Archives for category: Freedom
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Jonathan V. Last: A Tribute to the Old Man Who Saved Democracy Twice

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2024 //
11

Jonathan V. Last is editor of The Bulwark, a site for Republican Never-Trumpers. I enjoy reading articles on this site because it is not part of a liberal Democratic echo chamber. He was a strong supporter of President Biden. He here refers to him as “the old man who saved democracy. Twice.” He published this article the day after Biden gave his moving speech to the Democratic National Convention.

He writes:

I hope you drank it in last night. It was one of the most human moments I’ve ever seen in politics, from the second the president stepped on stage and embraced his daughter.

But it was more than that. It was America saying goodbye to this ordinary man who has become an extraordinary president. A president who saved our democracy.

This is one of those cases where the transcript doesn’t give you enough context. You need the video. You need to see Biden’s face and feel the vibrations from the crowd. And you absolutely need to watch his final section, when he transitions from a campaign speech to a valediction.

This is the story of a nation grateful to a president not just for his accomplishments, but for his sacrifice. For his ability to understand that he was dispensable.

It was this extraordinary willingness, when American democracy was threatened from within, that made Joe Biden the indispensable man.

I know I’ve said this before but I want to say it again: Biden is our greatest living president. 

Seven years ago Joe Biden was an old man happy in retirement. Then he watched a group of neo-Nazis—emboldened by the election of Donald Trump—take to the streets of a college town in Virginia.

Biden looked around the political landscape and realized that he was the only person capable of defeating Trump in that moment. So he came out of retirement to run not a political campaign, but a fight for the soul of the nation.

And he won.

Biden’s victory set off a new crisis. As president-elect he watched the sitting president attempt a coup d’état—first through legal means, then through extralegal means, and finally through physical violence.

Lost in the analysis of January 6th and the post-election chaos is the critical role Biden played.

He was utterly and completely calm. He spent the post-election period preparing for the transition, even though Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with his team. And here are some of the things Biden did not do:

  • Publicly attack Trump.
  • Attempt to circumscribe Trump’s legal challenges.
  • Spread disinformation.
  • Antagonize Republican voters.
  • Seek to tie “normal” elected Republicans to Trump’s authoritarian designs.

Any of those actions might have helped Biden politically. All of them would have added gasoline to a raging fire.

President-elect Biden chose unity and calm over hysteria and division even as President Trump was attempting to end our democratic experiment. Reflect on that for a moment: Can you think of a single thing Biden said or did during that period?

No, you can’t. And that’s because Biden knew that in order to preserve the legitimacy of our system, the conflict had to be between Donald Trump and the rule of law, not between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 

As president, Biden passed a large amount of meaningful legislation, but those accomplishments were secondary to his two larger projects, one foreign and one domestic.

On foreign policy, Biden’s big project was re-energizing internationalism. Where Trump had attempted to turn America into an isolated superpower that curried favor with dictators so that it could distance itself from alliances, Biden steeled—and expanded—NATO in the face of Russian aggression and took a hard line against China.

Domestically, Biden created a mechanism for the Republican party to heal itself. Instead of pushing a divisive agenda, Biden focused mostly on popular items with broad bipartisan support, many of which directly benefited Republican constituencies: infrastructure spending, the creation of manufacturing jobs, immigration reform, reducing medical costs for seniors.

Republicans could have supported these policies (which many of them did) while trying to guide their voters away from Trumpism (which almost none of them did).

Over and over Biden tried to make space on the right for a Republican party independent of fascist overtones.

That Republican voters affirmatively chose another run with Trump is no fault of Biden’s. He did everything he could. But his big domestic project failed because the base fact is that a political party can only be as healthy as its voters let it be.

And these days the GOP is a party where voters wear t-shirts bragging about how their nominee wants to be a “dictator.”

Faced with this failure and the resurgence of the authoritarian movement, Biden saved our democracy again—this time by walking away from power. When he realized that he could not win the battle a second time, Biden anointed Kamala Harris—shutting down any contest and giving her the space to establish herself as a force.

Categories Biden, Courage, Democracy, Discipline, Elections, Ethics, Freedom, Republicans, Trump

Republican Judge J. Michael Luttig Endorses Kamala Harris

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2024 //
10

Judge J. Michael Luttig was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. He served from 1991-2006 on the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit.

He issued the following statement to explain his decision:

Almost four years ago now, on January 6, 2021, a stake was driven through the heart of America’s Democracy, and on that day American Democracy was left teetering on a knife’s edge. On that day, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not a peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America — for the first time in the almost 250 years since the Founding of the Nation. As a consequence of the former president’s continued denial of that appalling day, and his defiance of America’s Democracy to this day almost four years later, millions of Americans still believe that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from the former president, despite the fact that he lost that election fair and square in what has been proven over and over to have been the freest, fairest, and most accurate election in American history. Because of the former president’s continued, knowingly false claims that he won the 2020 election, millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in our national elections, and many never will again. Because of the former president’s knowingly false claims, many Americans — especially young Americans, tragically — have even begun to question whether constitutional democracy is the best form of self-government for America. The 2020 presidential election of course was not “stolen” from the former president and he knows that. It was the former president who attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People, not they from him. To attempt to steal an election in the United States of America is to attempt to steal America’s Democracy. For the former president to continue to persist in the knowingly false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him is a profound affront to American Democracy and to the Constitution of the United States — an affront without any precedent in all of American history.

In his utterly inexplicable obsession to this very day to deny, attempt to justify, even to glorify January 6, and to bludgeon Americans into believing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him when he knows it was not, the former president has corrupted America’s Democracy. Yet, to this day — to this day still — not only does the former president, and now the Republican Party of which he is again the standard bearer, continue to falsely claim that the former president won the 2020 election. He and his Party defiantly refuse even to pledge that they will honor and respect the vote and the will of the American People in the upcoming presidential election. In this defiant refusal, the Republican candidate for the presidency and the Republican Party have literally taken America political hostage, threatening the Nation with the specter of another January 6, 2021 on January 6, 2025, if the former president again loses his campaign for the presidency by a vote of the American People. Until January 6, 2021, there was a peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to his successor for almost 250 years. The peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to the next and the commitment of presidential candidates and their respective political parties to the peaceful transfer of power in the next election are fundamental tenets of our constitutional Republic. Adherence to these tenets is essential to American Democracy, American governance and government, and to the Rule of Law in the United States of America. Without the peaceful transfer of power, America would have no democracy. The politicians tell us that America’s Democracy and the Rule of Law are too “abstract” to “resonate” with American voters. If that was ever true in the past, which I do not accept, it is emphatically not true today. For reasons we all know too well, there could not possibly be any more concrete and consequential issues for the Nation and the American voter today than America’s Democracy and Rule of Law. America’s Democracy, and along with it the Rule of Law, were almost stolen from us on January 6, 2021, by the former President of the United States, who is, today, asking us to return him to the Highest Office of trust in the land.

America’s Democracy and Rule of Law are the defining features of our Nation. It is America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law that have made America the envy of the world and the beacon of democracy and freedom for the world for almost 250 years. This presidential election is a test of Americans’ commitment to America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. It is so because the former president and the Republican Party have shamefully made it so. The often lofty, at times even noble, policy differences that have been the hallmark of American Politics and partisan debate for almost a quarter of a millennium pale in comparison to the foundational national policy issues of America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law. American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law are the stakes — the only real stakes — in the upcoming election.. Having made them so, these foundational issues of our times cannot now be wished away by the former president and his Republican Party, as they would have it. And they must not be wished away by the American People. The fact remains to this day that even the loftiest and noblest of policies and policy differences will be comparatively inconsequential unless and until we Americans bring to an end the war on America’s Democracy that was instigated by the former president and his allies on January 6, 2021. For their part, the former president and the Republican Party have determined to prosecute their war against America’s Democracy to its catastrophic end. As a consequence, for our part, “We the People” must bring this unholy war to an end – now. The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution feared most of all this very moment in American history, when the American People would be tempted by the seductive demagoguery of a modern-day populist demagogue. In a letter to George Washington in 1792, over 230 years ago, Alexander Hamilton warned of this day and this demagogue, who would “mount the hobby horse of popularity” and whose “objects” “may justly be suspected to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

Thomas Jefferson agreed with Alexander Hamilton about very little, except about the existential danger to the Republic of a populist demagogue. “If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him,” Jefferson presciently wrote to James Madison in 1787. The time for America’s choosing has come. It is time for all Americans to stand and affirm whether they believe in American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, and want for America the same — or whether they do not. The former president and the Republican Party have cynically framed this choice as a Hobson’s choice and they have cynically forced their supposed Hobson’s choice upon the Nation. But they have chosen as their standard bearer the one man who is singularly unfit to embody and represent not only to the Nation, but to the world, America’s sacred Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law. In a word, for America and Americans, this is no Hobson’s choice at all. America’s two political parties are the political guardians of American Democracy. Regrettably, in the presidential election of 2024 there is only one political party and one candidate for the presidency that can claim the mantle of defender and protector of America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. As a result, I will unhesitatingly vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris. In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election as to her policy views on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.

In the 2024 election for President of the United States, there are no more important issues for America. It is our Democracy, our Constitution, and our Rule of Law that bind us together as Americans. We Americans must never allow ourselves to be put asunder from this that binds us by the siren calls of the politicians and the political sophists, the mercenaries and the opportunists, who entreat us that the only thing that matters in this presidential election is the candidates’ different positions on the sundry policies of the day. All, as if nothing had come before. We Americans know all too well what has come before. We understand what the political class does not want us to understand. That in the presidential election of 2024, the candidates’ policy differences are the least that matters to the United States of America.

J. Michael Luttig

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Harris, Kamala, History, Trump

The Atlantic: What Happens When Streets are Closed to Cars and Open for Play?

By dianeravitch
August 3, 2024 //
5

The Atlantic contains a lovely article by contributing writer Stephanie H. Murray about a growing movement to close streets to cars so that children can play without adult direction.

She begins:

In the summer of 2009, Amy Rose and Alice Ferguson, two mothers living on Greville Road in Bristol, a midsize city in southwest England, found themselves in a strange predicament: They saw entirely too much of their kids. “We were going, like, Why are they here?” Rose told me. “Why aren’t they outside?” The friends decided to run an experiment. They applied to shut their quarter-mile road to traffic for two hours after school on a June afternoon—not for a party or an event but just to let the children who lived there play. Intentionally, they didn’t prepare games or activities, Rose told me, as it would have defeated the purpose of the inquiry: “With time, space, and permission, what happens?”

The results were breathtaking. The dozens of kids who showed up had no problem finding things to do. One little girl cycled up and down the street “3,000 times,” Rose recalled. “She was totally blissed out.” Suddenly, the modern approach to children’s play, in which parents shuttle their kids to playgrounds or other structured activities, seemed both needlessly extravagant and wholly insufficient. Kids didn’t need special equipment or lessons; they just needed to be less reliant on their time-strapped parents to get outside.

The experiment also produced some unexpected results. As children poured into the street, some ran into classmates, only just then realizing that they were neighbors. Soon it became clear to everyone present that far more children were living on Greville Road than anyone had known. That session, and the many more it prompted, also became the means by which adult residents got to know one another, which led to another revelation for Ferguson and Rose: In numerous ways, a world built for cars has made life so much harder for adults.

The dominance of cars has turned children’s play into work for parents, who are left coordinating and supervising their children’s time and ferrying kids to playgrounds and play dates. But it has also deprived adults of something more profound. Over the years, as Rose and Ferguson have expanded their experiment to other parts of the United Kingdom, neighborhoods across the country have discovered that allowing kids to play out in the open has helped residents reclaim something they didn’t know they were missing: the ability to connect with the people living closest to them.

Modern folks tend to think that streets serve largely mobile purposes—getting cars from one place to another in swift, orderly fashion. But “prior to the automobile, streets had a ton of stationary functions,” Marcel Moran, a faculty fellow at New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, told me. Streets were where people sold wares and socialized. And particularly after the United States and Europe began to industrialize, streets were the primary location for the rising number of urban-dwelling children to play, according to Jon Winder, a historian and the author of Designed for Play: Children’s Playgrounds and the Politics of Urban Space, 1840–2010. This remained the case in the U.K. and the U.S. even after playgrounds became widespread in the early 20th century. Only when cars hit the streets in larger numbers did things begin to change. Society, Winder told me, began prioritizing “the movement and storage of motor vehicles over children and their playful behavior…”

Rose and Ferguson’s project on Greville Road is of course not the first or only effort to reclaim the streets for children. In the U.K., play streets emerged roughly a century ago as a sort of compromise in the process of booting kids off the street. But after peaking in the 1960s, they largely dwindled out, to be revived only in the late 2000s. New York has had a play-streets program since 1914, and Philadelphia for more than half a century—and recently, the idea has been taken up in other U.S. cities. Chicago launched a play-streets program in 2012, followed by Los Angeles in 2015; an initiative in Portland, Oregon, hosted its first events in 2023.

In the U.K., Rose, Ferguson, and their friend Ingrid Skeels expanded their experiment in 2011 by founding Playing Out, an organization that has helped residents on more than 1,000 streets in dozens of cities across the country set up their own play sessions. These typically last for two hours and occur weekly, biweekly, or monthly.

Open the link to read the rest of the article. It’s an inspiring idea that is great for children and parents alike. Plus, it introduces neighbors to each other.

Categories Childhood, Creativity, Freedom, Parents, Play

Umair Haque: Code Red for Democracy!

By dianeravitch
July 29, 2024 //
21

Umair Haque, an economist, warns us that democracy is in deep trouble and only one force can save it. We the people.

He writes:

Code Red for American Democracy

The last week or two’s felt like a lifetime. It’s been body blow after body blow for democracy in America.

The Supreme Court ruled Trump was effectively already something like a dictator, enjoying “presumptive immunity.” A lunatic tried to assassinate Trump, and the far right promptly blamed it on the center and left, despite the assassin being a Republican. Meanwhile, Trump announced Vance as Vice Presidential pick. And all that came on the heels of the media carrying water for Trump, while trying their very best, it seemed, to take down Joe Biden, time and again, this time with character assassination of every stripe and form.

A lifetime.

So what does all this add up to? 

Code red. 

If this moment feel severe, historic, let me assure that it is.

Democracies rarely and barely face as much and as many troubles as all this.

Let’s now simplify some of the above. The range of forces arrayed against democracy by now includes: billionaires, a supine press, lunatics, crackpots, pundits, the judiciary. And even that’s an incomplete list. That is a long and powerful list of forces inimical to democracy.

And on the other side awaits what we can all now openly call fascism.

Are These the Final Stages of American Collapse?

It’s been a decade or so since I began predicting American collapse. And we went through a familiar cycle, many of you right along with me. I’d bet that even many of you who are long time readers might have been skeptical, then grudgingly accepting, and by now, your hair’s on fire.

By now, it’s hard to deny.

My prediction, in other words, was all too prescient, and I take no comfort from that. I warned precisely because I didn’t want this to happen.

But you might wonder: what happens next? Where are we, precisely?

America’s now in a very bad place.

Let’s now put some of the above even more formally. 

