Archives for the month of: September, 2024
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Imagining Trump’s Immigrant Detention Camps

By dianeravitch
September 25, 2024 //
33

Trump says he will deport 11 million illegal immigrants. He says his deportation program will be unlike anything the nation has ever seen. He is right.

Trump says that Franklin D. Roosevelt deported over one million Mexican immigrants. Not literally true. His aide Stephen Miller must have told him that; Miller will probably be put in charge of the program if Trump wins the election. He hates immigrants.

Actually, the deportations were started in 1930 and reached a peak in 1931, before FDR was elected. Estimates for the numbers of those deported ranged from 300,000-2 million, about half of whom were American citizens. President Herbert Hoover approved the deportation program on the belief that Mexicans were taking jobs from white people. Most of the deportation was implemented by local and state governments.

What would it look like to deport 11 million people?

First, they would have to be rounded up in massive raids. Imagine the terror as federal agents arrived at the homes of immigrants and raided them, carrying away families–men, women and children.

Where to put 11 million people?

Then, the federal government would have to build thousands, tens of thousands of detention camps. Every state would have detention centers. This would be a massive undertaking, because the camps would need to be constructed and supplied with beds, food, personnel, doctors and nurses.

Trump has suggested that the deportees would each have a serial number. Would it be tattooed on their arms?

Inevitably, families would be torn apart, people would die, women would give birth in the camps.

The images sent around the world of detention camps for millions of people would humiliate our country as a cruel, heartless place.

Someone should drape a hood over the Statue of Liberty, so that she does not see what is happening as she lifts her lamp “beside the golden door.”

On the base of the Statue of Liberty, “The New Collosus,” by Emma Lazarus.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! 

No more. Stay home. We are full. No more room. Not at this inn.

Categories Cruelty, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Immigration, Trump

Rex Huppke: JD Vance Ate My Dog. Elon Musk Ate My Cat. Does Trump Care?

By dianeravitch
September 24, 2024 //
57

Rex Huppke is a columnist for USA Today. He wrote on Twitter about two important tech bros who are his pets. Then he quoted his own tweet as “evidence” that it was true.

He wrote in USA Today:

Given all the uproar over GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s baseless, utterly false and profoundly racist claims that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets in an Ohio town, I would like to make a public statement that is supported by an equal amount of evidence:

“Not long ago, billionaire Elon Musk ate my cat, Mr. Smushyface. Days later, Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, stole and then barbecued and ate my dog, Zoe. I remained quiet about these incidents for fear other tech bros like Musk and Vance might come for my hamster, Dennis. But after much thoughts and prayer, I have decided to honor the memories of Zoe and Mr. Smushyface by letting the world know what I claim to be the truth.”

For those fortunate enough to not yet be aware of the “immigrants are eating our pets” allegations that bubbled up from the right-wing fever swamps and got spouted by Trump during Tuesday’s presidential debate, here’s the deal: A random Facebook post, grounded in something along the authoritative lines of “I heard from a friend of a friend’s kid,” claimed a cat went missing and was (maybe) eaten by a Haitian immigrant.

It’s true that JD Vance ate my dog because I wrote it on the internet

There’s no evidence of that happening, of course. But xenophobic fearmongers saw it is a perfect way to monger some xenophobic fear. So Musk started trumpeting the ludicrous claim on X, the enormous social media platform he owns, and then Vance was babbling about it and then Trump spoke the words no presidential-debate-watcher ever imagined they’d hear, saying of Springfield, Ohio: “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

OK.

If an actual former president who is also the Republican Party’s standard-bearer and its presidential nominee is so concerned about a fabricated story aimed at dehumanizing an entire swath of people, he damn well better be equally concerned about my story, which is true because I read it on the internet. (Granted, what I read on the internet was from my own social media post, but that’s not important.)

My brave admission that Elon ate my cat

Here’s how this real-because-I-say-it-is story of Vance and Musk being ravenous pet devourers developed.

On Monday, I bravely posted the following on X, the social media cesspool formerly known as Twitter ‒ “True story: Elon Musk ate my cat. Please share your own story of Elon Musk eating your pet.”

The response was overwhelming and revealed my pet was far from the only victim of Musk’s decidedly un-American appetite. Others came out of the we’ve-lost-our-pets-to-hungry-tech-bros closet, with posts that included:

“Elon Musk ate my precious bearded dragon Cupcake.”

“Elon Musk ate my worm farm!”

“True story: Elon Musk ate my ferret.”

“He ate my kitten. I was at a conference where he was one day, holding my kitten. He grabbed it from my hand, poured ketchup on it, and just started chomping into it. It was so scary.”

There’s as much evidence Musk ate my cat as there is immigrants ate pets

Posts on X containing false or inaccurate information are often corrected with a “community note.” No such note appeared on my post or on any of the replies, which I took as proof that it’s all 100% true. 

Buoyed by the support of other victims, I posted an additional admission Thursday: “JD Vance ate my dog, Zoe. It’s true, because I am posting it here.”

I added: “I fear there is widespread pet-eating in the tech-bro community. They’re coming to our cities and towns, we don’t know much about them, they bring radical new ideas about what they view as ‘free speech,’ and they are apparently eating our pets. This has to stop.”

Support from others who say their pets were eaten by Musk and Vance

Again, the responses revealed that Vance’s consumption of my beloved Zoe was not a one-off. 

“I caught JD Vance running away with my dog in his grocery wagon.”

“I walked into my house only to find Elon up to his shoulders in my fish tank, bobbing for them while JD chased my cat with a fork and knife! It was horrifying!”

“My Pugs, Montez and Pearl, may they rest in peace, were also consumed by Elon Musk and JD Vance. They had a Pug-B-Que. I grieve every single day for my Pug babies.”

What monsters.

I hope Donald Trump condemns his running mate’s pet-eating ways

Clearly there’s more than enough evidence here for Trump to loudly address the problem, condemn his running mate and Musk and imply there’s something scary, evil and unwelcome about wealthy tech dudes who incorrectly think they’re hilarious.

Nothing will bring back my precious Mr. Smushyface or my lovable dog Zoe. Nothing can bring back any of the wonderful pets I know were stolen and eaten by Vance and Musk because I read something somebody posted on the internet and declined to consider it might just be fabricated bull(expletive). 

Something must be done about these rabid tech bros before all our pets wind up down their seemingly bottomless gullets.

I look forward to Trump making this a central part of his campaign in the weeks ahead.

Categories Bigotry, Elections, Hoax, Media, Trump, Vance, J.D.

UPenn Imposes Major Sanctions on Law Professor Amy Wax

By dianeravitch
September 24, 2024 //
36

Eighteen months ago, I described the case of law professor Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania. She had made statements that were deemed bigoted. I defended her speech, even though it was vile. That post began:

The New York Times published an article about a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Amy Wax, who has frequently made statements that are racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, the whole range of prejudices, not what you expect of someone who supposedly teaches students that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

The question I posed to readers was whether they thought that her statements were protected speech or should be sanctioned. A lively discussion ensued.

The University of Pennsylvania just announced sanctions against Professor Wax but did not fire her or strip her of tenure. The student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, reported the decision:

Penn has upheld sanctions against University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax following her history of discriminatory remarks and two years of disciplinary proceedings with little precedent.

“These findings are now final, following a determination by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that the proper process was followed,” a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian.

The new ruling, first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, comes after the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility upheld sanctions that were initially recommended by a Faculty Senate hearing board on June 21, 2023 and strikes down an appeal filed by Wax and her lawyer, David Shapiro, this past February.

The sanctions mark the first time in recent history that a tenured University professor has been sanctioned through Faculty Senate procedures. Neither Wax nor her lawyer responded to requests for comment in time for the publishing of this article. 

The DP previously reported that the recommended sanctions against Wax included a one-year suspension at half pay, the removal of her named chair and summer pay, and a requirement for Wax to note in public appearances that she is not speaking on behalf or as a member of Penn Carey Law. 

Penn will announce the decision in Tuesday’s edition of the Penn Almanac. The decision will include a letter of reprimand from Provost John Jackson Jr.

“Academic freedom is and should be very broad. Teachers, however, must conduct themselves in a manner that conveys a willingness to assess all students fairly,” Jackson wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by the DP. “They may not engage in unprofessional conduct that creates an unequal educational environment.”

Interim Penn President Larry Jameson added that Wax must refrain from “flagrantly unprofessional and targeted disparagement of any individual or group in the University community … for so long as [she is] a member of the University’s standing faculty.”

In a June 2023 letter to former Penn President Liz Magill, the hearing board noted that they “do not dispute the protection” that Wax holds over her views, but said that the way she presents these views violate widely acknowledged “behavioral professional norms” when presented as “uncontroverted.”

The hearing board “unanimously” found that the facts presented throughout the hearing “constitute serious violations of University norms and policies,” according to the letter. The hearing board also concluded that Wax’s behavior “has created a hostile campus environment and a hostile learning atmosphere.” 

When determining sanctions, the hearing board decided that the University should issue a public reprimand, but it did not suggest that Wax should be fired or stripped of tenure. Separate from the sanctions, the hearing board suggested that the University and Penn Carey Law should consider having Wax co-teach her classes with another faculty member, and that Wax teach her classes outside of Penn Carey Law buildings.  

The board wrote that it found Wax “in dereliction of her scholarly responsibilities, especially as a teacher” in part due to her “reliance on misleading and partial information,” which results in her drawing “sweeping and unreliable conclusions.” 

But the sanctions, which reportedly take effect for the 2025-26 school year, won’t have an impact on her teaching plans this semester — which, according to a course syllabus obtained by the DP, include an invite of American Renaissance magazine editor Jared Taylor to deliver a guest lecture at Dec. 3 meeting of LAW 9560: “Conservative and Political Legal Thought.” The invitation would mark at least the third appearance by Taylor at Wax’s class in four years, after his visit last fall sparked a protest outside Wax’s classroom and a rare schoolwide emailfrom Penn Carey Law Dean Sophia Lee addressing the “bounds of academic freedom.”

Weeks before Taylor comes to campus, Wax is scheduled to speak at a conference in Tennessee alongside multiple people who have reportedly espoused white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and racist views.

Tuesday’s Almanac will also include an Aug. 11, 2023 letter from Magill in which she accepted the sanctions initially recommended by the hearing board.

Jameson provided an introduction for Magill’s letter, summarizing the disciplinary process against Wax and confirming he was implementing Magill’s decision.

Magill wrote in her letter that the board considered arguments such as the “critical point” regarding academic freedom and used a “well-developed” factual record to make its decision. 

While she said she was “mindful of the limit of my authority as established by our policy,” Magill accepted the major sanctions suggested from the board’s report. 

The letter from Magill prompted Wax to file a Aug. 29, 2023 appeal to SCAFR, in which Wax’s lawyer argued that there were “several procedural defects” which gave the respondent the right to appeal.

Shapiro wrote that that the most significant “defect” was that the hearing board made the decision “about the breadth and extent of a tenured professor’s contractually guaranteed right to academic freedom,” rather than SCAFR.

The appeal also alleged that Magill and the hearing board applied an unfair speech standard. Shapiro wrote that Wax was punished under an “incoherent standard, never before articulated, or applied to any Penn faculty member.”

The standard used to punish Wax has drawn scrutiny from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national civil liberties group which said on Monday that Penn had mustered “zero evidence” that Wax discriminated against her students.

“Faculty nationwide may now pay a heavy price for Penn’s willingness to undercut academic freedom for all to get at this one professor,” FIRE Vice President Alex Morey wrote in a statement. “After today, any university under pressure to censor a controversial faculty member need only follow Penn’s playbook.”

Wax’s history of discriminatory statements has included her claiming that Black students never graduate at the top of the Penn Carey Law class and that “non-Western groups” are resentful towards “Western people.” Wax has also faced criticism for hosting white nationalist Jared Taylor for a guest lecture and allegedly telling a Penn Carey Law student that she was only accepted into the Ivy League “because of affirmative action.”

In June 2022, former Penn Carey Law Dean Ted Ruger filed a complaint to the Faculty Senate recommending a “major sanction” against Wax. At the time, he cited numerous student and faculty accounts of Wax’s conduct that he believed warranted disciplinary action. Ruger asked the Faculty Senate to appoint a hearing board of five professors from across the University to evaluate his complaint, conduct a full review of Wax’s conduct, and impose sanctions in line with the University’s policy for punishing tenured faculty members. 

“Academic freedom for a tenured scholar is, and always has been, premised on a faculty member remaining fit to perform the minimal requirements of the job,” Ruger wrote in his report to the Faculty Senate. “However, Wax’s conduct demonstrates a ‘flagrant disregard of the standards, rules, or mission of the University.’”

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education, Pennsylvania

Joyce Vance: Women! Would You Rather Be a Stepford Wife or a Handmaid?

By dianeravitch
September 24, 2024 //
7

Joyce Vance is a lawyer. She served for eight years as US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, appointed by President Barack Obama. She blogs at Civil Discourse. This post could be subtitled “Ladies, Don’t Worry your pretty little head about ‘rights.”

She writes:

This is what was on Trump’s mind at 11:49 p.m. last night. 

What did he intend? Were patriarchal family-man types supposed to read it to their wives and daughters while they did chores and prepared meals? It certainly reads that way. You can easily imagine Trump hoping these men would say to the women in their lives: You’re worse off and less healthy than you were four years ago; less safe, more depressed, less happy. Or maybe American women are just supposed to take Trump’s word for it.

Women celebrate in Washington DC after Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020

Trump thinks women can be told that they are less confident about the future than they were four years ago and they will simply accept it. Women will get on Truth Social, read his post, and think, I don’t need to worry anymore because Donald Trump will fix all of that.

President Joe Biden takes a selfie with a group of event attendees. President Biden has on a pair of aviator sunglasses with the American flag in the lenses. The women in the selfie have on black aviator sunglasses.

These women are looking pretty happy about not-Donald Trump

Donald Trump to women: If you will just listen to Donald Trump, the national nightmare you are enduring will be over.

This Photo Has Some Convinced Taylor Swift Is Backing Kamala Harris - Business Insider

Winning ticket

Donald Trump also wants you to know, if you’re a woman voter, that you won’t have to think about abortion anymore if he’s president. Why? Apparently, because abortion will be one less right to worry about since you won’t have it anymore. Say goodbye to what remains of your control over your health care. But it will be okay, Donald Trump tells you: It will make you happy. 

Trump says in one breath that there are “powerful exceptions” to his abortion bans while also saying that the status of a woman’s right to an abortion is up to her state. Many of those states don’t have exceptions for the mother’s health or have passed laws criminalizing abortion so doctors are afraid to provide care to women until it’s too late. In some of those states, attorneys general are threatening to prevent women from leaving the state to obtain abortion care or to prosecute them for doing so.

“I will protect women at a level never seen before,” Trump concludes. “They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe, and secure. Their lives will be happy, beautiful, and great again.” He writes it with all the fervor of a man envisioning a future that is part “Stepford Wives” and part “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Trump: You will be happy. Your life will be beautiful. It will be that way because I say so. It is not up to you. 

That’s the future Donald Trump has in store for American women.

Donald Trump is a lunatic. I don’t say that casually. His post from last night was a stark reminder of what it’s like to live in Donald Trump’s America. I’m sure you all remember it—waking up in the middle of the night to check Twitter for news of unfolding disasters. Had he praised a dictator, enacted a Muslim ban, separated children from their parents at the border, called white nationalists “decent people”? What would be next? Don’t worry your pretty little heads about that, he’s telling women now. 

We are 45 days away from the election. We all know the assignment. We are never ever getting back together with Donald Trump. Never ever.

In 2020, early exit polls showed Biden winning the votes of 57 percent of women. A majority of American women were eager to end Trump’s power over their lives. If the best argument Trump has to convince those women to vote for him is that they’ll lose more rights while he tells them to be happy about it, well, good luck with that.

Here’s some better advice for women:

  • It’s okay to vote for Kamala Harris, even if you’re a lifelong Republican voter.
  • If you don’t want to, you don’t have to tell anyone the truth about who you voted for. 
  • Women should be able to make their own choices about their healthcare, and they shouldn’t have to watch their daughters suffer and even die because of Donald Trump’s abortion bans. Woman and their families should have access to IVF. Try telling men they can’t get lifesaving medical care, or even a prescription for Viagra, and see how far that gets you. Don’t vote for someone who treats you like a second-class citizen.

Donald Trump is losing women from inside of his fold. It’s not just Liz Cheney and the never Trumpers. Dawn Roberts, the Iowa state co-chair of the Nikki Haley’s campaign and a lifelong Republican, endorsed Kamala Harris, telling The Des Moines Register, “My husband, Steve, often questioned why the U.S. has never had a female president. I think the time is now and Kamala Harris is the person to lead our country into the future.”

Iowan Harris supporter Dawn Roberts, lifelong Republican

Donald Trump complains that Kamala Harris is too joyful, that she laughs too much. Trump thrives on a dark vision of America in chaos, casting himself in the role of faux superhero coming to save us all. He benefits from fearmongering. Trump made the deliberate choice to talk about “American carnage” in his inaugural address in 2020. As he loses votes among women, Trump resorts to telling us what to think and how to feel. It has nothing to do with our well-being and everything to do with helping him win the election. Sorry Donald. We are not going back.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Categories Civil Rights, Elections, Equity, Gender, Trump

Ohio: Sheriff Threatens Democratic Voters

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2024 //
11

In Ravenna, Ohio, the sheriff issued a stern and intimidating warning to anyone who placed a Harris-Walz sign in their yard. There was no official reprimand. In Ohio, it seems, voter intimidation by an official is not a problem.

Politico reports:

RAVENNA, Ohio — A local Ohio elections board says the county sheriff’s department will not be used for election security following a social media post by the sheriff saying people with Kamala Harris yard signs should have their addresses recorded so that immigrants can be sent to live with them if the Democratic vice president wins the November election.

In a statement on the Portage County Democrats’ Facebook page, county board of elections chair Randi Clites said members voted 3-1 Friday to remove the sheriff’s department from providing security during in-person absentee voting.

Clites cited public comments indicating “perceived intimidation by our sheriff against certain voters” and the need to “make sure every voter in Portage County feels safe casting their ballot for any candidate they choose.”

A Ravenna Record-Courier story on the Akron Beacon Journal site reported that a day earlier, about 150 people crowded into a room at the Kent United Church of Christ for a meeting sponsored by the NAACP of Portage County, many expressing fear about the Sept. 13 comments.

“I believe walking into a voting location where a sheriff deputy can be seen may discourage voters from entering,” Clites said. The board is looking at using private security already in place at the administration building or having Ravenna police provide security, Clites said.

Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski posted a screenshot of a Fox News segment criticizing President Joe Biden and Harris over immigration. Likening people in the U.S. illegally to “human locusts,” he suggested recording addresses of people with Harris yard signs so when migrants need places to live “we’ll already have the addresses of their New families … who supported their arrival!”

Local Democrats filed complaints with the Ohio secretary of state and other agencies, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio accused Zuchowski of an unconstitutional “impermissible threat” against residents who want to display political yard signs. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine called the comments “unfortunate” and “not helpful.” The secretary of state’s office said the comments didn’t violate election laws and it didn’t plan any action.

Categories Accountability, Elections, Extremism, Immigration, Ohio

Peter Greene: Will Colorado Voters Be Wise Enough to Oppose This Ballot Measure?

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2024 //
6

Peter Greene examines a proposed amendment to the state constitution in Colorado and its whacko implications. He urges voters to say NO.

He writes:

While other states are stumbling over constitutional language that aims public dollars at public schools (e.g. South Carolina and Kentucky), voucher fans in Colorado have proposed a constitutional amendment that comes up for a vote soon. And it is a ridiculously ill-conceived and hastily crafted mess.

The language is simple enough– here’s the whole text, originally known as Initiative 138 and now as Amendment 40. 

SECTION 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, add section, 18 to article IX as follows: Section 18. Education – School Choice

(1) PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE THAT ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS A QUALITY EDUCATION; THAT PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN; AND THAT SCHOOL CHOICE INCLUDES NEIGHBORHOOD, CHARTER, PRIVATE, AND HOME SCHOOLS, OPEN ENROLLMENT OPTIONS, AND FUTURE INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION.

(2) EACH K-12 CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO SCHOOL CHOICE.

The proposal comes from Advance Colorado, a right wing anti-tax, let’s shrink government until we can drown it in the kitchen sink, kind of outfit. They’re headed up by Michael Fields, who previously headed up the Colorado chapter of the right wing Koch brothers astroturf group Americans for Prosperity, then became AFP’s national education policy leader. Then on to Colorado Rising Action where he kept his interest in education. Back in 2012-14 he spent two whole years as a Teacher For America product in a charter school. 

Advance Colorado was founded in 2020. Their leadership team also includes former state GOP chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown.

The amendment has also drawn support from House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, who is also a “fellow” with Advance Colorado. The actual filing came from Fields and Suzanne Taheri, a former official with the Secretary of State’s Office, a former candidate, and former Arapahoe County GOP chair.

Why does Colorado, a state that has long offered many forms of school choice, even need this? Supporters of the amendment are arguing that they are trying to enshrine and protect choice, just in case those naughty Democrats tried to roll it back some day (Colorado’s Dems once tossed out the pro-choice, not-really-Democrats Democrats for Education Reform). And though they aren’t saying this part out loud, the amendment would be a great set-up for school vouchers.

The language proposed is, however, strictly bananapants. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the people who would most regret passing this amendment would be those who support it.

Let’s say I want to send my low-achieving, non-Christian child to a top-level Christian school. Let’s further presume that I can’t afford even a fraction of the tuition cost. Does this amendment mean that the school has to accept them, and that the state has to foot the entire tuition bill? Wouldn’t any answer other than yes be denying my constitutional to equal opportunity to access a quality education and my constitutional right to direct my child’s education? Does this mean that to have full access the state must also transport my child anywhere I want them to go to school?

What if East Egg Academy has far more applicants than it has capacity? Must it scratch its entire admissions policy and use a lottery instead? 

The major obstacles to school choice are not state policies. The major obstacles are, and have always been, cost, location, and the school’s own discriminatory policies. Virtually all voucher policies are set up to protect those discriminatory policies. Wouldn’t an amendment like this require those to be wiped out? 

Wouldn’t this language amount to a state takeover of all charter and private schools? 

And that’s not all. Wouldn’t this amendment also allow parents to intrude into every classroom. If I have a constitutional right to direct my child’s education, does that not mean that I can tell my child’s science teacher to stop teaching evolution? Or start teaching evolution? Can I demand a different approach to teaching American history? How about prepositions? And how will a classroom teacher even function if every child in the classroom comes with a parent who has a constitutional right to direct their education?

You can say that’s silly, that “obviously” that’s not what the amendment means. But that’s what it says, at least until some series of bureaucrats and courts decide what exactly “direct the education of their children” means.

Kevin Welner (National Education Policy Center)has it exactly right— “It’s really a ‘full employment for lawyers’ act.”

Supporters say this doesn’t establish a right to public funding of private schools, and I suppose they’re sort of correct in the sense that this does not so much establish a right to public funding of private schools so much as it establishes an obligation for public funding of private schools as well as obliterating private school autonomy. Unless, of course, some judge steps in to find that the language doesn’t mean what it says, which is, I suppose, not impossible.

Nobody on any side of the school choice debate should be voting for this amendment. It’s exactly the kind of lawmaking you get from people who have wrapped meaning in particular rhetoric for so long that they have forgotten that the words of their rhetoric have actual meanings outside the meanings that they have habitually assigned them. Here’s hoping the people of Colorado avoid this really bad idea. 

Categories Colorado, Education Industry, Elections, Parents, Privatization, Propaganda, Republicans, Vouchers

Unprecedented: Trump Sells Merch That Lines His Pocket, not the Campaign’s Coffers

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2024 //
7

There has never before been a presidential candidate who used his position to make a profit. Usually all fundraising and sales of merchandise go into the campaign’s coffers. But now, Trump is turning his campaign into a major grift. He has been marketing products throughout the campaign, meant to enrich himself, not the campaign. What next? Selling locks of his golden mane for $50,000 a snip? Making money has been his lifetime preoccupation. Win or lose, Trump will still be selling stuff to unwary buyers.

Step right up! Be the first!

Just days ago, Trump announced a new business venture. He is going into the cryptocurrency business. Should he be elected, his new business will be regulated by whoever he appoints as head of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). The new Trump business will be called “World Liberty Financial.” The possibilities for conflict of interest have never deterred Trump. During his Presidency, Trump owned the hotel closest to the White House, where foreign nations booked the most expensive suites to impress him.

On Saturday, Trump released a video of him hawking a $100 commemorative coin, which includes his “very beautiful face.” He assures you it is a “limited edition” coin. Don’t accept substitutes. Go to “PatriotTakes” on Twitter to buy your own Trump coin.

Philip Bump wrote about Trump’s profit making businesses in The Washington Post:

One of the defining characteristics of Donald Trump’s rallies is the emergence of an ad hoc marketplace of Trump-related merchandise. If it is made of cloth, is red and carries the name “Trump,” it’s there and it’s for sale.

A businessman like Trump might be expected to have mixed feelings about such a display. On the one hand, it’s a demonstration of the extent of enthusiasm of his supporters. On the other, it’s a lot of money being made from his name going into other peoples’ pockets.

But then, he’s still making a lot of money off his own name, too. In fact, he seems to be making an increasing amount of money selling the Trump brand — at the potential expense of the Trump candidacy.

On Tuesday, for example, Trump announced the fourth collection of his non-fungible token (NFT) trading cards — digital images that are theoretically constrained to increase their value. You may recall the flurry of excitement around NFTs a few years ago, with similar images inexplicably selling for thousands of dollars before plunging in value. Trump was late to this game, but he’s stuck with it, probably because Trump’s NFTs offer something more than a poorly photoshopped image of Trump dressed up as a cowboy: They offer access to Trump.

If you are one of the first 25 people to buy 250 of these new NFTs, the website proclaims, you get a staggering package of goodies: two VIP dinners with Trump and two cocktail receptions, as well as three pairs of signed sneakers (more on those in a second) and some actual physical trading cards, among other things. All for the low price of … let’s see, each card retails for $99, so: $24,750.

This package, mind you, does not include the commemorative card that is adorned with a piece of the suit Trump wore during his debate with President Joe Biden earlier this year. For that particular relic, you need to spend about $1,500 on 15 trading cards.

The money Trump is encouraging his supporters to spend doesn’t go toward getting him elected. The website insists that “these Digital Trading Cards are not political” — sure — “and have nothing to do with any political campaign.” The company simply “uses Donald J. Trump’s name, likeness and image under paid license from CIC Digital LLC, which license may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.”

CIC Digital LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the entity established when Trump won the presidency to theoretically separate himself from his business interests.

CIC Digital LLC is different from CIC Ventures LLC, also a subsidiary of the Trump Trust. (The “CIC” here is presumably short for “commander in chief,” which would perhaps not be how the Founding Fathers expected that title to be used.) CIC Ventures is the partner of the aforementioned sneaker salespeople.

Want shoes showing a stylized image of Trump immediately after he was shot last month? $299. Want the gold ones, titled “Never Surrender” after Trump’s response to having been arrested in Georgia? $499. The Timberland-style boots are $199. The orange bitcoin/Trump shoes are apparently sold out; they went for $299 as well. (You will notice, as we go through all of this, that cryptocurrency is an undercurrent. That’s not a coincidence.)

Perhaps you’re simply looking to impress the guys at the frat house with your support for Trump. The sneaker people have an array of products designed for you: sandals/slides ($149), a cooler ($299) and Trump-branded cologne, titled “Victory” ($119).

Trump also recently plugged a Telegram channel for something called “World Liberty Financial,” a cryptocurrency-oriented group with an unclear goal. Among the sparse posts at Telegram, though, there was an offered warning: “Please be aware of scams and fake tokens claiming to be associated with ‘Defiant Ones,’ ‘World Liberty,’ or similar names. Do not engage with these tokens!” Scams? In crypto??

There are, of course, plenty of offerings for Trump’s more traditional base of support. There’s the Trump Bible, retailing for about $60. (The website also helpfully explains what to do if your Bible’s pages are sticking together.) And there are the other quasi-religious Trump books any true supporter will have to flesh out his or her library.

The newest is “Save America,” which Trump touted as “a FANTASTIC new Book” for which he “hand-selected every Photo, from my time in the White House, to our current third Campaign for President of the United States.” It’s only $99 — unless you want it signed, which tacks on $400.
For $399, you can get a signed copy of the book “Letters to Trump,” which is what it sounds like. The first book published by the firm responsible for these tomes, called Winning Team Publishing, was “Our Journey Together,” which is now only $74.99. If you want the full “Our Journey Together” bundle — including a special edition of the book, one of Donald Trump Jr.’s books and a “Make America Great Again” hat — you only need to shell out $999. (Donald Trump Jr. is a co-founder of Winning Team Publishing.)
If you only want a MAGA hat, Winning Team has those, too, though it doesn’t appear that sales of these explicitly campaign-oriented hats actually kick anything back to the campaign. They retail for about $30, the same as the Donald Trump-shaped Bluetooth speaker also sold on the website.

Trump’s fancier supporters might be in the market for higher-end products. A standard-sized bottle of Trump wine, from Trump Winery, retails for as much as $94.99 — though the person who benefits would be Trump’s son Eric. For that same price, you can also buy (as of writing) almost five shares of Trump Media & Technology Group stock. Whether that stock or the NFTs are a better investment is a question better answered by economists, but it’s been an unalloyed boon for Trump himself.

Further along the income scale, the Trump Organization still offers memberships at its clubs and golf courses — more expensive than buying 250 NFTs but a better way to ensure face time with Trump on a regular basis. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club/home now welcomes new members for only $700,000 a year. But hurry; the price will reportedly jump to $1 million in October. No wonder profits at Mar-a-Lago have quadrupled since Trump left office.

Almost all of this — the NFTs, the sneakers, the memberships, the books — kicks some portion of what customers pay back to Trump in one form or another. (He made $300,000 from the Bibles, for example.) All while his campaign complains in fundraising emails to supporters about being outpaced by Vice President Kamala Harris.
This is the contradiction that’s lingered around Trump since he announced his 2016 candidacy: He wants to be both a businessman and a candidate at the same time. Except Trump, it seems, doesn’t see it as much of a contradiction at all.

Categories Elections, For-Profit, Trump

Washington Post: Elon Musk’s False Tweets Are Misleading the Public about Elections

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2024 //
5

The Washington Post reported that Elon Musk has used Twitter to spread lies about our elections. He owns Twitter and is accountable to no one. Musk has 197 million followers on Twitter, he says. He has repeatedly posted lies and conspiracy theories about our elections that have been debunked by independent experts.

I follow Musk’s tweets, and I can attest that he regularly repeats lies about the election. He posts incendiary comments about non-citizens voting in large number. He seems to get his ideas straight from Donald’s mouth. He posted that some 2 million noncitizens had registered to vote in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Arizona. He has used his personal account to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the integrity of elections.

Musk’s online utterances don’t stay online. His false and misleading election posts add to the deluge of inaccurate information plaguing voting officials across the country. Election officials say his posts about supposed voter fraud often coincide with an increase in baseless requests to purge voter rolls and heighten their worry over violent threats. Experts say Musk is uniquely dangerous as a purveyor of misinformation because his digital following stretches well beyond the political realm and into the technology and investment sectors, where his business achievements have earned him credibility.

After Musk bought Twitter, he made deep cuts in staff responsible for maintaining standards on the site, courted major conservative figures, and reoriented the platform to boost the reach of his account, which frequently spreads false statements without being subject to the kinds of fact checks that previously existed on the site. He reinstated accounts previously banned for violating the platform’s rules, including Donald Trump’s, and promised to usher in a less restrictive era…

Musk, who bought Twitter in November 2022, has repeatedly claimed without evidence that Democrats are “importing” undocumented people to vote in the coming election, a popular 2024 iteration of the Great Replacement Theory, which holds that a global elite is replacing European-descended populations with non-White people. He has falsely asserted that electronic voting machines are unreliable and that the country should return to hand-counting ballots. And he has promoted deepfakes and other deceptive images aimed at undermining politicians he doesn’t support.

Between his purchase of Twitter and Thursday, Musk’s 52 posts or reposts about noncitizen voting — one of the main topics of false or misleading election claims he made in that time period — drew almost 700 million views, according to a Post analysis.

A separate analysis found that 50 of Musk’s false or misleading claims about the U.S. election between Jan. 1 and July 31 were debunked by independent fact-checkers and still generated almost 1.2 billion views, according to a recent study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate. None displayed community notes, X’s term for user-generated fact checks that Musk has promised serve as an “immediate way to refute anything false” that is posted on the platform…

His frequent amplification of election untruths has spurred typically low-profile election officials to publicly fact-check him. His immense reach far outstrips theirs, so they say they attempt to blunt the damage of his false posts by piggybacking on them with truthful fact checks of their own.

But in their effort to spread accurate election information, they are up against a formidable adversary. “The great risk in a privatized public sphere,” said Sophia Rosenfeld, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “Democracy and Truth: A Short History,” is that the owner, in this case, Musk, “can control both the flow of information and the content of that information to suit their own needs, whether financial, ideological, or both.”
Musk’s control of X and his large following mean a single post from him can effectively take fringe election-denial falsehoods mainstream, experts say.

In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said her office tracked a direct correlation between Musk’s inaccurate tweets about elections and subsequent waves of harassment of local and state election administrators.

Musk is an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. They share hostility to the most basic activity in our democracy: voting for our leaders. Discredit elections, and the ground is set for authoritarianism.

Categories Billionaires, Elections, Extremism, Lies, Trump

Project 2025 Calls for a Resumption of Nuclear Testing: A Terrible Idea!

By dianeravitch
September 22, 2024 //
15

Tom Armbuster writes in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about a little-noticed feature of Project 2025, the agenda for a second Trump administration prepared by the Heritage Foundation. The 900-page document calls for a resumption of nuclear testing. Armbruster is deeply knowledgeable about the horrible after-effects of atomic testing, whether in the open air or underwater.

Armbruster was US Ambassador to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, where several nuclear tests were conducted, which poisoned people, the land and the sea.

He writes:

There are few places more peaceful than a Pacific island. At 6:45 am on a March morning in 1954, that peace was shattered by the largest nuclear test in American history: Operation Bravo.

The Bravo test was a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Now, 70 years later, Project 2025 is proposing a resumption of testing. That should alarm every military service member, downwinder, Pacific Islander, and taxpayer.

As US Ambassador to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, I joined in the solemn observance of “Remembrance Day,” the Marshallese national holiday that pays tribute every March 1 to those who lost their homeland, fell victim to cancer, or were otherwise affected by the Bravo shockwave and fallout.

The shorthand for the 67 nuclear tests from 1946 to 1958, including two undersea tests that wiped out rich Pacific marine life, is the “Nuclear Legacy.” It would be more accurate to call it the “Nuclear Wound.” The tests on Bikini, Enewetak, and Kwajalein wounded the land and the ocean, the people—both Marshallese and American servicemen—and the relationship between our two countries. Healing is marked in decades, if not centuries.

We’ve had the nuclear tiger by the tail for a long time. No leader of any country would want their legacy to be the use of such indiscriminate and destructive weapons. When I joined the Foreign Service from Hawaii, Ronald Reagan was President. A chance for nuclear disarmament came and went with his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik. Today, the Soviet Union is gone but nuclear weapons are still here. We’ve made progress, but Reagan’s vision of a nuclear-free world remains out of reach. Until we achieve that goal, maintaining a test ban is in everyone’s interest. It is part of the legacy we leave our children.

It is simply incomprehensible that the people who created Project 2025 would advocate a return to one of the most destructive practices in our history.

Categories Democracy, Elections, Environment, Extremism, Health, Science, Trump

A Message to Trump from His Base: Words Matter

By dianeravitch
September 22, 2024 //
5

Staten Island is one of the five boroughs of New York City. It is the only borough that consistently votes Republican. Trump is, not surprisingly, popular in Staten Island.

Brian Laline, the editor of The Staten Island Advance, wrote the following editorial:

Hi Neighbor,

There’s talk of investigations, subpoenas and Florida officials charging the suspected gunman with attempted murder in the aftermath of the second assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump.

As there should be.

There is something seriously wrong when, in this climate of intense political divide, someone with an AK 47 can hide for 12 hours in the bushes on the perimeter of a golf course owned and used by a combative presidential candidate, without being spotted.

Twelve hours!

This after another madman lurked the perimeter of an outdoor Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, eventually firing an AR-15 at the former president, grazing his ear.


Another quarter-inch and the man would have been dead.

After the latest attempt at Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach, a sheriff told reporters that “when somebody gets into the shrubbery, they’re pretty much out of sight.”

That, neighbors, is a ridiculous statement. Maybe I watch too many cop shows, but they have these things called “thermal drones,” sheriff. They find people.  Even in shrubbery.

When a mayor or governor visits the Advance offices for an editorial board meeting, a security detail arrives hours earlier and sweeps the building, wanting to know what room the official will be in, how the official will get to that room, which chair the official will be seated, and the names of every person who will be in the room.

But then the sheriff told the real story . . .

“At this level that he [Trump] is at right now, he’s not the sitting president…” 

In other words, the near assassination in Butler didn’t make much of a difference in the level of the protection Donald Trump received.

You can bet that will change. As it should, because the level of divisive rhetoric is only increasing – despite pleas that everyone calm down.

And frankly, as much as this will inflame neighbors who make up Donald Trump’s base, the former president, his VP pick, his campaign people and his supporters are not helping to calm the roiling political waters.

Donald Trump cannot play nice to save his life – literally.

True, he called for unity after the Butler assassination attempt, positing on social media, “it is more important than ever that we stand United.”

That didn’t last long, following up at a rally with this . . .

“They say something happened to me when I got shot . . . I became nice.  When you’re dealing with these people . . .  they’re very dangerous people  . . . you can’t be too nice . . . I’m not going to be nice.”

What “dangerous people” he was referring to was never made clear.

The former president, his VP pick and his cable news mouthpieces blame Kamala Harris and Joe Biden for the latest attempt on his life.

“Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at, when I am the one who is going to save the country and they are the ones that are destroying the country — both from the inside and out,” Trump told Fox News.

Democrats have “taken politics in our Country to a whole new level of Hatred, Abuse, and Distrust,” he wrote in another social media post.

Dems, for their part, say that Donald J. Trump is a “threat to democracy,” which the Trump camp takes umbrage. I guess constantly ranting that he lost an election because Democrats fixed it, and thousands of supporters taking siege of the Capitol Building to overthrow said election is not a threat to democracy.

To paraphrase Billy Joel, Mr. Trump, Democrats didn’t start this fire.

Who insisted Barack Obama was not born in the United States? Who threatens to jail political foes? Who, to this day, says Democrats “stole” the 2020 election?  Who continually calls Kamala Harris a communist? Comrade Kamala? A radical left Marxist? A woman who will cause a Great Depression?  “She’s a Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist.”

Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump and his sidekick Vance ought to get on the same page. They seem to differ on who calls whom a fascist.

“Look, we can disagree with one another, we can debate one another,” Vance told a crowd in Georgia just the other day, “but we cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist . . .”

We can’t? But your running mate just called Harris . . . oh never mind.

There’s an old saying that Donald Trump just doesn’t get:

Words matter.

Let’s take the absurd claim he made during the recent debate.

“. . . They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” he told millions watching. It has become a national joke. 

Guess what? It’s not funny.

Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, and by extension, everyone in Springfield, have become a target. Bomb threats are constant.  Schools have been evacuated or closed. Hospitals have closed. College campuses have been shut down. Festivals have been cancelled.

All because of threats against Haitians.  All because of absurd claims by Trump and Vance.  And to make it even worse, Vance admits he makes up stories to get attention.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CNN.

Political violence has been part of the American experiment since the beginning. Think the American Revolution and Civil War. Lincoln didn’t survive his visit to Ford’s Theatre. JFK lost his life in Dallas.  Bobby Kennedy was killed in L.A. and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King assassinated in Memphis. Presidents Garfield and McKinley were murdered. Ronald Reagan was shot while in office, while Teddy Roosevelt was shot after he left office. Alabama Gov. George Wallace was shot and paralyzed while he campaigned for office. 

There have been many others, the latest being Mr. Trump.

Will these heinous acts ever be eliminated in our country? I think you’ll agree it’s doubtful.

But do we have to make the possibility even worse?

Brian

Categories Accountability, Elections, Fascism, Harris, Kamala, New York City, Politics, Trump, Vance, J.D.
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »