Archives for category: Accountability
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

South Carolina: State Supreme Court Overturns Vouchers

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2024 //
8

Republican-controlled states have been on a crusade to enact vouchers, with the alone stimulus of billionaire lobbying dollars. We know from Michigan State University scholar Josh Cowen that most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in private schools. Thus, vouchers are a subsidy for people who can afford private schools, not for low-income students. Cowen also has demonstrated that the academic outcomes of vouchers are disastrous for kids who transfer from public schools (the evidence is contained in Cowen’s excellent new book: The Privateers).

The South Carolina State Supreme Court just overturned the state’s voucher program. Three judges recognized that the program violated the state constitution. Courts in other Republican-controlled states have decoded that the state constitution does not mean what it says.

Peter Greene writes in Forbes:

In many states, the challenge of creating a school voucher program is a constitutional requirement that public tax dollar are designated only for public schools. South Carolina’s legislature thought they had found a workaround; today the State Supreme Court said no.

The 3-2 decision came as a surprise. But the basis for the “relief granted in part” was straightforward.

The petitioners in the case make the claim that the voucher program violates Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution:

“No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”

The language is exceptionally direct and clear, but legislators thought they had created a workaround in the form of the Education Scholarship Trust Fund. The premise, seen in many taxpayer funded voucher programs in other states, is that once the money passes into the hands of a third party, it somehow sheds its public nature.

As the ruling puts it:

Respondents’ primary argument is that the funds start out as public funds but lose their public character once the Treasurer places the funds in the ESTF.

The court is unconvinced that the ESTF is a true trust. And the court points out that even if it is a trust, the nature of a trust is that the trustee holds legal title to the estate, and in this case, the trustee is the state. The court notes that “this is not the first time we have encountered an attempt to deploy a trust to avoid constitutional limits on the use of public funds” and cites O’Brien v. S. C. ORBIT.

The other argument by the state is that ESTF funds benefit the families, and do not provide “direct benefit” to the private schools. “[T]hey read our Constitution as allowing public funds to be directly paid to private schools as tuition as long as the funds are nudged along their path by the student.”

The state argues that this is not like the last time vouchers were struck down (Adams v. McMaster) because this time the vouchers can be used for private or public schools. Therefor the program does not provide direct benefits for private schools. However, responds the court, “just because the benefit is diffuse does not mean it is not direct.”

State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver responded to the ruling.

“Families cried tears of joy when the scholarship funds became available for their children, and today’s Supreme Court ruling brings those same families tears of devastation. The late timing of the initial filing and subsequent ruling on this case midway through the first quarter of the new school year wreaks havoc on the participating students and their families.”

The ruling is certainly inconveniently timed for those students who have already used the vouchers to start their new school year. It’s not clear what will happen to them.

Previously, Kentucky’s Supreme Court also struck down their state’s voucher program, arguing that the twists and turns built into the program did not conceal it’s fundamental nature—the use of public taxpayer dollars to fund private and religious schools in violation of the state constitution. In Kentucky, that has led to an attempt to rewrite the constitution. We’ll see what the South Carolina legislature tries next.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Religion, Republicans, School Choice, Segregation, Separation of church and state, South Carolina

Margaret Sullivan on “Sanewashing” Trump

By dianeravitch
September 10, 2024 //
119

Margaret Sullivan is an experienced journalist who previously served as the Public Editor (ombudsman) of The New York Times. She now has a blog, where she writes about the media.

In this post, she explains the phenomenon called “sanewashing.” What is this term? It’s recently invented, presumably in reaction to current events. It refers to framing a news story to describe an incoherent rant as a thoughtful policy discussion.

She writes:

Like whitewashing a fence, sanewashing a speech covers a multitude of problems. The Urban Dictionary definition: Attempting to downplay a person or idea’s radicality to make it more palatable to the general public … a portmanteau of “sane” plus “whitewashing.”