  • The Supreme Court’s mounting what amounts to a rolling judicial coup, assigning the Presidency unassailable powers.
  • The press appears uninterested in providing people facts, information, or basic knowledge with which to make informed decisions, focusing on personal attacks on Biden and other forms of tabloid journalism.
  • The GOP’s effectively been transformed into an instrument of Trumpism.
  • Project 2025 is its agenda, and it involves essentially creating a totalitarian state, or at least the beginnings of one. Who’s going to check, after all, that people are obeying all these new rules which cause them to lose their basic freedoms? 

I could go on, but the point should already be clear.

All these are forms of institutional collapse. Pretty advanced and severe institutional collapse. Democracy’s a fragile thing, and each of its institutions must work in tandem to provide it the sustenance and support it needs. Those institutions, at their most basic level, are the rule of law, the press, political “sides” not being against openly authoritarian, their bases accepting basic democratic norms of peace and consent and the transfer of power and so forth, aka civil society, and of course, leaders not openly aspiring to dictatorship.

You can think of all that as kind of a checklist for the basic health of a democracy.

And the frightening thing in America right now is that almost none of that checklist can be ticked off anymore. Almost none of democracy’s institutions work anymore. Some work partially, some barely, and many, not at all.

Worse, you can see the sort of degeneration before your eyes. Take the example of the press. A few weeks or months ago, even, its behavior today would have been unthinkable to many. Hundreds of articles attacking Biden, while portraying Trump as a hero, a martyr, a glorious and noble figure? Today, as we’ve discussed, the media’s enabling the strongman myth before our eyes, perhaps “obeying in advance,” as Timothy Snyder, the scholar, calls it.

The point is that the rate, scale, and pace of collapse is increasing swiftly. Institutions which are fundamental to democracy’s functioning are simply ceasing to function before our very eyes.

Democracy’s Last institution, and Why It’s the One Which Matters Most

All of that leaves us with one remaining institution. Have you guessed it yet?

The people.

This isn’t some kind of idealistic paean. I’m just going to tell it like it is, as a scholar and survivor of social collapse.

When the people are united, all those other institutions can fail, and democracy, in the end, can still survive. We’ve seen recent examples of just such a thing, in Poland, for example, and arguably, a very close call in other parts of Europe.

All of that brings us to Biden. Should he drop out? Shouldn’t he? This is politics as sport. Don’t fall for it. The truth is that it doesn’t matter very much. Whomever comes next? They’ll face precisely the same brutal abuse and hazing by media as Biden has, and most likely, even worse, since they’ve done it to everyone from Carter to Hillary to Al Gore and beyond.

The point isn’t the candidate. It’s the people.

Right now, America’s in a very perilous—and very singular—place. If those who are sane, and thoughtful, and on the side of democracy unite in its defense, then they will win. They’ll win decisively, in fact. At 60% turnout, it’s an easy victory, at 70%, it’s a landslide. The numbers are clear. 

The questions are unity, and motivation. In that sense, you might say, the candidate counts, but that’s an evasion. Like I said, whomever the candidate is—they’ll be portrayed as weak by a media that’s now dismally attached to the strongman myth. Weak, feminine, incompetent, inexperienced (never mind Trump being a reality TV star), shallow, inept, not an orator to rival Cicero, not as fearless as Alexander the Great, not as wise as Sun Tzu, and so on. 

The candidate counts, but only in a weak sense. And that weak sense is: are Americans willing to grit their teeth, roll up their sleeves, and unify, whomever the candidate is? Enough of them, on the side of democracy and sanity? If they’re not, then it’ll be always and altogether too easy to divide them—there’ll always be some kind of foolish myth, some kind of fatal flaw, that the press, pundits, and the enemies of democracy will cook up, and spit out, over and over again.

So are Americans on the side of democracy willing to stop playing this game of fatal flaws? And say enough is enough: whomever the candidate is, we back them? In European politics, we call this, simply, voting for your party. The GOP, by the way, excels at it, too. The Democrats, never having built a party of great solidarity, or a modern party organization, rich in networks and communities, are poor at it. So people in America, on the center and left, don’t vote for the party. They look down on it, in fact. But there is nothing to be contemptuous of here: this is precisely how Europe and Canada built social democracies to begin with.

The Myth of the Fatal Flaw, or Democracy’s Greatest Test

In other words, this is democracy’s greatest test.

It goes like this.

When the chips are down—this down—and every institution has failed, welcoming fascism with open arms, every institution save one, will the people themselves remember they are that crucial institution?

You see, this is what fascism hopes to terrorize people away from realizing. To give up on their power, and instead succumb to fatalism—that’s why it’s so loud, explosive, violent, threatening, always intimidating, never shutting up, always promising the worst. Because it’s trying to terrorize the people into submission, giving up on their own unity and togetherness, and thus ceding it all in advance. We’ll discuss all that more tomorrow.

This is democracy’s greatest test. On the one side, fascism. Now behind it, every institution that should be preserving democracy. Save one, the people. And the people, in situations like this, find themselves easily divided, because all this is frightening, upsetting, destabilizing, even terrifying. Finding themselves demoralized, the people give up, focusing on the very Fatal Flaws that a failed media and those in league with the fascists trumpet over and over again.

But in truth none of these are Fatal Flaws. Sure, Biden’s old. Would you rather have an old guy or a dictator? Easy choice—if you’re thinking rationally and sanely. But if you’re scared out of your wits, then maybe, suddenly, all that clear thinking goes foggy. 

The next Fatal Flaw? Let’s rewind, so you really understand this. Al Gore wasn’t “likable.” Hillary was “difficult.” Carter wasn’t manly enough. Howard Dean was a “weirdo.”  Doesn’t matter—do you get the point yet? There’ll always—always—be a fatal flaw.

In fact, I can point out plenty in advance, and you should be able to, too, now that I’ve taught you how to think about all this. Kamala will probably be “unlikable,” too, like “Al Gore,” or “distant,” or even more “difficult” than Hillary. Gavin Newsom will be “slick” or too “polished” or not enough a “man of the people.” Anyone remotely to their left will be a socialist, etcetera. See how simple this is once you get the hang of it?

So this test of democracy, the greatest one of all? It’s never really about the candidates. Because nobody is perfect. Least of all politicians. This test is about the people, who must be willing to brook some degree of imperfection, and come to their senses, instead of being frightened into searching for an unattainable degree of perfection because…

That’s The Only Thing That Can Win.

That’s the reason we’re told to search for Unattainable Perfection, isn’t it? Anything less is Doomed to Lose. And yet the fact—the fact—is that united, the people can’t be defeated. That sounds trite, but let me remind you, we’re talking about statistical realities. Even in the most extreme social collapses, the majority never support the extremists, which is why they are extremists. Hitler had to seize power, the Bolsheviks had to revolt, Mao had to “re-educate” a society, and so on. The people united cannot be defeated.

But that unity is hard—incredibly hard—to come by. Because the more destabilized a society gets, the less of it it has. And so a kind of vicious cycle sets in, what in complexity theory we call an dynamic system: destabilization destroys unity, which intensifies destabilization.

That is how extreme minorities collapse societies. And it’s why despite the majority not backing the fanatics and lunatics even in the most extreme social collapses, we see social collapses. Because the unity of the majority in the thinking, sane center doesn’t hold.

So. This is democracy’s greatest test of all. When the chips are this down, so far they’re in the abyss, can the people remember that united, they can’t be defeated? That through unity, the preservation of democracy is assured—but in its absence, all history’s horrors and follies recur, like a waking nightmare?

Understand my words, my friends. I say none of this lightly. I predicted American collapse. I can tell you what happens next. But that’s not the part you need to know. It’s that you still have the power to change it.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Character, Citizenship, Civics, Courage, Democracy, Discipline, Disruption, Education Reform, Elections, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Funding, Home Schooling, Propaganda

Louisiana Criminalizes Abortion Pills

By dianeravitch
July 28, 2024 //
21

The Governor and Legislature want to make sure that women in their state cannot obtain an abortion so they passed a law reclassifying abortion drugs as controlled dangerous substances. Most abortions occur by use of the pills, which the Federal Drug Administration has declared to be safe and effective. Currently they are available by mail, but obtaining them without a prescription will soon be illegal. The new law takes effect October 1.

Louisiana lawmakers have added two drugs commonly used in pregnancy and reproductive health care to the state’s list of controlled dangerous substances, a move that has alarmed doctors in the state.

Mifepristone and misoprostol have many clinical uses, and one use approved by the FDA is to take the pills to induce an abortion at up to 10 weeks of gestation.

The bill that moved through the Louisiana Legislature this spring lists both medications as Schedule IV drugs under the state’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, creating penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught with the drugs without a valid prescription. Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed the bill into law in May. It takes effect Oct. 1.

The new law is the latest move by anti-abortion advocates trying to control access to abortion medications in states with near-total abortion bans, such as Louisiana. The law is the first of its kind, opening a new front in the state-by-state battle over reproductive medicine.

Categories Cruelty, Elections, Extremism, Freedom, Gender, Louisiana

A Prominent Democrat Denounced Vouchers on National TV!

By dianeravitch
July 26, 2024 //
23

I wa despairing because no prominent candidate has mentioned education. Kamala Harris spoke about public schools and teachers when she addressed the AFT yesterday in Houston. I expected that. She went to public schools and has always supported them, and that’s what a candidate says to a nation Union of teachers.

But on Jen Psaki’s show on MSNBC, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota denounced vouchers and book bans. I had never seen him speak. He was excellent! Please watch.

Categories Censorship, Character, Community Schools, Democracy, Education Reform, Elections, Freedom, Freedom to Read, Funding, Vouchers

John Thompson: Is AI a Boon or a Danger?

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2024 //
16

John Thompson is a retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma. I admit that I steer clear of AI, in part because of my innate aversion to “thinking machines” replacing humans. I am biased towards people deciding for themselves, but as I watch the polling numbers in the race for President, I wonder if artificial intelligence might be more trustworthy than people who support a man with Trump’s long record of lying and cheating others.

John Thompson writes:

We live in a nation where reliable polling data reveals that 23% of respondents “strongly believe” or “somewhat believe” that the attacks on the World Trade Center were an “inside job.” Moreover, 1/3rd of polled adults believe that COVID-19 vaccines “caused thousands of sudden deaths,” and 1/3rd also believe the deworming medication Ivermectin was an “effective treatment for COVID-19.” Moreover, 63% of Americans “say they have not too much or no confidence at all in our political system.”

Such falsehoods were not nearly as common in the late 1990s when I first watched my high school students learn how to use digital media. But, I immediately warned my colleagues that we had to get out in front of the emerging technological threat. Of course, my advocacy for digital literacy, critical thinking, and digital ethics was ignored. 

But who knew that misuse of digital media would become so harmful? As Surgeon General Vivek Murthy now explains: 

It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents. 

As a special issue of the Progressive  reports, our  digital ecosystems, with their deepfakes and disinformation are distorting reality, and increasing “human tendencies toward cognitive biases and groupthink.”  It further explains that since 2019 the number of people “who cite social media as their number one source for news has increased by 50 percent.” Moreover:

Half of American adults report that they access their news from social media sometimes or often. For Americans under the age of thirty-four, social media is the number one source for news.

The Progressive further explains that young people “don’t necessarily trust what they read and watch.” They “know that private corporations manipulate political issues and other information to suit their agendas, but may not understand how algorithms select the content that they see.”

We in public education should apologize for failing to do our share of the job of educating youth for the 21st century. Then we should commit to plans for teaching digital literacy.

It seems likely that the mental distress suffered by young people could be a first driver toward healthy media systems. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

According to data from several cross-sectional, longitudinal, and empirical research, smartphone and social media use among teenagers relates to an increase in mental distress, self-harming behaviors, and suicidality. Clinicians can work with young people and their families to reduce the hazards of social media and smartphone usage by using open, nonjudgmental, and developmentally appropriate tactics, including education and practical problem-solving.

According to the Carnegie Council:

Social media presents a number of dangers that require urgent and immediate regulation, including online harassment; racist, bigoted and divisive content; terrorist and right-wing calls for radicalization; as well as unidentified use of social media for political advertising by foreign and domestic actors. To mitigate these societal ills, carefully crafted policy that balances civil liberties and the need for security must be implemented in line with the latest cybersecurity developments.

Reaching such a balance will require major investments – and fortitude – from the private sector and government. But it is unlikely that real regulatory change can occur without grassroots citizens’ movements that demand enforcement.

And we must quickly start to take action to prepare for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). In a New York Times commentary, Evgeny Morozov started with the statement by 350 technology executives, researchers and academics “warning of the existential dangers of artificial intelligence. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority.” He then cited a less-alarming position by the Biden administration which “has urged responsible A.I. innovation, stating that ‘in order to seize the opportunities’ it offers, we ‘must first manage its risks.’” 

Morozov then argued, “It is the rise of artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., that worries the experts.” He predicted, “A.G.I. will dull the pain of our thorniest problems without fixing them,” and it “undermines civic virtues and amplifies trends we already dislike.”

Morozov later concluded that A.G.I. “may or may not prove an existential threat’ but it has an “antisocial bent.” He warned that A.G.I. often fails “to grasp the messy interplay of values, missions and traditions at the heart of institutions — an interplay that is rarely visible if you only scratch their data surface.”

I lack expertise in A.I. and A.G.I. but it seems clear that the dangers of data, driven by algorithms and other impersonal factors, must be controlled by persons committed to social values. It is essential that schools assume their duty for preparing youth for the 21st century, but they can only do so with a team effort. I suspect the same is true of the full range of interconnected social and political institutions. As Surgeon General Murthy concludes his warning to society about social media:

These harms are not a failure of willpower and parenting; they are the consequence of unleashing powerful technology without adequate safety measures, transparency or accountability.

The moral test of any society is how well it protects its children.

Categories Disruption, Ethics, Freedom, Technology

My View: How Should We Judge the Debate: Biden v. Trump?

By dianeravitch
June 28, 2024 //
66

Now that the initial shock of Biden’s poor performance in last night’s debate is fading, there are several bottom-line facts that should not be overlooked.

Biden has been an excellent President. Trump was a failed President, impeached twice, who inspired an insurrection intended to overthrow the government and the Constitution. Historians have judged Trump to be the worst of all presidents.

Biden has many legislative accomplishments: the Infrastructure bill, which directed billions of dollars to repair our nation’s crumbling bridges, tunnels, roads, and other vital parts of the economy. His CHIPS act brings high-tech jobs back to the U.S. and has already encouraged more than $300 billion in new investments. His efforts to create good union jobs and to revive unions strengthen the middle class. He has also relentlessly tried to reduce the massive debt that college students are saddled with.

By contrast, Trump’s only legislative accomplishment was a massive tax cut for the 1% and corporations.

Biden has aggressively promoted action to curb climate change. Trump opposed any effort to deal with climate change, forbade the use of the term, and insists that it is a hoax.

Biden appointed highly accomplished people to his cabinet, with few exceptions; Trump appointed rightwing extremists and had a high turnover among the few qualified people he appointed.

Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who were prepared (though they didn’t admit it in their hearings) to overturn Roe v. Wade and to gut gun control. if re-elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint more extremists to the Supreme Court who want to roll back the New Deal.

Biden has revived NATO. Trump wants to withdraw from NATO.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden rallied Europe to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Trump wants to abandon Ukraine and let Putin take whatever he wants in Europe.

Biden respects the Constitution. Trump does not. Trump refuses to admit that he lost the 2020 election, despite losing more than 60 court decisions against his claims. Trump refused during the debate to accept the results of the 2024 election. Trump undermines respect for the Constitution, the electoral system, the judicial system.

Biden is not a good speaker. He is not a good debater. He has a slow gait. He is a good President. He is actually a GREAT President.

And Trump is a demagogue, a world-class liar, a wannabe Fascist, and a danger to the nation and the democratic institutions that are the soul of our nation.

I repeat, Biden has been a great President. If he doesn’t step aside, as many nervous people urge, I will support him. With my heart, my soul, and my wallet.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Gender, History, Lies, Trump

Biden Vs. Trump on D-Day, History and the World Order

By dianeravitch
June 10, 2024 //
23

Susan Glasser of The New Yorker wrote about President Biden’s speech commemorating the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion that began the end of World War II. Others contrasted Biden’s speech with President Ronald Reagan’s 40th anniversary speech on the same occasion. Conservatives in the usual media outlets (FOX) jeered Biden for trying to sound like Reagan. Both of them spoke as patriots, as defenders of democracy, and of critics of isolationism.

Here is Biden’s speech. Rightwing commentators thought that he was “plagiarizing” Reagan because he talked about the heroism of the Army Rangers and the importance of democracy and freedom, for which the troops fought. Pray tell, what else would an American President talk about on such an occasion?

Biden is not the speaker that Reagan was; after all, Reagan was a professional actor who could read his lines with sincerity and fervor. Biden too is a patriot, and he knows what is at stake if we lose the world order created by so much sacrifice and loss of life. What would Trump have said of the Army Rangers hailed by Biden? Would he have expressed his familiar question “What was in it for them?” Would he have said as he did of John McCain, “I don’t like losers.” To Trump, who never served in the military (nor did his sons), winners don’t get captured or killed. Biden’s son Beau served in Afghanistan and subsequently died from brain cancer, which was attributed to the burn pits.

Glasser writes:

Anniversary speeches are, generally speaking, the trivial bane of an American Presidency. They are, by definition, backward-looking. The obligatory patriotic rhetoric, the flag-drenched backdrops—it is hard for them to read as anything other than tired and trite. Speaking in Normandy on Thursday to commemorate the eightieth anniversary of the Allied landings that spelled the beginning of the end of the Second World War, Joe Biden faced all those hurdles, and a few more besides. He is, after all, running for reëlection as America’s oldest-ever President, an octogenarian whose campaign is beset by increasingly pointed questions about whether he is still up to the job. Born in the midst of the war, Biden is all but certain to be the last U.S. President who was alive on June 6, 1944; there will not be another. The solemn D Day commemorations could have easily backfired on him—serving as a reminder that he, like the one hundred and eighty veterans of the Normandy operation able to return for this year’s ceremony, is but a superannuated relic of a bygone era. I have no doubt that in the unkinder, Trumpier precincts of the Internet, this is exactly how his appearance there was received.

It is true that Biden walked slowly during the proceedings and at times stumbled over his words; the White House would do well to stop pretending that, at age eighty-one, the President has not lost a step or two. It is also true that he did not suddenly transform overnight into a spellbinding orator. But, for what may well be his final D Day encore before the great battle passes from living memory, Biden met the moment with a message that was bracing, urgent, and clarifying. In a speech at the Normandy American Cemetery that was anything but generic, he called out both Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and, though he did not use his name, Donald Trump’s isolationism—the dual threats that have animated this last political campaign of Biden’s, in a long life full of them. “The autocrats of the world are watching closely,” he said, and it was not a warning, really, so much as a statement of blunt fact about the stakes in this year’s U.S. election and the foreign-policy consequences that will flow from it. His opponent is an admirer of Putin, and, reportedly, of Hitler even. Trump truly supports neither Ukraine nor nato.

As I write this, it still seems insane, unimaginable, that these are sentences about a once and possibly future American President. But they are real, if unfortunately so familiar by now that Trump often benefits from our failure to be shocked all over again. Just two days before Putin’s attack on his neighbor, Trump called him a strategic “genius.” On the campaign trail, Trump frequently speaks about his great relationships with the world’s current crop of autocrats and tyrants, praising Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un for their strength, while ranting about the weakness of the West. When Trump was President, he told his White House chief of staff, John Kelly, a decorated former Marine general, that he wanted America’s officers to be more like Hitler’s in their unquestioning loyalty to him. He routinely calls his enemies “vermin” and “human scum,” echoing Hitler’s language, and Kelly has said that Trump even told him that “Hitler did some good things.”

While listening to Biden’s speech, I thought about a resignation letter that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appointed by Trump, wrote but did not send to him in 2020. “It is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945,” Milley said in the letter, a draft of which I obtained in the course of writing a book on the Trump Presidency. “It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order. You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against.”

Biden did not have to mention any of this to make it the inescapable context of his remarks on Thursday. “To surrender to bullies, to bow down to dictators is simply unthinkable,” Biden told the audience pointedly, adding, “Were we to do that, it means we’d be forgetting what happened here on these hallowed beaches.” And yet so much forgetting has happened, and I am not thinking here about the lessons of the past century as much as I am about the lessons of just one four-year Presidential term ago. Does anyone still remember Trump in Helsinki in 2018, tripping over himself as he took Putin’s word over that of America’s intelligence agencies? Or Trump in France, for another set of world-war commemorations later that year, fresh off midterm-election losses and skipping a cemetery visit because he reportedly did not want to get his hair wet? Or Trump, in 2019, blackmailing Ukraine’s young new President, Volodymyr Zelensky, by holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military assistance needed to fight off Russia as he demanded Zelensky dig up dirt on Biden?

It is thinkable, then, all too thinkable. At the time of Biden’s speech, the polling averages showed Trump slightly ahead of him. What will happen to Ukraine if he should win?

“Their generation, in their hour of trial—the Allied forces of D Day did their duty,” Biden said, concluding his remarks. “Now the question for us is: In our hour of trial, will we do ours?”

Just a week ago, Trump became the only former President to be convicted of a crime. In a round of interviews defiantly rejecting both the verdict and the legal system that produced it, Trump made the following observation about America’s adversaries: “So you have Russia, you have China. But if you have a smart President, you always handle them quite easily, actually,” he told the hosts of the Fox News weekend morning show. “But the enemy within—they are doing damage to this country.”

Could there be a bigger contrast with Biden’s words in Normandy? “The enemy within” is not the language of a democratic President but of a dangerous demagogue who cares more about loyalty tests than geopolitical realities. Their clashing world views are underrated—or not rated at all—as a campaign issue, in a race overwhelmed by questions about Biden’s age and Trump’s sanity, and dominated by concerns over inflation, immigration, and the general sour mood of the country. And yet I cannot think of a starker delineation between the current President and his predecessor. It says something about the politics of 2024, indeed, that rather than seeing foreign policy as Trump’s vulnerability, some now view it as a problem for Biden, who struggled for months to get the Republican House of Representatives to provide billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, a delay that caused battlefield setbacks and a drop in morale, even as his own Democratic Party grew painfully divided over the President’s strong public support for Israel in its war against Hamas.

On the eve of Biden’s trip to France, Time magazine released a lengthy interview with him, a striking counterpoint to an interview that the magazine conducted with Trump earlier this spring. Biden’s was dominated by his concerns over the unravelling of the postwar order that he warned about again on Thursday; Trump’s was a portrait of a man consumed by grievances, whether against the “very unfair” European allies who Trump thinks should be contributing more to Ukraine’s defense, or the criminal court cases against him that he blames on Biden. When the Time interviewer told him that many Americans found his rhetoric about being a dictator “for a day” and the suspension of the Constitution contrary to “cherished democratic principles,” Trump’s reply was chilling. “I think a lot of people like it,” he said.

Reading back through the interview the other day, I was struck that Trump had said, almost word for word, the language about Russia and China and “the enemy within” that he repeated once again this week: “I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others that would be called enemies depending on who the President is, frankly.” This, then, was not an idle observation of Trump’s but a theme of his campaign—the theme of his campaign.

Biden must have read Trump’s interview, too, as preparation for his own. It clearly informed his passionate case for why Trump is a danger to the international order, his focus on the threat posed by Russia—Trump, in his own interview, had bragged about how well he got along with Putin—and his best off-the-cuff line: “All the bad guys are rooting for Trump, man. Not a joke.”

Neither stirring battlefield rhetoric nor snarky one-liners, though, can explain how Biden can extract himself from his current predicament, running dead even at best against a felonious ex-President who diminishes the threats from America’s adversaries abroad because he is consumed by purging disloyal citizens at home. Tell that to the boys of Pointe du Hoc. I don’t think they’d believe it. ♦︎

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Freedom, History, Trump

Ken Burns on the Lessons of Life and History

By dianeravitch
June 2, 2024 //
24

The filmmaker and historian Ken Burns has produced some of the best documentaries ever shown on American television. He has brought history to life with gripping stories of people and momentous events. He is the master of the voice of ordinary people, many of whom are extraordinary.

He recently gave the Commencement speech at Brandeis University. It’s one of the best I have ever read or heard. Here is the link. Read it or listen to it. It’s magnificent.

A memorable paragraph about the current moment:

There is no real choice this November. There is only the perpetuation, however flawed and feeble you might perceive it, of our fragile 249-year-old experiment or the entropy that will engulf and destroy us if we take the other route. When, as Mercy Otis Warren would say, “The checks of conscience are thrown aside and a deformed picture of the soul is revealed.” The presumptive Republican nominee is the opioid of all opioids, an easy cure for what some believe is the solution to our myriad pains and problems. When in fact with him, you end up re-enslaved with an even bigger problem, a worse affliction and addiction, “a bigger delusion”, James Baldwin would say, the author and finisher of our national existence, our national suicide as Mr. Lincoln prophesies. Do not be seduced by easy equalization. There is nothing equal about this equation. We are at an existential crossroads in our political and civic lives. This is a choice that could not be clearer.

Categories Citizenship, Courage, Creativity, Democracy, Environment, Freedom, History
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »