from Oil Change International – an NGO backed by Friends of the Earth, WWF and Greenpeace – say this undermines the 2015 Paris agreement to cut worldwide emissions in order to keep the planet’s temperature rise to between 1.5C and 2C.
The report highlights the “cognitive dissonance” between Norway’s progressive domestic measures to comply with the Paris agreement on emissions cuts and its role as Europe’s biggest exporter of fossil fuels.”
I’m not bashing Norway as I think the country is a wonderful progressive model. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t tradeoffs. It doesn’t mean that you should vote out every single politician in Norway who isn’t strongly and loudly insisting that all oil and gas production be halted. After all, aren’t they corrupt if they don’t? Isn’t it because they are owned by the big money?
I don’t really think the self-described “progressives” who look the other way as Norway helps promote more use of fossil fuels are corrupt. Not every political decision I disagree with is because the person making it is corrupt. Most good politicians try to balance the trade offs. And if Norway halted their gas and oil production, there would obviously be many repercussions
“Norway exports 10 times more carbon than it emits, which makes this relatively small country the seventh biggest source of the climate pollutant.
“This is the first time we have seen how Norway’s exports affect other countries,” says Silje Lundberg of Friends of the Earth Norway.”
Are you trying to vote out every single Norwegian politician – no matter how progressive he is on other issues — who isn’t loudly condemning Norwegian oil and gas production and demanding it be halted immediately? Or is it easier for you to see that the issues are little more complicated than “let’s demand Norway halt all oil production” when it is Norway and not America?
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Never have I said that Norway is without serious issues and problems, hypocrisies , and contradictions. Never. Where have you been?
But in terms of quality of life and appropriate distribution of wealth and public services, I really won’t bother to compare your country with mine. One can’t compare them.
I don’t bash every Democrat, but I fault most of them for ignoring the economic needs of Americans. I have said rather repeatedly two things throughout: There are a handful of good people on BOTH sides of the two party system, AND most of the people in either party no longer really represent the average American.
Are the Democrats the lesser of two evils? You BET they are.
I just happen to think that Americans deserve far better than “the lesser of two evils”. . . .
You should afford yourself that same dignity because you merit it.
Most of us in Norway believe that energy production absolutely should not be halted, but it should be regulated and monitored, given limitations and ceilings far lower than what many in the Parliament want. We also feature more green energy implementation proportionately to our infrastructure than does the United States, and we are a far less wealthy country than the USA because we are smaller. Still, we have a strong middle class, and while no progressive country such as ours or similar to ours is perfect, we would rather at least give equity to our citizens then screw them.
Countries as leftist as ours are now in a movement from the ruling elite to “golbalize” and swing the pendulum to the right, as is happening in France and Germany. But the amount of movement and the directions are all relative. A little bit of swinging in Norway feels like a lot while quite a bit of swinging here may feel like almost never enough, given how unequal the society has become.
Everything is relative. And before you wish to critique Norway, might I suggest you vote there, pay taxes there, live there, and work there. It would give you far more relativity with which to gauge your thinking, which I find to be actually adept and critical.
LikeLike
Norwegian Filmmaker,
I don’t need you to defend Norway to me. I ADMIRE much of Norway’s politics.
But you have a double standard. You give Norway’s so-called “progressive” politicians a pass as they benefit from spreading the use of fossil fuels worldwide and being far more complicit in climate change than their size warrants, but you smear and attack American politicians like Nancy Pelosi in a sexist manner. I am asking you to stop it.
Pelosi isn’t perfect but neither are Norway’s progressives. You can criticize Norway’s progressives without insisting they should all be voted out for selling out the environment and slowly helping to destroy the world because their power depends on them keeping those fossil fuels going. But you act as if Nancy Pelosi is in politics to support her face lifts. Or to simply get richer, as if that is all she has done for the past decades.
You are a hypocrite and that’s what I don’t like. You are very forgiving of Norway’s sell out politicians while you say all kinds of nasty things about the entire Democratic Party in America.
And in terms of welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free, I think American history has proven to be much better than Norway’s. I suggest you look at Norway’s recent vote for the anti-immigrant and pro-fossil fuel parties and start working on your own country before attacking the US Democratic Party which is not the monolith of evil you keep trying to make it.
And ask yourself why Norway rejected the Green Party the last election and support the anti-immigration party. I guess being progressive is fine as long as you don’t have too many immigrants to care for? And can still subsidize your progressivism by selling out the environment and exporting fossil fuels?
It was people like you who bashed the Democrats as evil and awful with no redeeming qualities who brought us Trump. And until I hear you bashing every progressive Norwegian politician as just as evil and awful with no redeeming qualities because they aren’t 100% perfect on every issue but sold out the environment, then you are a hypocrite.
You can see the nuance in a Norwegian politician like Jonas Gahr Støre and you don’t smear the entire Labour party in Norway as corrupt and evil and selling out every progressive idea. I suspect if you heard propaganda repeated by the right wing white racist Norwegians about how evil an corrupt Jonas Gahr Store was and you heard the members of Green Party repeating that exact same propaganda, you’d be appalled. or maybe you’d join in because you believe Norway’s Labor Party is just as corrupt and awful and money-hungry and terrible as you keep insisting American Democrats are. There is absolutely nothing good about Jonas Gahr Støre and he is in politics for the sole reason of selling out every progressive idea and protecting rich people. is that what you believe?
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I have never shied away from ripping into the federal government in Norway, which like very other progressive civilized country, has extreme right wingers and capitalists. I have worked on documentaries that criticize aspects of the Norwegian government in the past.
But this blog is about improving American education, not the mechanisms and nuances of Norwegian politics , although I am happy to talk about that any time and have, but not here have I. There is a right time and place to do so, and I believe that when one gets so off track from the themes, tone, and tenor of a blog such as this, it becomes known as “trolling”, intentional or not.
I try and remain relevant on this blog, and a huge part of protecting public education in the USA (in which a very close relative of mine teaches, having immigrated here 30 years ago and having married an American) is reforming the rusty, old, and arthritic, (no I am no referencing old people here or women or any gender) corrupt Democratic party to at least counterbalance or balance out what writer Naomi Klein refers to as “disaster capitalism interests”.
There are right wingers in France, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Cuba, Italy, Spain, Germany, the list is endless, and most of those countries are very civilized sensible places. Norway, unlike the USA, has multiple parties at play relative to the USA.
You can choose to focus on the bigger herring to pickle or to become fixated on my valid critiques of the Democratic Party. Your Randi Weingarten is no better, BTW. She’s a joke of a union leader, and she’s deceitful over the years.
You can choose to display your frustration over what is happening in your country and scapegoat me, or you can band together with so many of us and me in fighting the evils of corporate education reform. As Dr. Ravitch has indicated far too often (as she’s had to), internecine strife works against the cause.
Please join the cause. I know that you’d be great at it, and there’s no sarcasm there . . .
LikeLike
I think the problem, Norwegian Filmmaker, is the feeling some on this blog may have that we are being lambasted by the superior wisdom of someone from an obviously superior country. (snark alert) If you want to be taken seriously, then providing a context with the issues/struggles in your own country maybe would be of help. Let us know you struggle with some of the same problems and what Norway has done to combat them. Even though Norway is a small, relatively homogeneous society compared to the U.S., your worldview is valuable and useful to us. You have adopted a pattern of speech that may be perceived as offensive even more so because you are an outsider looking in. In other words, you are taking liberties that not everyone feels are yours to take. It’s a little like someone outside the family circle disciplining a child that is not their own as if s/he was. Americans from the U.S. can be quick to judge their own country in rather graphic terms, but a foreigner doing the same does not have the same skin in the game. Criticize the U.S. all you want to other foreigners (Lord knows, we need it and will probably pay attention), but be careful how you express your opinion to an American audience directly. Does that make sense? Your voice is important. You could probably broaden the audience that will listen to you if you tone it down a bit. I might be way off base, and if you are a citizen forget everything I just said.
LikeLike
Although I am a liberal democrat, I do have a problem with some of my party’s choices (such as in education) and while I use my own judgement in critiquing their actions, it’s not face lifts which bother me. There is so much focus on irrelevant behaviors that we are losing sight of the true dangers, such as lifting regulations which effect the environment, or appointing unqualified individuals to run agencies (such as Betsy Devos) who will destroy rather than improve their departments. Of course, the people in control are republicans and the reason they support Trump (in spite of his outbursts) is because he is moving their agenda forward. Not the democrats, the republicans! I see Pelosi and Schumer as obstacles that are doing their best to stop or at least slow the process which is basically tearing apart all the social programs put in place over the last fifty years.
A face lift is the least of our worries.
LikeLike
“As Dr. Ravitch has indicated far too often (as she’s had to), internecine strife works against the cause.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You fight against RIGHT WING politicians in Norway — I noticed you didn’t attack Jonas Gahr Støre for not being perfect and for his many millions the way you did Nancy Pelosi. In America, you try hard to split the Democratic Party by making outrageously stereotypical anti-older woman insults that should not be condoned.
If you don’t want internecine strife, you wouldn’t focus on Nancy Pelosi’s face lifts and gratuitously attack her and then say “but how dare you call me out on my nasty behavior, I’m an entitled man who is allowed to throw out insults at any older woman I please and if you call me out on my nastiness you are just “dividing the country”.
Sorry, but I’m not going to let you get away with it. Look in the mirror because it sure seems to me that “internecine strife” is what you are all about.
Why not join me and Diane Ravitch in recognizing that there are many Democrats fighting the good fight for public education and your nasty attempt to convince the world how evil and awful the Democrats are is not helping matters.
There is legitimate criticism — like pointing out that the Norwegian “progressives” are very friendly to fossil fuel production — and there is dishonest lies, like saying those Norwegian progressives are dishonest corrupt politicians who need to be voted out of office — even if it means more right wingers take over.
Join me in making constructive criticism ONLY of the politicians who deserve it and quit bashing the entire party. And by constructive criticisms, I mean not attacking politicians for their facelifts but pointing out a specific liberal policy that she has opposed that you disagree with. Just like the Norway progressives deserve criticism for their embrace of fossil fuel production instead of their embrace of ending it.
Join me in trying to build up the progressive movement instead of offering more nasty lies about Democrats all being corrupt.
Or stop being a hypocrite and talk about how Jonas Gahr Støre uses his family fortune while he condones the destruction of our environment and explain how he is barely better than the right wing racist Norwegian parties and you condemn all Norway voters who voted for such an evil and corrupt person as Jonas Gahr Støre.
I suspect you find the above comment as disgusting as I find your nasty comments about Pelosi but I’m just demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.
LikeLike
“You fight against RIGHT WING politicians in Norway — I noticed you didn’t attack Jonas Gahr Støre for not being perfect and for his many millions the way you did Nancy Pelosi.”
I did not attack anyone in Norway on this blog per se because I had not been talking about Norway’s parliament; I have always been having dialogues about American public education here on this blog.
“If you don’t want internecine strife, you wouldn’t focus on Nancy Pelosi’s face lifts and gratuitously attack her and then say “but how dare you call me out on my nasty behavior, I’m an entitled man who is allowed to throw out insults at any older woman I please and if you call me out on my nastiness you are just ‘dividing the country’ “.
I did not at all say or even imply “How dare you . . . “. Even with English as my first language, I know enough about tone and register to know that my responses were not extremist or aggressive. They were observational. And I never one even remotely though that you exhibit “nasty behavior”.
“Sorry, but I’m not going to let you get away with it. Look in the mirror because it sure seems to me that “internecine strife” is what you are all about.”
You are conflating generating internecine strife with critiquing a major American political party that makes up about 50% of the duo-opoly. BTW, there are tons of Americans who agree with me; just ask the youth movement (and not no young folks) who supported and catapulted Bernie Sanders in his bid in the primaries .
“Why not join me and Diane Ravitch in recognizing that there are many Democrats fighting the good fight for public education and your nasty attempt to convince the world how evil and awful the Democrats are is not helping matters.”
I don’t have to join this cause; I’m already in it and have been so for about 3 years.
“There is legitimate criticism — like pointing out that the Norwegian “progressives” are very friendly to fossil fuel production — and there is dishonest lies, like saying those Norwegian progressives are dishonest corrupt politicians who need to be voted out of office — even if it means more right wingers take over.”
I am not comparing hypocrisies within either systems to each other; I am observing what I see here. In the past, I have been very vocal about Norway’s right wing caucus and organizations off of this blog. I have only condemned them, but doing a compare-and-contrast is not my focus on this blog. I normally don’t delve into a post with “But in Norway, we do it this way . . . . “. Rather, I simple have talked about the American culture based on my experiences here and a close blood relative of mine who has taught in Minnesota for almost three decades in a public school system and had witnesses all the macro and micro systems that have eroded the dignity of teaching and learning, not to mention the democracy.
“Join me in making constructive criticism ONLY of the politicians who deserve it and quit bashing the entire party. And by constructive criticisms, I mean not attacking politicians for their facelifts but pointing out a specific liberal policy that she has opposed that you disagree with. Just like the Norway progressives deserve criticism for their embrace of fossil fuel production instead of their embrace of ending it.”
In Europe, satire is an acceptable way to make fun of people who have messed up, thrown people under the bus, and talked out of too many sides of mouth at different times to different people. I am not alone in my disproval for both Pelosi and Schumer. Have you read anything from writers Paul Street, Cornell West, and Noami Klein?
“Join me in trying to build up the progressive movement instead of offering more nasty lies about Democrats all being corrupt.”
I don’t lie, but I am not tolerant of Democrats allowing themselves to be far too influenced by Wall Street.
“I suspect you find the above comment as disgusting as I find your nasty comments about Pelosi but I’m just demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.”
NYCPCP, I do NOT find any of your comments to be disgusting or inappropriate. I do see you as passionate about this cause and am grateful to have you on my side. I also sense frustration in what you are facing, but hopefully not in how you are handling it. The United States and its people are among the most noble, caring, and compassionate on earth.
I despise the GOP, and you won’t change my mind about most of the Democrats. But I still strongly beleive that the USA is perfectly capable of evolving and transforming itself into a far more peaceful verdant, and just society. It’s ever more critical with Trump and his comrades in power.
LikeLike
Sorry! Meant to write, “Even with English NOT as my first language . . . . “
LikeLike
Norwegian filmmaker,
Do you believe that the way to improve things in Norway is to bash Jonas Gahr Støre as corrupt and only interested in increasing his already huge bank account? Do you believe the way to improve things in Norway is to spend all your time talking about how corrupt and awful Norway’s Labor Party is and how every politician in it is corrupt and terrible?
I assume you would not find that productive. So the question is why do you treat American Democrats in a way that you would never treat Jonas Gahr Støre? Because you believe Støre’s selling out the environment for lots of money is less corrupt than Pelosi?
You have no idea what “young people” believe in this country. I know many “young people” who supported Sanders with all their heart and STILL understood that people like you were truly awful hypocrites in your bashing of the entire Democratic Party. I know many “young people” who would find your attempt to belittle a politician who has done many good things for this country by referring to her “nip and tuck” as sexist and worthy of a right wing Republican.
You seem to believe that bashing the Democratic Party as evil and corrupt and working hard to convince Americans about how corrupt and evil all Democrats are is somehow “productive”. And yet in Norway you reserve your criticism for the right wing and not the corrupt and awful Jonas Gahr Støre who — by YOUR standards — is as corrupt as Pelosi.
That’s what you don’t understand. You haven’t acknowledged Norway’s corrupt and awful Jonas Gahr Støre — I’m still waiting for you to agree with me about how he is as bad as Nancy Pelosi and how the entire Labor party in Norway is corrupt and needs to go. The fact that you have yet to acknowledg that tells me that you are a hypocrite who condones the corrupt Norway Labor Party. You keep changing the subject and saying that you criticize Norway’s right wing but that isn’t what I asked you. I asked you why you don’t criticize Norway’s corrupt Labor Party and Jonas Gahr Støre and you changed the subject to how you criticize Norway’s RIGHT WING politicians.
So criticize America’s right wing politicians, too. Or give the Democrats the same benefit of the doubt you give Jonas Gahr Støre despite all his actions that are as corrupt as Pelosi’s that you ignore because they happen to benefit you.
LikeLike
speduktr,
I can only speak for myself but what bothers me about Norwegian Filmmaker is his wholesale bashing of the Democratic Party as corrupt, and his criticism of Pelosi as being more concerned about her “nip and tuck” than anything else.
I don’t have a problem with specific criticism of a Democrat’s position on an issue. Sometimes that Democrat takes that position for reasons other than corruption. Just like Norwegian Filmmaker understands that Norway’s leaders of the Labor Party sometimes take positions that are pro-fossil fuel for reasons other than wanting to destroy the environment or because some rich guy is paying them off to take that position. Norwegian Filmmakers can understand that taking a more conservative stance on an issue is not corruption when it is a Labor Party Norwegian politician. But he never gives the same benefit of the doubt and prefers to bash the entire Democratic Party as corrupt.
And we all saw how Norwegian Filmmaker’s views brought us Trump because every poll of voters showed that they believed that it was the Democrats who were the lying untrustworthy folks.
No doubt Norwegian Filmmaker will say that’s the fault of the Dems himself and not people like him who merely repeated the right wing propaganda to smear the Democrats whenever he could. And yet when it comes to Norway, Norwegian Filmmaker has yet to acknowledge how corrupt and terrible Norway’s own Labor Party is as they fight to destroy the global environment. He gives his own country’s Labor Party a pass because he understands there are trade-offs that politicians have to make and he doesn’t want the right wing to take over his country because Norway’s voters believe that the MOST corrupt politician in Norway is Store.
He only criticizes right wing politicians in Norway but gives the Labor Party who sells out the environment a pass — they get the kind of understanding that I’m asking him to give Pelosi but he demands that Pelosi and the American dems must be bashed as corrupt.
LikeLike
I have to agree in a sense. NF infuriates me! He can be SO snotty, or at least it’s how I perceive his tone.
But most of my fury lies int he fact that he’s right about the Democrats, (having only voted Democrat my whole life and still do), and that it is hard to look at thyself, so to speak. It’s goog to have a Northern European’s POV.
Still, I am far more interested about achieving justice here on my own soil than in calling out hypocrites in the stupid Norwegian Parliament. Just not interested . . . . I should be interested, but given what’s going on here, I’m not.
When it comes to saving public education and other public commons, I admit in having a one track mind. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but can I really start comparing Norway to here? I’d rather use my precious energy and brainpower to fight the good fight here, period, end of story. But I certainly don’t dismiss anyone (American) else’s POV.
We are all in this together! I think we are.
LikeLike
“We are all in this together! I think we are.”
I don’t think we have any choice in the matter. No one is going to escape the consequences of our actions. One can choose to do nothing, I suppose, but that is an action with consequences as well.
LikeLike
Here’s video of this morning’s California gubernatorial debate. Education is the topic starting one hour, 14 minutes and ending at one hour 25 minutes.
http://beta.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-watch-california-candidates-for-1515861160-htmlstory.html
LikeLike
Wow, thank you for posting this. I’m not a California voter, but if I was, I’d be voting for Gavin Newsom based on this performance.
Villaraigosa was simply terrible and awful. Travis Allen (one of the Republican) looked like a more smug version of one of the Trump sons (and they are smug so imagine what frat boy Allen looked like). Cox sounds smarter than the frat boy Republican running against him and would likely lie as much as Trump did to win an election — I think EVERY California democrat running against Cox should point out how much Trump said exactly the same thing about his business experience being so great and force Cox to go on record about why he stands for exactly the same things Trump does.
Delaine Easton reminds me a bit of Bernie. She makes some good points but she also doesn’t specifically mention PUBLIC education and that would concern me because public schools need someone willing to come out and say “I support public schools” and not dance all around the topic. And John Chiang was even worse — his statement was full of platitudes that could be referring to any kind of schools, not just public schools. Imagine him being asked whether he supported vouchers so students could attend private schools — Chiang’s answers to the education question was so generic it could have been a plausible answer to that.
The ONLY candidate who stood up for public schools was Gavin Newsom. And he talked about them in a way that seemed as if he knew a bit more about them than some talking points. Maybe he is owned by the charter folks but there was absolutely no sign of it here and Chiang’s reply had nothing to do with PUBLIC education at all. (Was that intentional or is he just less experienced of a debater?)
I wouldn’t give Newsom an A but he certainly was not afraid to come out strongly for public schools and I didn’t hear that from any of the other candidates. I don’t know if that is why the teachers’ union endorsed him or if that is because the teachers’ union endorsed him. Which came first? But I would trust the guy who stood up strongly for public education and is willing to say so (which Obama never did) over the candidate who either seems ill-informed or won’t stand up for public schools strongly.
LikeLike
Villaraigosa is scum. The question is whether Newsom was including charters when he referred to public schools. Chiang performed very poorly throughout the debate, and is lagging in funding and endorsements, but he has the best record. There aren’t clearly correct answers on this multiple choice test.
LikeLike
What is Chiang’s record on public education? His answer was practically phoning it in — it didn’t seem like it was an issue he cared very much about. I thought maybe he was just nervous or inexperienced but if I had to judge him based on that answer in the debate, I would not be impressed.
Given what I had heard about Newsom, I expected him to be wishy washy trying to play both sides or at least give one of the generic answers that all the other Democrats did. So he surprised me. I was also disappointed because I hoped one of the other candidates like Chiang or Easton would be better.
Was Newsom really spouting the Broad-Koch line? I always think of that as talking about how we need to reward good teachers and recognize excellent teachers and that kind of nonsense. I didn’t hear any of that reformer language when he spoke and I was expecting to.
LikeLike
Chiang fought to regulate charters. Newsom, an enigma, has taken donations from the California Charter Schools Association and the California Teachers Association. Whether he was talking out of both sides of his mouth remains to be seen.
LikeLike
In the clip you posted, I only saw Newsom talking out of one side of his mouth about public education. It was the other candidates whose words were no different than the reformers with lots of platitudes about wanting good schools.
But has Newsom talked out of the other side of his mouth elsewhere? I understand that this single debate does not reflect his entire stance.
But why didn’t Chiang mention what he did? Are the California Dems afraid of looking anti-charter? One reason I liked Bill de Blasio is that he was one Dem who wasn’t afraid to call out what was wrong with charters. (It’s also the reason I became such a strong Hillary supporter in the general election after I realized she had made those very true statements of what is wrong with charters in South Carolina that I had not heard other Democrats or progressives making.)
Chiang should have made charter regulation an issue and called out the others – especially the smug Republicans – and force them to state why they oppose oversight (since the journalists are so lousy at these things). Even if Chiang goes down to defeat, he would run a worthwhile campaign if he made the huge amount of California taxpayer dollars going to unregulated charters an issue in the campaign. And if he calls out Newsom and forces him to defend the growth of charters, it will be a good thing for voters to see and perhaps turn away from if Newsom is really owned by Broad-Koch.
LikeLike