Archives for category: Politics

Ha! Another article disappeared by WordPress! Or the combination of WordPress and my iPhone, unhappy together.

Here is the link.

I saw Michael Reagan, President Reagan’s conservative son, on CNN last week, and he said that his father had little in common with Trump. His father, he said, was a man of deep humility. He never boasted or bragged. He deflected difficult situations with a joke, and he had a large store of them.

During President Reagan’s second term, I was invited with a group of about 20 other educators to meet with the President. We met in the Cabinet Room of the White House, which is awe-inspiring. I sat next to Vice-President Bush and directly across from President Reagan. He listened to all we had to say, and at the end of the meeting he told a story about an encounter with a young college student when he was governor of California. The angry young man said, “your generation can’t possibly understand my generation. We grew up with space rockets and computers, and….” named the many innovations of the age. Reagan said he replied, “Son, my generation invented all those things.”

That was Reagan. Donald Trump is no Reagan.

Pittsburgh has been the site of a remarkable revolt against corporate reform. After years of pressure from the usual crowd of data-driven reformers, the school board majority was captured by grassroots activists–parents and educators–who wanted a different approach to education, one that was grounded in sensible principles, not a love for disruption. One of the first actions of the new board was to sever its contract with Teach for America and seek ways to collaborate with and support experienced career teachers. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh superintendent retired, and the board hired a new superintendent, Anthony Hamlet. The board was convinced that he was not a Broadie and would not seek to restore corporate reform strategies of measure-and-punish to the schools.

But now the Empire Strikes Back, as teacher Steven Singer tells the story. The ousted reformers are hoping for a comeback, and the last thing they want is a superintendent who brings stability to the public schools. So they have mounted a full-bore attack on Hamlet, because one sentence in his resume was almost identical to a sentence in a Washington Post editorial. One sentence! The critics are in full cry, screaming “Plagiarism!”

As an author and a historian, I know plagiarism when I see it. I have seen whole paragraphs and pages lifted and reprinted in books, resumes, and papers. But one sentence? I don’t think so.

Steven Singer writes about the new superintendent:

He is set to takeover the district on July 1, but a well financed public smear campaign is trying to stop him before he even begins.

Big money interests oppose him. The public supports him.

Meanwhile the media helps fuel corporate attacks on the 47-year-old African American because of criticisms leveled by a Political Action Committee (PAC) formed to disband the duly-elected school board.

It’s ironic.

Corporate school reformers criticize Hamlet for allegedly plagiarizing a single statement in his resume. Meanwhile they have plagiarized their entire educational platform!

Mayoral or state takeover of the district? Check!

Close struggling schools? Check!

Open new charter schools to gobble up public tax dollars as profit? Check!

Hamlet’s strong points are his belief in restorative justice programs for students and his commitment to community schools. Not a peep about charters.

Singer writes:

Despite community support, several well-financed organizations oppose Hamlet and the board’s authentic reforms.

Foremost among them is Campaign for Quality Schools Pittsburgh, a new PAC formed recently to make city schools great again – by doing the same failed crap that didn’t work before.

Also on the side of corporate education reform are the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Heinz Endowments. Representatives for both organizations have offered to pay for a new superintendent search if the district gives Hamlet his walking papers – a measure that probably would mean paying him at least a years salary without having him on the job.

This would also result in weakening the district’s ability to hire a new superintendent and increasing public mistrust of the electoral process. Such a move would pave the way for disbanding local control.

How generous of these philanthropies! I remember a time when giving meant providing the resources for organizations like public schools to fix themselves – not having the right to set public policy as a precondition for the donation. But in the age of Bill Gates and the philanthro-capitalists, this is what we’ve come to expect.

Even the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette has drunk the Kool-aid. In a June 10 editorial, the paper published the following statement:

“The (school) board’s failure at this essential task calls its leadership into question, and will renew calls for legislation to dissolve the elected school board and move to an appointed system.”
Finally, we have A+ Schools – an advocacy organization that at one time championed the same kinds of reforms school directors are trying to enact. However, after a $1 million grant from the Gates Foundation, the group has become a cheerleader for weakening teachers unions, privatization and standardized testing.

Against these special interests stands a public school board and a community at the crossroads. Will they give in to public pressure and big money? Or will they allow Hamlet to do the job he was hired for and attempt to improve an urban district suffering from crippling poverty and state disinvestment?

Arnold Dodge speculates here about what Donald Trump is teaching our children about adult behavior and character.

Donald Trump, as we know, is given to off the cuff remarks as a staple of his mien as a candidate. His speeches and interviews are freighted with exaggerations, insults, threats, lies, and wildly inaccurate pronouncements about domestic and international issues. While most adults have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in Trump’s remarks, children, by and large, do not. In fact, they are trusting of adults, especially those in positions of importance. Donald Trump, whether he knows it or not – or whether he cares at all – is making an impression on America’s youth.

The responsibility of the adult community to is to demonstrate, by our actions, how to conduct oneself in a civil society and how to be a contributing member. We have provided a laboratory for delivering that message – our public schools.

A mainstay of public school instruction is character development, which equips young people with the tools for getting along with others – whether at home, in the workplace or in the public square.

Another priority in schools emphasizes an appreciation for, and an interest in, the complexities of knowledge acquisition. Successful students understand that reading and research, i.e., doing your homework, informs your opinions and deepens your knowledge of subject matter.

Mr. Trump is woefully under-resourced in both areas.

Whether we like it or not, Trump’s comments and behaviors are being absorbed, either directly or indirectly, by our children. Many adults are nonplussed by Trump’s meteoric rise to the top of the Republican ticket. For the most part, adults have the skills and experience to navigate the choppy waters of politics. It is the effect downstream that is disturbing. Which begs the question: What are children learning about public behavior and thoughtful opinions from the incipient leader of the free world?

Paul Krugman asks in this column how the Republican Party could have allowed a con artist like Donald Trump to take over the party and become its nominee. Why didn’t other Republicans expose the scams and frauds that have generated profits for Trump? Why were reporters able to discover what was in plain sight but not the other candidates?

He says it is because a party that worships profit and insists that government is the problem is wide open for frauds, profiteers, and grifters. “Greed is good” is not a maxim to live by.

He writes:

Consider this: Even as the newspapers are filled with stories of defrauded students and stiffed contractors, Republicans in Congress are going all-out in efforts to repeal the so-called “fiduciary rule” for retirement advisers, a new rule requiring that they serve the interests of their clients, and not receive kickbacks for steering them into bad investments. Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, has even made repealing that rule part of his “anti-poverty plan.” So the G.O.P. is in effect defending the right of the financial industry to mislead its customers, which makes it hard to attack the likes of Donald Trump.

Finally, the con job that lies at the heart of so much Republican politics makes it hard to go after other, more commercial cons. It’s interesting to note that Marco Rubio actually did try to make Trump University an issue, but he did it too late, after he had already made himself a laughingstock with his broken-record routine. And here’s the thing: The groove Mr. Rubio got stuck in — innuendo that the president is deliberately weakening America — was a typical example of the political snake-oil the right sells along with free money and three-minute cures for high blood pressure.

The point is that Mr. Rubio was just as much a con artist as Mr. Trump – just not as good at it, which is why, under pressure, he kept repeating the same memorized words. So he, like all the G.O.P. contenders, didn’t have what it would have taken to make Mr. Trump’s grifting an issue. But at least so far it appears that Hillary Clinton and her allies won’t have the same problem.

In the months ahead Republicans will claim that there are equivalent scandals on the Democratic side, but nothing they’ve managed to come up with rises remotely to the level of even one of the many Trump scams in the news. They’ll also claim that Mr. Trump doesn’t reflect their party’s values. But the truth is that in a very deep sense he does. And that’s why they couldn’t stop him.

If you live in the 71th district in Michigan, I urge you to help elect Theresa Abed to the legislature  as a member of the House.

 

The 17th is Eaton County, west of Lansing.

 

Theresa is a career school social worker (for 30 years) when she decided to run for office to support the schools. She was twice elected to the post of County Commissioner. She served as state representative from 2012-2014, the first Democrat to win that seat in 50 years.

 

When end she ran for re-election in 2014, she lost by only 148 votes to a candidate funded by the Koch brothers.

 

She is running for state representative for her district in 2016, and she needs our help. She is fighting for public education. She understands children and schools and will be a great advocate for Real Reform in the legislature. She is a member of the Network for Public Education; she attended our annual conference in 2015 in Chicago.

 

If you live in her district, please volunteer to help. If you don’t, please consider a gift to her campaign. She will be a great advocate for children and schools in the Michigan legislature.

 

You can send a contribution to Theresa at:

 

Friends for Theresa Abed
605 Schoolcraft St.
Grand Ledge, MI 48837

It is Fox News vs. Fox News!

 

Bill O’Reilly thinks that Judge Curial is a fine judge but says he should recuse himself from judging Trump. Remove any hint of “bias.”

 

Megyn Kelly, once a lawyer, says “nonsense!” That’s not the way the law works. Defendants don’t get to pick their judges.

 

If Trump wins his fight to force the judge out (which he won’t), he won’t accept a Muslim judge. Probably he won’t accept a woman judge. Defendants don’t get to pick their judges, even when the defendant is very very rich.

 

 

Ken Betnstein, NBCT high school teacher and blogger, asks whether Americans would elect a racist.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/7/1535415/-But-will-it-matter

Ken looks at two columns today. Both say Trump has demonstrated his racism.

“I find myself asking that question after glancing at two very pointed columns in today’s Washington Post. One, by Dana Milbank and titled Republicans finally discover that Trump is an actual racist, goes through all the elements of Trum’s’ expressions that support that assertion, but quite possibly could be summarized in one sentence partway through the column:

‘You know you’re in trouble when you’re being lectured on sensitivity by Newt Gingrich.’

“The other is by the inimitable Eugene Robinson and titled Endorsing Trump will leave a mark, begins with a similar assertion:

‘Bluffing is Donald Trump’s one great talent, and he brazenly bluffed his way to the Republican nomination. Now he is showing his cards, however, and they are utter garbage: racism, ignorance, capriciousness, egomania and general unfitness for office. That should be — it must be — a losing hand.

“The question of course is on whom will that mark really fall.

“Yes the press is now willing to challenge Trump. As Milbank phrases it

‘A confluence of three factors has caused a sudden and sharp change in Trump’s fortunes. The media scrutiny has increased significantly since he secured the nomination, and journalists, rather than chasing his outrage du jour, are digging in to report more on Trump University, Trump’s stiffing of charities, his lies and his racism. Hillary Clinton has, finally, made the shift to attacking Trump vigorously over his instability. And Republicans are, belatedly, discovering that their presidential candidate wasn’t putting on a show during the GOP primaries: He’s an actual racist.'”

Ken Bernstein reflects on the anti-Semitism of Trump’s followers, after reading an article by Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times. After the journalist tweeted the article by Robert Kagan about Trump and the rise of fascism, he began receiving a steady barrage of anti-Semitic tweets. These were not from Trump but from his followers.

 

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been slow to disassociate himself from the hate groups who admire him, not only the anti-Semites, but the white nationalists. The extremists who linger in the shadows feel encouraged by Trump’s war against “political correctness.” Most of the time, what he calls political correctness is simply treating people who are different from you with courtesy and civility.

 

 

Elizabeth Warren has emerged as the fiercest critic of Donald Trump, totally unafraid of his derision, his sarcasm, and his Twitter attacks.

 

In a speech to the Center for Popular Democracy, Warren tore into Trump as a selfish, narcissistic, insincere, insecure, “money-grubber” who cares not a bit for the travails of ordinary working people.

 

If you read nothing else today, read Marty Rudoy’s brilliantly illustrated version of Warren’s speech, which appeared on Huffington Post.

 

Both articles linked here contain a link to the 10-minute video of the speech in which she dismantles The Donald and as Rudoy says, singes off his hair with her fiery rhetoric.

 

Rudoy concludes:

 

Senator Warren would make an excellent vice presidential candidate in 2016. But she’d be an even better President. That won’t happen in 2016, but life is long, and she has the brains, the passion and the ability to communicate that the progressive-liberal base salivates over.

 

 

To Readers of This Blog:

 

I have been consistently even-handed in the Presidential race in dealing with the candidates of the Democratic party. I oppose the Republican party candidates because I don’t agree with their corporate-friendly agenda and their positions on social issues, as well as their embrace of privatization as the solution to the problems in public schools.

 

As between the Democratic candidates, I have supported neither. I have published posts critical of both Sanders and Clinton. Neither is especially good on the issues that matter most to supporters of public education. Clinton said when campaigning in New York state that she would not want her grand-daughter to opt out of the tests, and she waffled on the issue of charter schools. Sanders voted for the Murphy amendment to the “Every Student Succeeds Act,” which would have retained high-stakes accountability under federal control (fortunately the amendment did not pass). Sanders also is confused about charter schools, having said that he favors “public” charter schools but not “private” charter schools, not realizing that all charter schools are publicly funded but privately controlled. Education has been a non-issue.

 

 I like Bernie’s ideas (and I share his outrage), and I like Hillary’s experience.

 

What I don’t like is the passionate denunciation of one or the other of them, by them or by their partisans.

 

The overwhelming majority of denunciations are directed at Hillary. Some of our readers are as vicious towards her as Donald Trump is. If you read the comments, you would think that Donald Trump is much to be preferred over Hillary because she is allegedly dishonest, corrupt, a war-monger, a tool of Wall Street, etc. The demonization of Hillary is often times over-the-top, angry, and hateful. 

 

This internecine warfare is not admirable. It should stop. It helps Trump. One candidate will emerge from the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. It will be the candidate who gets the requisite number of delegates. It will be either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. When the convention chooses the candidate, I will support that candidate.

 

 I will not sit home. I will not vote for a third party candidate. I will not write in the name of someone else. That is irresponsible. Throwing your vote away is a vote for Donald Trump.

 

I am afraid of Donald Trump. He is not qualified to be president. He knows nothing about foreign affairs or domestic issues, other than those that affected him as a real estate developer and businessman. His statements during the campaign inflame passions, divide Americans, and make us a laughing stock around the world.

 

Does Trump really plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants? How will he round them up? Will he expand the Immigration and Naturalization personnel so they can go door to door, searching out families to deport? Will they be placed in massive detention camps pending transfer? Will babies born in the camps on American soil be citizens? This proposal is as mad as anything else he has said.

 

Does Trump really expect to build the Great Wall of America across the U.S.-Mexican border? Will it be 50 feet high? The New York Times recently estimated that such a wall would cost $26 billion. The idea appeals to Trump’s angry constituency, but it is almost as mad as his idea to deport 11 million people, most of whom are gainfully employed in agriculture, restaurants, and the hotel industry.

 

Will Trump really ban all Muslim immigrants from entering the U.S.? Does that include foreign emissaries and heads of state? How will Customs officials know which international arrivals are Muslims? What will prove that a person from an Arab country is Muslim, not Christian or Coptic or some other religion? Do they need religious identity cards? How will we know if they are telling the truth? How many predominantly Muslim nations will break off relations with the U.S. to express their indignation at this show of religious bias? Will we lose all our allies in the Middle East?

 

Will Trump impose tariffs on goods manufactured in other countries? Will he ignite a trade war that raises the prices on everything made elsewhere? This won’t be good for consumers.

 

Does Trump really believe that climate change is a hoax? Will he gut programs that aim to mitigate the actions that accelerate climate change? Will he remove environmental controls on auto emissions and other sources of pollution?

 

Will Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court overrule Roe v. Wade? Will abortion once again be illegal? Will Trump punish women who get abortions, as he said during the campaign, and will he punish doctors who provide them?

 

Will Trump release his tax returns before the election? How will his followers react if it turns out that he doesn’t pay taxes and hasn’t paid taxes for years? Trump has already said that he tries to pay as little in taxes as possible. What if “little” means none at all, or only a tiny sliver of his income?

 

Will Trump eliminate all controls on the purchase of guns? He won the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, which fights any restrictions. Will we all be armed in the Trump era?

 

 As for education, Trump has said that he doesn’t like Common Core but has given no indication that he knows what it is. He has said that he loves charter schools, but has given no indication that he knows what they are. To whom would he turn for advice about education? The only name I have heard is Dr. Ben Carson. Scary.

 

 But setting aside matters of policy and prudence, there is the question of character. Donald Trump is everything that we teach children not to be. He is a braggart, he ridicules others, he is a bully, he blows his own horn constantly. He cozies up to white nationalists, insults Mexicans as rapists and murderers, treats women as sex objects, and calls anyone he doesn’t like “losers.” If he were a student, his teacher would struggle daily to correct his behavior and his treatment of others. He makes up demeaning names for those who dare to compete with him, such as “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” “Crooked Hillary,” “goofy” Elizabeth Warren. I don’t recall what he called Senator Sanders, but I am sure it was demeaning, meant to brand him in the public eye as unworthy.

 

Trump peddles conspiracy theories without regard to fact, such as his statement on the day of the decisive Indiana primary that Ted Cruz’s father was somehow implicated in the death of John F. Kennedy and his resurrection of discredited rumors that Clinton aide Vince Foster had been murdered. One of his favorite attack techniques begins by saying, “I am not going to bring up the subject of….Jeb Bush’s low energy. No, I won’t. I really won’t mention his low energy.” Now he is attacking Hillary by talking about her husband’s infidelities; one assumes that The Donald does not have clean hands on this subject.

 

 Donald Trump belongs in show business, not in the White House. He is not fit to be the President of the United States, with the well-being of the nation and the world in his hands. Do we really want him in charge of our nuclear weapons? He is so quick to fly off the handle, that the thought of him with that much weaponry is frightening. He can always say, “He did it first,” as he said when he posted an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz’s wife on Twitter and when he began slinging mud at Hillary and Bill Clinton. But that’s the response of a five-year-old (as Anderson Cooper said on CNN), not a mature and reasonable adult.

 

If Trump is elected, I fear for the future of our nation and the world.

 

And that is why I will not join in the vicious quarrels between partisans of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I refuse to give ammunition to Trump for the campaign. Sanders and Clinton—and their allies–should focus their energies on defeating Trump, not on attacking one another.

 

I will support the person who emerges as the Democratic candidate against Donald Trump. I want that candidate to be strong. I want that candidate to lead a united party. I want that candidate to be elected President of the United States. I will not stay home and I will not write in another name and I will not vote for a third party. When the election is over, I will continue to advocate for policies and programs that improve education for all children and the well-being of American families.