Archives for the month of: December, 2024

The Thought Police lost an important case in Arkansas! Score one for librarians, booksellers, and people who read books! It’s a setback for those who don’t read books, never have, never will.

Doktor Zoom writes on the blog Wonkette:

A federal judge Monday tossed out parts of an Arkansas state law that allowed librarians and booksellers to be sent to prison for up to a year for allowing minors to access “obscene” or “harmful” materials, whatever local officials might decide is “obscene” or “harmful.” Probably gay penguins.

In his ruling, US District Judge Timothy Brooks found that the law, Act 372, violated the First Amendment and also generally sucked, was overly vague, and didn’t provide adequate guidance to libraries and booksellers to help them avoid being arbitrarily prosecuted. The law created a new process for complaints and required libraries (tell you what, just assume “and booksellers” is part of every sentence, OK?) to shelve “harmful” materials in a special adults-only section, although it didn’t mandate that such a section be behind a beaded curtain like at an old video store. A similar law in Idaho — minus the librarian-jailing — is also being challenged in federal court, as are multiple other censorship laws. 

Brooks wrote that the law “deputizes librarians and booksellers as the agents of censorship; when motivated by the fear of jail time, it is likely they will shelve only books fit for young children and segregate or discard the rest,” which was of course the point. For all the Mad Moms’ insistence that they only want to protect tiny innocent kids from “obscene” materials, the actual targets of book banning tend to be anything rightwing parents dislike, especially mentions of LGBTQ people, books about race, and sex education. 

Not surprisingly, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said that while he’ll respect the ruling, he plans to appeal, and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement calling Act 372 “just common sense” because “schools and libraries shouldn’t put obscene material in front of our kids,” so there. 

Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said yippee, now we can poison kids’ minds, destroy the family, and kill God, or at least that’s how wingnuts will interpret what she actually said, which was 

“This was an attempt to ‘thought police,’ and this victory over totalitarianism is a testament to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation…”

To learn more about the court decision, open the link.

Trump has repeatedly selected someone to run major government agencies who opposes the core mission of the agency.

Robert Kennedy Jr., for example, is opposed to routine public health measures.

Trump did it again. He chose a far-right critic of any government assistance to the poor to run the Department of Housing and Urban Decelopment.

ProPublica reported:

As Donald Trump’s nominee to run the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Scott Turner may soon oversee the nation’s efforts to build affordable apartments, protect poor tenants and aid the homeless. As a lawmaker in the Texas House of Representatives, Turner voted against those very initiatives.

Turner supported a bill ensuring landlords could refuse apartments to applicants because they received federal housing assistance. He opposed a bill to expand affordable rental housing. He voted against funding public-private partnerships to support the homeless and against two bills that called merely to study homelessness among young people and veterans.

Behind those votes lay a deep-seated skepticism about the value of government efforts to alleviate poverty, a skepticism that Turner has voiced again and again. He has called welfare “dangerous, harmful” and “one of the most destructive things for the family.” When one interviewer said receiving government assistance was keeping recipients in “bondage” of “a worse form to find oneself in than slavery,” Turner agreed.

Such views would seemingly place Turner at odds with the core work of HUD, a sprawling federal agency that serves as a backstop against homelessness for millions of the nation’s poor, elderly and disabled. With an annual discretionary budget of $72 billion, the department provides rental assistance to 2 million families, oversees the country’s 800,000 public housing units, fights housing discrimination and segregation and provides support to the nation’s 650,000 homeless. If Turner’s record indicates how he will direct the agency’s agenda, it is those clinging to the bottom of the housing market who have the most to lose, researchers and advocates said.

Several days ago, Elon Musk tweeted his endorsement of an extremist political party in Germany, the AfD, which is known for its xenophobic and hateful views. A number of pundits said he had thrown his support to a Neo-Nazi party. J.D. Vance soon added his praise of the extremist party.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a scholar of extremism, wrote at the MSNBC website, about the alarm bells that Musk and Vance set off.

She wrote:

Alarm bells sounded last week when Vice President-elect JD Vance and Trump adviser Elon Musk praised the far-right German party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD), just weeks before that country’s snap national elections are scheduled to take place.

“Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk posted on X, prompting backlash from conservative and mainstream German leaders and the global Jewish community about a key Trump adviser’s endorsement of a party that has flirted with Nazi and white supremacist slogans and espoused dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against immigrants and Muslims. In the wake of the criticism, Musk doubled down, writing the next day that “AfD is the only hope for Germany.”

Make no mistake: It is extremely dangerous to have an American vice president-elect and a core Trump adviser voice support for the AfD, therefore normalizing very extreme political positions.

Vance’s more tacit endorsement for AfD came in the form of a post responding to claims that AfD is dangerous. “It’s so dangerous for people to control their borders,” Vance tweeted sarcastically Saturday, implying support for the party’s anti-immigration positions. “So so dangerous. The dangerous level is off the charts.”

Make no mistake: It is extremely dangerous to have an American vice president-elect and a core Trump adviser voice support for the AfD, therefore normalizing very extreme political positions. The AfD has called for mass deportations, argued that children with disabilities should be removed from regular schools, and runs social media ads blaming immigrants for crimeand sexual violence. One anti-immigrant ad run by the AfD showed the belly of a pregnant white woman with the phrase “New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves.” Another campaign billboard used a 19th century painting of a slave market — depicting a nude, white woman having her teeth inspected by turban-clad, brown men — to warn that Europe could become “Eurabia,” a reference to a conspiracy theory favored by white supremacists.

To finish reading, open the link.

Trump’s advisers are showing their hand awfully early. Know them by those they admire.

Did you see Trump’s bizarre Christmas message? He made outlandish claims, lied, and threatened the sovereignty of other nations. Heather Cox Richardson puts his boasts into perspective. All in all, the prospects are alarming.

Trump is first and foremost an entertainer. He spent many evenings watching wrestling matches. And he had that big role on The Apprentice, which gave him a fake persona as a tough manager. He is not noted for his knowledge of domestic or foreign policy. He clearly knows nothing about history. His understanding of the Constitution seems to be hearsay. Read this post and tell me: is he ignorant, stupid, or senile?

She writes:

It is starting to seem like the best way to interpret social media posts from President-elect Donald Trump is through the lens of professional wrestling. Never a true athletic competition—although it certainly required athletic training—until the 1980s, professional wrestling depended on “kayfabe,” the shared agreement among audience and actors that they would pretend the carefully constructed script and act were real.

But as Abraham Josephine Reisman explained in the New York Times last year, Vince and Linda McMahon pushed to move professional wrestling into entertainment to avoid health regulations and the taxes imposed on actual sporting events. That shift damaged the profession until in the mid-1990s, wrestlers and promoters began to mix the fake world of wrestling with reality, bringing real-life tensions to the ring in what might or might not have been real. “Suddenly,” Reisman wrote, “the fun of the match had everything to do with decoding it.”

Nothing was off-limits, and the more outrageous the storylines, the better. “[F]ans would give it their full attention because they couldn’t always figure out if what they were seeing was real or not.” This “neokayfabe” “rests on a slippery, ever-wobbling jumble of truths, half-truths, and outright falsehoods, all delivered with the utmost passion and commitment.”

Reisman concluded that producers and consumers of neokayfabe “tend to lose the ability to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t.” In that, they echo the world identified by German-American historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt in her 1951 The Origins of Totalitarianism. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist,” she wrote, “but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction…and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.”

Yesterday, on Christmas and the first night of Hanukkah, Trump posted a “Merry Christmas to all” message that went on to claim falsely that Chinese soldiers are operating the Panama Canal, that President Joe Biden “has absolutely no idea what he’s doing.” The heart of his message, though, was that the U.S. should take over both the Panama Canal and Canada, and that Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark, “is needed by the United States for National Security purposes,” and that “the people of Greenland…want the U.S. to be there, and we will!”

Trump’s sudden pronouncements threatening three other countries—he has been quiet about Mexico since its president pushed back on his early threats—have media outlets scrambling to explain what he’s up to. They have explained that this might be a way for him to demonstrate that his “America First” ideology, which has always embraced isolation, will actually wield power against other countries; or suggested that his claim against Panama is part of a strategy to counter China; or pointed out that global warming has sparked competition to gain an advantage in the Arctic.

The new focus on threatening other countries, virtually never mentioned during the 2024 campaign, has driven out of the news Trump’s actual campaign promise. Trump ran on the promise that he would lower prices, especially of groceries. Yet in mid-December he suggested in an interview with Time magazine that he doesn’t really expect to lower prices. That promise seems to have been part of a performance to attract voters, abandoned now with a new performance that may or may not be real.

There is also little coverage of the larger implications of Trump’s threats to invade other countries. Central to the rules-based international order constructed in the decades after World War II is that countries must respect each other’s sovereignty. Between 1942 and 1945, forty-seven nations signed the Declaration by United Nations, the treaty that formalized the alliance that stood against the fascist Axis powers. That treaty declared the different countries would not sign separate peace agreements with Germany, Italy, or Japan.

They would work together to create a world based on the 1941 Atlantic Charter, which called for the territorial integrity of nations and the restoration of self-government to countries where it had been lost, and for global cooperation for economic and social progress. In 1945, delegates from fifty nations met in San Francisco to establish a permanent forum for international cooperation.

What emerged was the United Nations, whose charter states that the organization is designed “to maintain international peace and security” by working together to stop “acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,” and to settle international disputes without resort to war. “The Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members,” the charter reads. “All members shall refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” it reads.

Russian president Vladimir Putin is eager to tear down the international rules-based order established by the United Nations and protected by organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). His invasion of neighboring countries—Georgia in 2008, then Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022—demonstrates his desire to return the world to a time in which bigger countries could gobble up smaller ones, the ideology that after the invention of modern weaponry meant world wars.

On Christmas Day, Russia fired more than 70 missiles and more than 100 drones at Ukraine, targeting its energy infrastructure. The Ukrainian forces shot down more than 50 of the missiles, but the attack damaged power plants, cutting electricity to different regions. Just two years ago, Ukraine began to celebrate Christmas on December 25, following the Gregorian calendar rather than the less accurate Julian calendar still favored by the Russian Orthodox Church for religious holidays. Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky said the change would allow Ukrainians to “abandon the Russian heritage” of celebrating Christmas in January.

Also yesterday, an undersea power cable connecting Finland and Estonia failed, following a series of cuts to telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea in November. Today, Finland seized an oil tanker it believes cut the cables yesterday, noting that the tanker may be part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” that is waging a shadow campaign against NATO nations at the same time that it is evading sanctions against Russia.

In a joint statement today, the European Commission, which is the government of the European Union, “strongly condemn[ed]” the attacks on Europe’s critical infrastructure and said it would be proposing further sanctions to target the Russia’s shadow fleet, “which threatens security and the environment, while funding Russia’s war budget.” It emphasized Europe’s commitment to international cooperation.

Also yesterday, an Azerbaijan Airlines jet traveling from the Azerbaijan capital of Baku on its way to Chechnya crashed near Aktau, Kazakhstan, killing at least 38 of the 67 people on board. Nailia Bagirova and Gleb Stolyarov of Reuters reported today that a preliminary investigation by Azerbaijan officials suggests that Russian air defenses shot the plane down.

Newsweek’s Maya Mehrara reported that on Russian media last night, a propagandist close to Putin cheered on Trump’s demand for Greenland. “This is especially interesting because it drives a wedge between him and Europe, it undermines the world architecture, and opens up certain opportunities for our foreign policy,” nationalist political scientist Sergey Mikheyev said.

Mikheyev supports Russia’s attempt to conquer Ukraine and has called for Russia to add to its “empire” not only Finland and Poland, but also Alaska, Hawaii, and California. Last night he explained that Trump’s approach would undermine the rules-based order that has shaped the world since World War II. If Trump “really wants to stop the third world war,” he said, “the way out is simple: dividing up the world into spheres of influence.”

Mehrara noted that academic Stanislav Tkachenko said that Russia should “thank Donald Trump, who is teaching us a new diplomatic language.” He continued: “That is, to say it like it is. Maybe we won’t carve up the world like an apple, but we can certainly outline the parts of the world where our interests cannot be questioned.”

But yesterday in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, Armenians and Azerbaijanis joined the protesters who are filling the streets to protest the government’s attempt to tie Georgia more closely to Putin’s Russia. They hope to turn Georgia toward Europe instead.

And President Joe Biden issued a statement concerning Russia’s Christmas bombardment of Ukraine to cut heat and electricity for Ukrainians in the dead of winter. “Let me be clear,” he said, “the Ukrainian people deserve to live in peace and safety, and the United States and the international community must continue to stand with Ukraine until it triumphs over Russia’s aggression.”

Tom Loveless has been analyzing international tests for many years. Before his retirement, he directed the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. Previously he was a professor at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University. And before that, he taught sixth grade in the public schools of California.

The news from TIMSS is that scores fell. Was the decline an after effect of the pandemic? We don’t know. There is much speculation but no certain answers.

Loveless writes:

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is given every four years in 4th and 8th grade math and science.  Seventy-two countries participated in 2023.  Scores are typically released in December of the year following test administration.International assessments are complicated by the sheer scope of the enterprise, including the fact that schools in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have different school calendars. The 2023 scores were released on December 4, 2024.

U.S. scores fell sharply from 2019 to 2023, with the declines reaching conventional levels of statistical significance in math, but not science, at both grade levels. Comparing pre- and post-pandemic scores on the same test heightened interest in what the 2023 TMSS would show.  TIMSS scores are only one data point, but the 2023 results reinforce other trends evident in the other two assessments that are designed to produce valid estimates of achievement at the national level: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Two trends stand out.

1. Larger negative effects in math than in other subjects. The most prominent explanation is that learning math is more dependent on formal instruction in schools.   

2. Gaps increased between higher and lower scoring groups along several demographic dimensions, including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and the 90th and 10th percentiles (high and low achievers).Note that many of the gaps began widening before the pandemic, but Covid seemed to exacerbate thetrends.       

 In addition to the gaps that continued to widen, a gap that had disappeared in earlier TIMSS assessments suddenly re-appeared, the gap between male and female scores. In 8th grade math, for example, U.S. score differences by gender were statistically significant in 1999 and 2003, fell short of significance from 2007-2019, then widened substantially in 2023. The 14-point scale score difference recorded in 2023 (males, 495, and females, 481) is the largest U.S. gender gap in 8th grade math since TIMSS began in 1995.

The re-emergence of the gender gap is unique to TIMSS. Results of the 2024 NAEP are scheduled for release on January 29, 2025. We will see if NAEP confirms or contradicts the trends discussed here. There are reasons to believe NAEP will offer a more optimistic snapshot of U.S. achievement. First, the scores were collected a year after TIMSS, allowing for an additional year of pandemic recovery. Second, state assessments administered in 2024 have generally shown improvement, albeit at a slower pace than many hoped for or expected.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Paul Cobaugh retired from the military after a 19-year career. He served in Special Operations and received multiple awards for his service. He focused on mitigating adversarial influence and advancing US objectives by way of influence. Throughout his career he has focused on the centrality of influence in modern conflict whether it be from extremist organisations or state actors employing influence against the US and our Allies. He writes at “Truth About Threats,” where this post appeared. He writes here about the dangers of ignoring history. To read the complete post, open the link.

Cobaugh writes:

As we get ready to transition into 2025 and a new Trump administration, let’s take a good look at the sheer, staggering idiocy of his campaign pledge to start a global tariff war. We’ve been here before and it was called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It was a primary factor that led us into a Great Depression, a World War and the most disruptive period in modern US and world history. 

For those that pay attention, history is often painfully instructive if left unheeded. It wasn’t just Tariffs in the US of the 1930s that laid devastating economic pain onto the backs of America’s working classes. Unregulated and poorly regulated greed contributed their fair share as well. The 1930s all together have some pronounced parallels to the America we now live in. Tariff wars are but one of those parallels. All combined, those same parallels represent acute threats to not only working-class Americans but to our republic itself. 

Syndicated cartoon gallery: China tariff trade war

During the Roaring Twenties, post WW I, America was prosperous, hopeful and on the rise. The Stock Market crash of 1929 and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act brought all of this to an end, not only for the US but the globe. The Great Depression ushered in the 1940s , which saw the globe fully immersed in WW II and the beginning of the Cold War. Twenty years of intense global upheaval literally shook the world. Nothing would ever be the same again. If you consider the Great Depression as a precursor to WW II, then Smoot-Hawley was a primary cause of the Great Depression. Let that sink in. 

The political landscape of the 1930s, was as diverse and active as at any time in our history. The Great Depression spawned a very large number of progressive movements and even a fairly strong socialist movement, both in pursuit of protecting the workers who had suffered badly from a lack of employment. 

Political cartoon U.S. Trump MAGA steel tariffs trade war recession

Today, diverse and contrary political movements include many as fascist as those of Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan, or as forward-leaning in support of American workers as today’s progressives. Unlike the 1930s, today’s political landscape does not include the record high 900,000 enrolled in Socialist movements that we saw up until 1932. By the late 1930s, the socialists were mostly gone but the American far-right movements lasted up until the day that America declared war on Germany, post Pearl Harbor. Today, the fascists still exist in the form of MAGA and related movements, while that socialism is still mostly absent from any significance on the American political landscape. Those on today’s political spectrum that work to protect workers almost always come from the political left, progressive or otherwise.

Today though, is about tariffs and how they are always mentioned as one of those most prominent causes of the Great Depression


Xi Jinping – Page 3 – mackaycartoons

Smoot-Hawley was a bill designed in theory to protect American agriculture from foreign competitors. In the end, it hurt both deeply. This protectionist measure also played out against a backdrop of a deep American commitment to isolationism, as the rest of the world slowly but unstoppably marched towards a world war. 

The Hawley- Smoot Tariff and 
the Great Depression, 1928– 1932

In the 1920s, the focus of trade policy shifted from protecting manufacturing to protecting agriculture. Congress struggled to fi nd the right 
way to assist farmers and relieve farm distress, turning to a tariff revision 
after President Coolidge vetoed price- support legislation. The resulting 
Hawley- Smoot tariff of 1930 proved to be the most controversial piece of 
trade legislation since the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. The subject of 
heated debate during its difficult passage through Congress, the legislation 
helped push the average tariff on dutiable imports to near- record levels just 
as the economy was sliding into the Great Depression. The early 1930s 
saw an unprecedented contraction of world trade, during which time many 
other countries retaliated against the United States and significantly increased their own trade barriers. The Hawley- Smoot tariff had far- reaching 
consequences and it marked the last time that Congress ever set duties in 
the entire tariff schedule.

- Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy
- This PDF is a selection from a published volume from the National Bureau
of Economic Research
- Volume Author/Editor: Douglas A. Irwin
- November 2017
Bruce Plante cartoon: Trump's trade war

The bottom line to Smoot-Hawley and presumably President-elect Trump’s threats against our neighbors and most other nations, is that tariffs start tariff wars, in which there are no winners. Also, it is working Americans that do the overwhelming majority of the suffering. At the moment, toxic oligarchy is keeping the prices of goods and services artificially inflated. No, not inflation, but just plain and simple, old-fashioned price-gouging

There is legitimate fear of Trump’s approach to the economy. First of all, he’s inheriting President Biden’s hot, well-grounded economy, just like he did in 2016 from the Obama administration. He has already told us that he doesn’t think it will be easy to lower consumer prices and as we all have learned during his 2018 losing trade war with China, it is the American people who pay the cost of tariffs

Trump Promises Lower Food Prices But Cant Deliver by Monte Wolverton
Introduction to the research from the National Bureau of Economic Research

“The ghost of Smoot-Hawley seems to haunt President Trump.”1 As fears of a trade war between the U.S. and China grew after the U.S. presidential election of 2016, many commentators drew precisely this link between the events of 1930 and today. And the consensus was that the trade wars of the 1930s were an ominous portent of what might await the world if Donald Trump’s protectionist impulses were not checked

The conclusion of the research from the National Bureau of Economic Research

President Trump’s recent use of tariffs as a “weapon” to cudgel other nations into changing their trade policies has renewed interest in understanding what trade wars are and how they affect flows of goods and services across borders. As our research indicates, the current trade war was by no means the first one initiated by the U.S. The passage of Smoot-Hawley led to direct retaliation by important U.S. trade partners. Countries responded to its passage by imposing tariffs 24 targeting U.S. exports. Although protectionism was on the rise in the 1930s, we collect novel data and design empirical tests which show that retaliation against Smoot-Hawley was distinctive: it involved policies specifically directed at the U.S., the initial provocateur. 

Using a new data set on quarterly bilateral trade flows as well as detailed information on who filed official protests during the legislative debate over the Tariff Act of 1930 and who (later) retaliated, gravity model estimates demonstrate that U.S. exports were severely affected by the Smoot-Hawley trade war. Even after controlling for financial crises, the effects of the global decline in aggregate demand, and the overall decline in partner countries’ imports from all sources, U.S. exports fell substantially. If they had just fallen in line with the overall reduction in imports in each country, we would have found no effect: instead, they fell disproportionately, by between 15 and 33 percent, depending on the specification and the countries involved. By examining the effects for protestors as well as retaliators, we are able to more extensively assess the retaliation against Smoot-Hawley: this was not limited to those countries traditionally regarded as “retaliators”. 

Product-level regression estimates confirm that retaliators were strategic in their response to Smoot-Hawley (as they have been in more recent trade wars), choosing to bludgeon key U.S. exports differentially. Fast-growing U.S. exports of automobiles appear to have been particularly targeted by U.S. trade partners. Our results suggest that MFN constraints did not prevent countries from effectively retaliating. In addition to strategically targeted tariffs, retaliation involved such non-tariff measures as quotas, boycotts and increased sales resistance to American goods. Our results show that this retaliation was extremely effective in reducing U.S. exports. In March 2018, Peter Navarro famously predicted that no country would retaliate against U.S. tariffs. 29 The evidence from the 1930s suggests it is a mistake, even for a country as wealthy and powerful as the United States, to assume that it can engage in a trade war with impunity.

- THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TRADE WAR- NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
- Kris James Mitchener
- Kirsten Wandschneider
- Kevin Hjortshøj O'Rourke
- March 2021
Donald Trump Plans to Use “Socialism” to Ameliorate Effects of Tariffs on  Farmers — The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

To wrap up this short history lesson, I wish to remind readers that trade wars rarely achieve their desired effect and more often than not… backfire. Tariffs are always paid by the consumer, not the companies involved in the import/ export of products. Projections for Trump’s intended tariffs suggest an increase of at least $1,900 a year for the average family although depending on the products and services used, it could easily be five times that. In an economy where consumers are already being abused at the cash register, such additions to family budgets are not only unwelcome, but could negatively impact other important budget items. 

Most families do not have room in their budgets to fight trade wars that make the oligarchical elite, wealthier, while their budget becomes overburdened because of tariffs. This is why tariffs are often described as a “tax” on consumers.

Trump Tariffs Cartoons

Education Law Center published a handy guide to compare state spending on education.

Public Schools First North Carolina used that guide to demonstrate how poorly the state funds its schools.

Education Law Center’s 2024 report Making the Grade: How Fair is Funding in Your State shows once again that North Carolina is doing much less that it can to support public schools.

This comes no surprise to those following public education funding in the state, but it is disappointing that North Carolina, a state that touts its business-friendly environment, continues to neglect an essential foundation of business success—an educated workforce. More than 80% of the state’s students attend public schools (traditional & charter), so continued neglect jeopardizes our state’s future at every level.

FUNDING LEVEL GRADE: F – Funding level is the per-pupil funding provided to school districts from state and local sources. The measure is cost-adjusted to account for cost-of-living differences across states. North Carolina is #48 out of 51 (states + DC). All other Southeastern states rank higher; only Arizona, Utah, and Idaho rank lower. 

North Carolina’s per pupil funding is $4,868 lower than the national average! 

The “good” news is that in this year’s report, North Carolina lags behind Mississippi by only $475 per student. Last year our state spent $669 less per student than Mississippi, the poorest state in the nation. 

FUNDING DISTRIBUTION GRADE: B – Funding distribution measures the extent to which districts with high levels of poverty receive additional funds. North Carolina is #12 out of 48 states in this category, a very respectable rank with room to grow. This measure tells us that although overall public education funding is terrible, the funding available to high and low poverty districts is fairly even (i.e. equally bad).

FUNDING EFFORT GRADE: F – Funding effort measures the funding allocated to support PK-12 education as a percentage of the state’s wealth (GDP). North Carolina is #49 out of 50 states. This means that although North Carolina has enough money, it chooses not to spend it on education. North Carolina spends just 2.08% of its wealth on education. Only Arizona spends less. They spend 2.05%.

The state with the highest funding effort is Vermont. They spend 5.50% on education. Vermont’s GDP per capita is $53,483 and the state spends $25,627 per pupil (cost adjusted) each year.

In contrast, North Carolina’s GDP per capita is $56,943, which is higher than Vermont’s. But we spend just $11,777 per pupil. In other words, although Vermont isn’t as rich as North Carolina, Vermont spends $13,850 more per student (cost adjusted) each year. That’s more than double North Carolina’s financial commitment to our students!

North Carolina is better that this. Let’s hold our legislators accountable!

The Trump presidency will be unlike any in our history, including his first term. This time, the Trump Organization is going all in to monetize his fame and position. Never before has a President gone to such lengths to monetize his name.

Cat Zakrzewski of The Washington Post reported:

The Trump Store has a gift for every patriot on your Christmas list.

It’s a little late for this year’s celebrations, but you can get a very early jump on next year and count down with the $38 Trump Advent calendar. Or trim the tree with a $95 Mar-a-Lago bauble or a $16 MAGA hat ornament, sold in nine colors. (A glass version of the hat ornament is $92.) Stuff stockings with an $86 “GIANT Trump Chocolate Gold Bar” and a $22 pair of candy cane socks printed with “Trump.” Prepare a holiday feast with a $14 Trump Christmas tree pot holder and $28 Trump apron featuring Santa waving an American flag.

The profits from these holiday trinkets do not benefit a political committee or a charitable cause, but the Trump Organization, the Trump family’s privately owned conglomerate of real estate, hotel and lifestyle businesses. As the company encouraged customers to celebrate the holidays with Trump gifts for all ages, President-elect Donald Trump personally profited off of his upcoming term in a manner that is unprecedented in modern history — even during his unconventional first stint in the White House.

The Trump Organization thought of everyone celebrating Trump’s nonconsecutive terms this yuletide season, rolling out a line of merchandise printed with “45-47,” including $195 quarter-zip sweatshirts, $85 cigar ashtrays and $38 baseball caps. Fido can’t go without his gear, of course: The store also sells gifts for dogs, including orange leashes and camo collars emblazoned with Trump’s name. And don’t forget the kids! How about a $38 teddy bear wearing a red, white or blue Trump sweater, $8 MAGA hat stickers or an array of Trump sweets, including $16 gummy bears?

All of these gifts can be wrapped in $28 golden Trump wrapping paper or stuck into Trump ornament gift bags ($14 a pair), and accompanied by a note on $35 stationery featuring bottles of Trump wine.
“Make the holidays that much greater this year with essentials from the Trump Home and Holiday collection,” the website says, over a photo of an Elf on the Shelf toy and a lime-green MAGA hat.

Trump has long delighted in finding new ways to market his name, creating a merchandise empire that includes digital trading cards, pricey sneakers, expensive watches and signed Bibles. But his expansion of offerings in the run-up to the inauguration has further concerned ethics experts and watchdogs, who say his behavior is the opposite of what they expect from a president-in-waiting during the transition….

Throughout December, Trump has used his account on Truth Social to hawk products for the holidays. In between posts laying out his positions on the chaos in Syria and the government spending bill, Trump posted that the “hottest gift” this Christmas is his $99 coffee table tome, “SAVE AMERICA.” The book is sold by Winning Team Publishing, a company co-founded by his son Donald and Sergio Gor, the next director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel….

Incoming first lady Melania Trump promoted her own line of Christmas ornaments and necklaces during a December interview with Fox News, where she discussed her husband’s “incredible” election victory. She described the ornaments as “very patriotic” and said the design was inspired by the election. The $90 brass ornament features “USA” in red, white and blue, and the gold “Vote Freedom” pendant retails for $600.

A representative for Melania Trump did not respond to a request for comment.
Earlier this month, the president-elect also announced he had launched a fragrance line, which includes the $199 “VICTORY 47” perfume for women and the “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” cologne for men. Products for Christmas delivery were sold out as of Dec. 19. Trump promoted the fragrances on Truth Social with a photo of Jill Biden smiling at him during a service this month celebrating the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.

“A FRAGRANCE YOUR ENEMIES CAN’T RESIST!” the caption said.

The fragrance website is operated by 45Footwear LLC, the same company that operates GetTrumpSneakers.com, a website currently selling $499 “Trump Won Gold Low Top Sneakers.” The fragrance website says that Trump’s name and associated design are trademarks of CIC Ventures LLC and that 45Footwear uses Trump’s likeness under a licensing agreement.

“Trump Fragrances are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals,” the website says.

The precise structure of the fragrance deal is unclear. CIC Ventures is a Trump company, The Washington Post has previously reported, and 45Footwear is affiliated with an LLC of the same name that is based in Sheridan, Wyo., according to state records. The LLC was filed by a Wyoming lawyer named Andrew Pierce.

Politicians have long sold T-shirts, hats, bumper stickers and even ugly Christmas sweaters to finance their campaigns or political action committees, and the Trump National Committee is also selling some Christmas merchandise, including a variety of MAGA stockings that feature a photo of Trump in a Santa hat. After leaving office, presidents often make money from speaking fees or by selling their memoirs.
But a president privately profiting off merchandise related to his election is highly unusual.

Government ethics experts say Trump’s merchandise sales are just one example of the new financial conflicts of interest that Trump’s presidency will raise. It is unprecedented for a president to own a multibillion-dollar stake in a publicly traded company, as Trump does in Trump Media & Technology Group. Because the stake represents a significant portion of the president-elect’s net worth, ethics experts are concerned that wealthy individuals, companies and funds associated with foreign governments could seek to influence Trump by pouring money into the business.

You can never have too much music!

Especially on Christmas Day!

Especially when it is Bach!

From South Kitsap High School in Port Orchard, Washington, comes a sensational performance of them”Halleluia Chorus” of Handel’s “Messiah,” performed by silent monks using flashcards. This video has racked up millions of views on Facebook and YouTube.