Here, as an example, is a Politico news alert that summarizes a recent Trump speech: “Trump laid out a sweeping vision of lower taxes, higher tariffs and light-touch regulation in a speech to top Wall Streets execs today.” As writer Thor Benson quipped on Twitter: “I hope the press is this nice to me if I ever do a speech where no one can tell if I just had a stroke or not.”

Trump has become more incoherent as he has aged, but you wouldn’t know it from most of the press coverage, which treats his utterances as essentially logical policy statements — a “sweeping vision,” even.

After the intense media focus on Joe Biden’s age and mental acuity, you would think Trump’s apparent decline would be a preoccupation. He is 78, after all, and often incoherent. But with rare exceptions, that hasn’t happened.

I will give the Washington Post some credit here for the way it covered the speech mentioned above, specifically his answer to a question about how he would fund child care.

“Trump offers confusing plan to pay for U.S. child care with foreign tariffs,” the headline said. But many others, including the New York Times, sanewashed what he said, which went like this:

“Well, I would do that and we’re sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, who was so impactful on that issue … But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’ve talking about because the childcare is childcare, couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.”

And then he went on to say that his idea of tariffs on China will take care of the cost of pretty much everything, which might remind you of how he claims deporting immigrants will pay for affordable housing.

Sweeping vision, you say?

But why does the media sanewash Trump? It’s all a part of the false-equivalence I’ve been writing about here in which candidates are equalized as an ongoing gesture of performative fairness.

And it’s also, I believe, because of the restrained language of traditional objective journalism. That’s often a good thing; it’s part of being careful and cautious. But when it fails to present a truthful picture, that practice distorts reality.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Fake, Language, Lies, Trump

John Merrow: Education and the 2024 Election

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2024 //
9

John Merrow spent many years as PBS’s education reporter. Now retired, he continues to be a well-informed and well-respected observer of education issues.

Merrow writes:

If Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, public education isn’t likely to be shaken up as much as it needs to be. If Donald Trump is elected and has his way, public education will be turned upside down. But no matter who wins, American higher education is in big trouble….although, as you will see, every crisis is also an opportunity.

If Trump wins in November, the world of education faces rough seas.  His “Project 2025” pledges to abolish the federal Department of Education, without specifying what agencies would be responsible for what the Department now does, such as enforcing civil rights laws in education.  “Project 2025” pledges to abolish Head Start, the preschool program that now serves about 833,000 low income children, send Title One money directly to states (while phasing it out over a 10-year period), and turn over Pell Grant administration to the Treasury Department.   While many in education want the Pell Grant cap of $7,395 per year to be raised (given the cost of a college education), “Project 2025” does not address this.

President Biden has made forgiving student debt a goal, but most of his efforts have been stymied by the courts. “Project 2025” would end the practice completely.

Trump and his team promise to advance “education freedom” by vigorously promoting “school choice.”  In practice, this would provide parents with cash vouchers that can be spent at private and religious schools, as well as federal tax credits for money spent on private school tuition. In simplest terms, Trump and his team want as much of the money that now goes to public schools to go to parents instead, and they want it to be tax-deductible, as it now is in Arizona. 

“Project 2025” calls for restricting free breakfast and lunch to low income students. Doing that would probably bring back separate lines and separate entrances for those paying and those eating ‘for free.’  That practice led some poor kids to skip meals entirely, to avoid humiliation, which is why many school districts have opted to feed all kids. (There’s some evidence that feeding everyone is actually cheaper, because it eliminates the need for special passes, separate accounting, and so forth. Ask Tim Walz about it.)

A significant change that I experienced as a reporter was the treatment of children with handicapping conditions.  Prior to 1975, many of those children were institutionalized or kept at home. “The Education of All Handicapped Children Act” (PL 94-142) moved the revolution that had begun in Massachusetts and Minnesota to the national level. While it’s not perfect today, the federal government contributes more than $14 Billion to pay for services for those youngsters.  “Project 2025” would distribute the money to states directly with few if any strings attached and would ask Congress to rewrite the law so that some money could go directly to parents. That doesn’t seem to me to be a step in the right direction.

All of these provisos and directives seem likely to do major damage to public education, as well as to the life chances of low income students.

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run schools, seem unlikely to fare well no matter who wins. They aren’t private enough for most Republicans, and they are too private for most Democrats.

What lies in store for education if Harris wins in November?  The Biden-Harris Administration promised far more than it delivered, particularly in higher education, and its Secretary of Education has been largely missing in action, as far as I could tell. The party’s platform calls for free pre-school, free public college for families earning under $125,000 per year, making college tuition tax-deductible, smaller classes, and more ‘character education,’ whatever that is.

My own wish list would be for an energetic Secretary of Education who would encourage and lead conversations about the purposes of education, and the roles that schools play.  Too often today public schools are merely rubber-stamping the status children arrive with; but schools are supposed to be ladders of opportunity, there to be climbed by anyone and everyone with ambition.

The federal government cannot change how schools operate, but its leadership could and should shine a bright light on what schools could be….and how they could get there.

If I am allowed one wish, it’s that President Harris and Vice President Walz propose National Service, a 2-year commitment for all, in return for two years of tuition/training.  It’s long past time to put the ‘me-me-me’ self-absorption of the Ronald Reagan era in our rear view mirror. Our young people need to be reminded that they live in a great country and ought to show our appreciation by serving it in some capacity.

Whoever wins, Harris or Trump, American higher education’s rough years will continue, because a growing number of young people are questioning the value of, and necessity for, a college education.  This is a genuine crisis, and American higher education is in the fight of its life: Last year nearly 100 colleges shut down, roughly two per week.  While we still have more than 4,000 higher education institutions, many of those may not make it to 2030.  The rising cost of college defies common sense, the rise of Artificial Intelligence threatens some professions that now require a college degree, and many young people seem inclined to opt out of the high-speed, high stakes chase for a credential.  How many of the 31,000,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 will continue to enroll in college this year and next is an open question.  

Of course, colleges aren’t standing pat. For example,  Community Colleges are reaching down into high schools to keep their enrollment up; about one-fifth of all current Community College students are also enrolled in high school. Those institutions also enroll lots of older students–the average age of a Community College student is 28.

Four-year colleges and universities are fighting to enroll the 40,000,000 Americans who have some college credits but not enough for a degree.  They are also doing their best to attract on-line learners of all ages, and the most ambitious institutions are working hard to enroll (full paying) students from all over the world.  

If Trump wins, his immigration policies might shut the door on foreign students, a cash cow for a large number of institutions.  If Harris wins, federal aid probably won’t be slashed, but that won’t stop the questioning.

Questioning is long overdue. For too long elitists in the Democratic and Republican parties have looked down their noses at those not going to college, ignoring the wisdom of the great John Gardner:  “An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”

Every crisis is also an opportunity:Some of those shuttered college campuses might be repurposed for housing for senior citizens, or veterans.  Some of those facilities could become Head Start centers, hubs for small businesses, community hospitals, and so forth. I’d like to see a Harris-Walz Administration embrace the possiblities, with energy and imagination.

So please pay attention. Vote intelligently, and urge your friends and neighbors to vote.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democracy, Democrats, Deregulation, Education Reform, Elections, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Funding, Harris, Kamala, Higher Education, Republicans, Special Education, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. education

The Biggest Issue in 2024 Election: The U.S. Supreme Court

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2024 //
13

Jason Linkins of The New Republic writes that it doesn’t really matter what Kamala Harris’s policies are because the Supreme Court is poised to strike them down. its recent decision, overruling what is known as the Chevron doctrine, hamstrings any Democratic initiative.

If Trump should win, he will be able to appoint replacements for the two oldest justices, guaranteeing a rightwing majority for decades.

Linkins writes that “a dark shadow” blights every policy that a Harris administration might want to initiate. That dark shadow is the conservative majority’s decision in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. 

Linkins writes:

That ruling, which overturned a doctrine called “Chevron deference,” puts the future of any policy that Harris favors in grave doubt. If you want the Harris campaign to get more detailed on policy, I’m sorry to say that any conversation starts and ends with how they plan to confront a Supreme Court that has torched the separation of powers in the mad game of Calvinball they kicked off during the Trump era. 

The gutting of Chevron deference is not something that the smooth-brained masses of the political media adequately understood when it came down. Chevron deference is essentially the doctrine that allows government agencies to respond nimbly to their congressional mandates; hitherto, the judiciary stayed out of the way, allowing executive branch personnel to use their expertise to interpret ambiguous regulations. Imagine, for example, the technological advancements that have occurred since landmark environmental legislation was passed decades ago. The EPA, given free rein to adapt to this changing landscape, can move more fleetly to remediate pollution thanks to Chevron. The Roberts court, instead, imagines a world where they have to return to Congress each time there is an emergency, to get specific guidance.

The best way of describing what the conservative majority did is to say it gave six unelected right-wing politicians who all enjoy a lifetime appointment a line-item veto over anything a Democratic Congress—and by extension Harris—wants to do, unless they can muster the votes to confront each problem they want to solve with an inhuman amount of hyper-specificity. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has explained, if the executive branch “can’t regulate without getting permission from a Republican judiciary … then conservatives no longer need to worry about Democratic presidents doing much of anything that doesn’t meet the GOP’s approval…” 

The Supreme Court really is the most critical policy issue in this election. The Trump-installed majority is central to what the right plans for a second Trump term. Beyond the fact that the Roberts court’s ruling in Trump v. United States imbues the chief executive with monarchic levels of unaccountability—a dangerous privilege for, frankly, any president to possess—Project 2025, which is best understood as a massive rollback of individual rights, is something that Republicans simply could never contemplate without their super-legislature in black robes. 

Here, vaporizing Chevron has an asymmetric impact on the ambitions of the two parties. The GOP, having retreated from any part of the policy realm besides Project 2025’s infernal schemes, the furnishing of tax cuts to plutocrats, and deregulating everything under the sun (also a form of wealth transfer to plutocrats), need not worry about Chevron being in effect anymore.
But what makes Chevron crucial to this campaign is that the sledding for Democrats remains rough even if they prevail in November.

Indeed, even if they blow the GOP out of the water electorally, the end of Chevron deference is a fail-safe against Democratic policy, constantly running in the background as long as five of the six conservatives on the Roberts court agree. In this way, Harris and her fellow Democrats are locked out of liberal governance. Since liberal governance will form the cornerstone of anything Harris and Democrats want to do during her time in office, a confrontation with a Supreme Court that’s holding the policymaking apparatus hostage is not a fight they can duck. 

All Democrats need to join in this fight, and constantly raise the salience of the Supreme Court and its attendant corruption. It would be a good idea for any policy discussion to note that the Roberts court is the primary antagonist to making things better, easier, safer, and fairer for ordinary Americans; they are despoilers of the land and pilferers of our wealth. Harris should continually remind voters that turning things around will require a Democratic president to be on hand to appoint any replacements that may be needed, and prevent the oldest conservative justices from escaping into retirement, which would allow Trump to replace them with young members of the right’s lunatic lower-court farm system.

Is it time to revisit court-packing? I think the institutionalist case against it completely collapsed by the end of the court’s last term, but I doubt Harris has the stomach to revive the idea over the next several weeks. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will remain the rock in the road that Democrats must find a way around if they want to improve our lives. Anything you might want an ascendant Democratic administration to do faces the judicial veto of right-wingers who can’t be voted out of office. It’s true that Harris is probably not going to deliver, or even champion, the most ambitious policies that progressives favor. But whether you’re a progressive fan of Medicare for All, or a centrist dedicated to means-tested, watered-down bullshit, you’re all in the same boat, so grab an oar.

Categories Accountability, Civil Rights, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Justice, Republicans, Trump

John Thompson: How the Media Should Cover Trump

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2024 //
53

John Thompson, retired teacher and historian, has pondered how the media should cover Trump. He lies with such frequency that his lies are barely worth mentioning, whereas any error or overstatement by Harris or Walz is a news story. For instance, CNN’s Dana Bash questioned Governor Tim Walz about a 1995 drunk driving arrest and how he characterized it in his campaign for Congress in 2006. The media doesn’t have to ransack through Trump’s statements to find a lie from nearly two decades ago. Just listen to whatever he said today. He still claims that he won the 2020 election, without any evidence.

Thompson writes:

This post began as a nuanced response to the USA Today’s fact-checking conclusion that “Project 2025 is a political playbook created by the Heritage Foundation and dozens of other conservative groups, not Trump, who said he disagrees with elements of the effort.” Although the USA Today acknowledged the role of “numerous people involved in Project 2025 who worked in Trump’s first administration,” it failed in fact-checking Trump’s statement that, “I know nothing about Project 2025.”

Neither did it challenge the Heritage Foundation’s claim that this was just a plan for the next conservative President, as opposed to Trump!?!?

When I read Diane Ravitch’s reposting of Dan Rather’s Don’t Believe Donald Trump, I knew that now there is no need for the nuance I planned. Rather cited the CNN video of Russell Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, and a key author of Project 2025, who was recorded on a hidden camera.

Rather linked to the video, posted on CNN, when “Vought described the project as the ‘tip of the America First spear.’ He said that after meeting with Trump in recent months, the former president ‘is very supportive of what we do.’” 

Vought also said that Trump’s current attempts to disassociate himself from Project 2025 are “just politics,” and “distancing himself from a brand.” He said Trump is “very supportive” of their efforts and has raised money for “us.”

In other words, it is clear that Rather is correct in saying, “I cannot state it strongly enough: Project 2025, with Donald Trump at the helm, is the greatest existential threat to American democracy in recent history.”

But, but as Trump and his allies continue to double-down on lies, the need to converse with journalists about how they fact-check and report on MAGA-ism will continue and, perhaps, become more complicated. And that gets me back to discussing USA Today’s fact-check as a case study in journalism’s norms during this crisis. As Slate wrote:

Of all Trump’s recent lies, his attempted dissociation with Project 2025 may be the most important—because he’s trying to convince the American people that the choice between dictatorship and democracy that they face is not before them at all.

Being a former academic historian, I believe journalists should consider how a historian would fact-check this issue, covering the recent history of Trump and the Heritage Foundation, as well decades of rightwing propaganda seeking to reduce government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” and the history of Edward R. Murrow standing up for democracy in 1954.

At a minimum, the history of Trumpism and of “astro-turf” think tanks over the last half-century, should have reversed the burden of proof for fact-checking; given that history, fact-checkers would have had to first show evidence substantiating Trump’s and his allies’ claims.

I would then recommend a 2016 Columbia Journalism Review analysis by David Mindich, For Journalists Covering Trump, a Murrow Moment. Mindich starts in 1954 with Murrow’s “now-famous special report condemning Joseph McCarthy.” Murrow said that McCarthy”: 

Didn’t create this situation of fear–he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. … This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, … “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Mindich then explains that “American journalistic goals of detachment and objectivity are long held.” They made a good trade-off, “Journalists would avoid taking sides, and they would be given access to newsmakers–and news consumers–from both parties.” He then praised journalists who moved beyond “the usual practice of studied balance” to reveal the threatening nature of Trump. Moreover, it is time for “mainstream journalists to abandon their detachment … when a politician’s words go way beyond the pale.”

In the last eight years, Trump has gone farther and farther beyond the lines of democracy. And in the next few months, his rhetoric (and that of his supporters) is likely to go more dangerously beyond the pale. And as Mindich wrote, “journalists have been more likely to become advocates when they see others, like politicians and protesters, speaking loudly in dissent.”

So, we must join together and commit to Murrow’s principles in our fight for democracy.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Lies, Trump

North Carolina Alert! GOP Plans to Slip in $248 Million for Vouchers on Monday

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2024 //
6

Public Schools First, North Carolina’s premier parent-advocacy group, warns that the GOP-controlled legislature plans to expand the state’s voucher program on Monday. It asks parents and concerned citizens to sign a petition and get active to stop the ongoing campaign to defund public schools.

Public Schools First NC writes:

In a familiar move, voucher supporters in the legislature are adding a $248M voucher expansion to an existing bill instead of proposing a stand-alone bill that can be debated and voted on separately. 

House Bill 10 “Require Sheriffs to Cooperate with ICE” has been newly branded “Require ICE Cooperation & Budget Adjustments.” This is where they have included an additional $248 million for private school vouchers in 2024-25.

With the school year underway, parents have already had to make schooling decisions for their children. This means that the $248 million is primarily for private school tuition for students who are already enrolled in a private school this year. In other words, families that can already afford private school will simply receive a tax-funded tuition rebate. 

Left out of the ICE/Budget Adjustments bill are any additional funds for teacher pay, which leaves the average pay increase at 3% for teachers this year. Due to inflation increases, the 3% raise is effectively a pay cut unless local communities add salary supplements large enough to make up the difference. Even worse, teachers with more than 4 years of experience received increases of less than 2% this year.  

Why aren’t legislators spending the $248 million boosting teacher salaries so they’re not getting a pay cut?

Put into specific dollar amounts, the proposed voucher expansion would give $4,480 to families (of 4) making up to $259,740 per year and $3,360 to millionaires, while teachers with 10 years of experience make just $49,350 per year and are stuck with a skimpy $920 salary increase. Is this fair? Is this how we strengthen and support our public schools?

Also missing are dollars to support early childhood education or fund North Carolina Pre-K. Currently just 53% of eligible children are enrolled in NC Pre-K, leaving nearly 24,000 low-income children without an adequate pre-k option. 

Instead of clearing the private school voucher waitlist to fund wealthy families, perhaps the legislature should spend the $248 million to clear the NC Pre-K waitlist and support low-income families.

There are many, many more important issues the legislature should be addressing during their time in Raleigh than adding dollars to a program that harms public schools and sends dollars to private schools that are completely unaccountable to the public.

It is critical that you act now! The NC Senate will open their session at noon. Join us if you can.

Please sign our petition to let legislators know you want them to OPPOSE THIS THREAT TO OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS – TELL THEM VOTE NO TO ANY PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHER EXPANSION!Sign the Petition

Need help explaining this to your neighbors and friends? Public Schools First NC just released a short video explaining vouchers in NC. Please share it widely!

video

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Education Industry, Extremism, North Carolina, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Georgia: Father of Teenage Shooter Arrested and Charged

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2024 //
50

Parents have parental rights, and they also have parental responsibilities. One surely is to keep your guns, if you have them, locked up. Colin Gray didn’t do that. Instead, he gave his teenage son an AR-15 type weapon for Christmas in 2023. This was after the FBI had questioned father and son about online threats to shootup the boy’s school. The father insisted that he kept his hunting guns in a safe place, and the boy denied having any thought of harming anyone.

Georgia police arrested Colin Gray, the father of the 14-year-old boy who admitted bringing an assault weapon to school and murdering four people, including two students and two teachers. The father faces multiple charges that could land him in prison for life.

If police and courts make it customary and standard to hold parents accountable for their children, especially when they allow them to obtain deadly weapons, such expectations might have a deterrent effect.

The Washington Post reported:

Before Thursday’s announcement, the teen’s grandfather, Charles Polhamus, said he wanted Colin Gray charged along with his son.
“If he didn’t have a damn gun,” Polhamus said, “he wouldn’t have gone and killed anybody….”


The charges come just months after a mother and father in Michigan became the first parents of a school shooter ever convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a less severe crime than second-degree murder. Investigators found that, in November 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley had bought their 15-year-old son a gun, didn’t lock it up and ignored blatant warning signs before he opened fire at Oxford High in Michigan, killing four students. In separate trials, each was found guilty and sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, the maximum allowed.

Parental rights, parental responsibility.

Categories Accountability, Guns, Parents

Breaking News! Liz Cheney Will Vote for Kamala!

By dianeravitch
September 4, 2024 //
36

Liz Cheney broke her silence today: she declared before an audience of students at Duke University that she will vote for Kamala Harris.

Former Representative Liz Cheney, the onetime high-ranking Republican from Wyoming who torpedoed her own political career by breaking vociferously with former President Donald J. Trump, on Wednesday told students at a Duke University event that she would be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris in November.

“I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states,” Ms. Cheney said. “As a conservative and someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”

Ms. Cheney had remained silent until now, despite repeated outreach from the Harris campaign, which has been courting Republican endorsements and voters. Ms. Cheney chose not to speak at the Democratic National Convention, making the decision to wait for a stand-alone moment in September, closer to when early voting was set to begin.

It was a strategic choice to ensure her voice would not be lost in a sea of back-to-back convention speeches, according to three people familiar with her thinking.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Trump

Georgia: Another School Shooting; 14-Year-Old Student in Custody

By dianeravitch
September 4, 2024 //
17

A 14-year-old boy is in custody after a mass shooting at Apalachee High School in northern Georgia. Four people are dead, two students and two teachers. At least nine were injured. The boy was a student in the school. At this time, no information has been released about his identity or motive, what kind of gun was used or how the boy got the gun.

Governor Brian Kemp signed legislation weakening the state’s gun laws while sitting in a gun shop, surrounded by gun enthusiasts. Since 2022, Georgia has allowed individuals to carry guns without a permit, although public opinion polls showed that almost 70% of Georgians opposed permitless carry.

In 2022, Kemp proudly signed the new gun law:

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp on Tuesday signed a law allowing residents to carry handguns in public without a license or background check.

Kemp, a Republican, backed a similar proposal when he ran for governor in 2018, and expanding gun rights was a key part of his platform. He urged the legislature to take up the issue at a press conference earlier this year. 

“(This bill) makes sure that law-abiding Georgians, including our daughters and your family too, can protect themselves without having to have permission from your state government,” Kemp said Tuesday before signing the bill into law. “This is an issue that I campaigned on in 2018 alongside so many members that are standing with us today. And by working together, we have gotten it across the finish line.”

A pro-gun control group called Everytown for Gun Safety ranked Georgia as one of the worst states in the nation (46th of 50). It described Georgia’s gun laws:

Georgia has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. The legislature passed a law requiring colleges and universities to allow guns on campus in 2017, and in 2022, Georgia repealed its last foundational policy by passing permitless carry legislation. Though Georgia repealed its Citizen’s Arrest law in 2021, the state still has a dangerous Shoot First law that allows a person to kill another in a public area, even when they can safely walk away from the danger.

If Georgia had the gun death rate of our National Leaders—the eight states with the strongest gun safety laws—we could save 17,987 lives in the next decade.

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Extremism, Georgia, Guns, Guns in Schools, Safety

Wow! Trump Admits That He Lost the 2020 Election!

By dianeravitch
September 4, 2024 //
11

During an interview on a podcast, Trump let slip that he lost the 2020 election. He claimed he lost the election “by a whisker.” In fact, he lost the popular election by 7 million votes. Perhaps he was thinking of the electoral vote, which he might have won if a few thousand votes in battleground states like Georgia had gone his way.

Nonetheless, he has falsely claimed for almost four years that he won in 2020 but the Democrats stole the election. Logic suggests that the party in power has the means to “rig” an election. He was in power. Republicans controlled Georgia, and Trump lost there.

He lost. He admitted it. Maybe it just slipped out. But he told the truth. For once.

Categories Accountability, Elections, Lies, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »