Archives for category: Trump

Jennifer Ramsey is a 17-year veteran teacher in Texas. She watched Donald Trump Jr. insult public schools and their teachers on national television, and she was outraged. She asks: What does he know about public education? We know he attended an elite and pricey boarding school (The Hill School in Pennsylvania), which costs $55,000 a year. But has he ever set foot in a public school?

Public education is a foundational institution in this great nation, promoting democracy by educating students to become active citizens. It is a truly American establishment. Unlike elite private schools, public schools do not pick and choose which Americans we teach. We teach students of all races, religions and economic levels. We teach brilliantly gifted students, as well as children with severe disabilities….

Does Donald Trump Jr. know that?

I will begin my 18th year teaching in a Texas public school. Unlike Donald Trump Jr., I know something about public education.

Public education is a foundational institution in this great nation, promoting democracy by educating students to become active citizens. It is a truly American establishment. Unlike elite private schools, public schools do not pick and choose which Americans we teach. We teach students of all races, religions and economic levels. We teach brilliantly gifted students, as well as children with severe disabilities.

As for Trump’s assertion that public schools are run for the benefit of teachers and administrators rather than for the students, again, I must ask: What does know about public education? Has he ever stepped foot in a public school?

Trump doesn’t know that in public schools, teachers spend hundreds of dollars out of their own pockets and hours beyond the workday preparing their classrooms to be fun and happy environments for the new group of American learners coming in. He doesn’t know that teachers help little ones learn the social skills they may be lacking at home, or how often teachers buy clothes for the little ones who are sent to school in clothes with holes and stains and too-small shoes.

Trump doesn’t know what it’s like to comfort a middle-school child whose mother beat him before he came to school, with his mouth still a bloody mess. Or what it’s like to try every single teacher strategy you know to reach the girl who is shut down, hates school and everyone in it — only to find out that her mother is selling her to grown men for drug money. He doesn’t know the heartbreak and real American life that teachers experience every day while interacting with their students.

Trump doesn’t know the love most teachers feel for their students. He doesn’t know our students are always “ours” — even years later. He doesn’t know how often teachers give their students lunch money, snacks, second chances, a shoulder to cry on and hugs. He doesn’t know the tears of pride and joy we cry when our students walk across the stage at graduation. He doesn’t know the anguish we feel when our students die.

The truth is that Trump and the public school bashers like him don’t know anything about public education. I am proud to be an American public school teacher, and I have heard enough of the un-American rhetoric that politicians and businessmen like him use to tear down a truly American establishment and condemn the millions of Americans working hard to care for the children of this nation.

I watched the Republican convention last night.

Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka was light-hearted, loves her father, and gave a good introduction to a man whom few know well.

Watching Trump give his speech was an out of body experience.

I suddenly felt fearful. I felt fearful for myself, my community, my family, my country. Only he has the strength to save and protect us. Only he knows how to fix everything that is broken. Only he can bring back the happiness and prosperity that was once there for everyone. Remember the Good Old Days? Only he has the tenacity and courage to restore the American dream. Everyone else is too weak, too politically correct, too timid. He can do it. He said so.

I am not saying this mockingly. I felt in my bones the appeal of a strong man who could solve every problem. He frightened me, then reassured me that he would protect me.

He will make America great again. He will be the voice for working people. He will defeat ISIS. He will bring back jobs. He will protect law enforcement officers. He will end the violence in America’s streets. In the future, everyone will be safe, protected in his strong arms, and prosperous.

That is one heck of a big promise.

Very alluring.

After seeing and hearing him, I can understand why so many people adore him and believe his promises. Then I thought about what he didn’t say.

While he made clear that he would be the voice of the average working person, he didn’t say anything about raising the minimum wage.

He didn’t say anything about reducing the crushing debt that college students accrue.

He didn’t say how he would defeat ISIS.

Lots more unanswered questions.

What will he do about health care after he kills Obamacare?

Why does he think that education will be great for everyone if only there is a free market? We know the evidence runs the other way.

After he finishes building the Great Southern Wall, will he have money left to repair our infrastructure of roads, bridges, and tunnels?

Then, this morning, I heard him talk to his volunteers, without a script. He talked about himself nonstop for an hour. He talked about how great he is. He mocked Ted Cruz and said he would reject his support. He brought up the episode where he said Ted Cruz’s father was implicated in JFK’s assassination, and Trump didn’t back down or apologize. Off script, he is the same old Donald.

But the basic appeal, which we will hear until November, is the invitation to be protected by a strong man who never apologizes, never explains, never backs down.

He loves us. He loves working people. He loves us unless we don’t love him.

Get used to it.

Arthur Goldstein, veteran high school teacher in New York City, reacts here to Donald Trump Jr.’s comments about public schools and teachers.

Who should we blame for the crumbling conditions in Detroit’s schools? Teachers? Or the people in charge of the state of Michigan?

He checks the claims in Jr.’s speech and concludes:

What planet is this kid living on? I live in New York, supposedly a bastion of liberalism, we have a Democrat Governor who pushed an evaluation system specifically designed to fire more teachers. When that system didn’t work as designed, he called it “baloney,” and proceeded to push a new system, which hopefully will fire even more teachers. That’s what Democrat Andrew Cuomo considers a victory.

Every teacher I know is acutely aware of this. That’s why we’re all so fidgety. We don’t mind doing our jobs. Let me tell you something–this guy is stereotyping teachers just like Daddy stereotypes Muslims. In fact it’s not teachers who are stalling the progress of the middle class. This started with Saint Ronald Reagan, and now Republicans are all about cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Who picks up the slack? We do. We teachers pay what people like Trump and Baby Trump used to pay. Our children pay what they used to. If Baby Trump gave a golly gosh darn about folks like us he’d have been out on the streets working for Bernie Sanders instead of driving his Lamborghini to gala luncheons.

It’s absurd and obscene that we who devote our lives to helping children are vilified by the same people who make it impossible to fund their schools. It’s even worse that their remedy for public schools is making it easier for zillionaires to profit from them.

I thought we were finished with the grand affair of Melania Trump’s speech.

I was at the point where I stopped caring who wrote her speech and whether she knew she had lifted two paragraphs from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech.

But then a friend sent me this very well-written article by Jeffrey Isaacs, a political science professor at the University of Indiana.

He makes a convincing argument that the plagiarism was not just an oversight, but an important insight into the mind of Donald Trump and the dysfunction of his campaign.

Here are the key points:

The first and most important reason why this plagiarism matters is because of what it demonstrates about the ethics, or rather the lack of ethics, of the Trump campaign itself: that the campaign plays fast and loose with the truth, and consistently acts as if it can say or do whatever it wants, simply deny responsibility, and then angrily maintain that its critics are always wrong and the fault is theirs. Trump is always right. His critics are always evil. The brouhaha over this plagiarized speech is simply a blatant example of this. Just deny the obvious, defensively maintain innocence, and then blame those who point out the obvious wrong-doing, claiming that they are liars, they are evil, they are self-interested. On this logic, it’s all Hillary Clinton’s fault! In any other sphere of life such behavior would be regarded as transparently self-serving and juvenile. And yet this is the modus operandi of the Trump campaign. The campaign rests on lies and innuendoes and provocations.

The second reason the plagiarism matters is because of what it demonstrates about the campaign as an organization: that the campaign is an organization only in the loosest of senses. It has no campaign manager in a proper sense; it has little clear structure; it has devoted little time and energy to fund-raising or building an electoral ground game; and it seems entirely driven by the whims and the ego of Trump himself, and by his small coterie of advisers who, like Paul Manafort, have an established track record of unscrupulous behavior. The Trump Presidential campaign is not being run in a professional manner. It has consistently proven unable to properly plan or to anticipate the likely effects of its own activities or to demonstrate even the most rudimentary form of political responsibility of the sort that many citizens of our highly mediated electoral democracy expect. The campaign is inept, and it consistently masks its ineptitude with bravado and threats.

And this brings me to the third reason why the plagiarism is important: the extent to which the entire campaign is an extension of Trump’s ego, and thus a perverse and tacky family affair rather than a serious coalition of diverse political people. Everywhere Trump goes his adult children follow. His children are touted as his key advisers. His sons serve as important campaign spokesmen. His 34 year-old daughter Ivanka — who seems like a nice enough person, but whose entire career has involved showcasing the Trump genes and the Trump brand — is presented to the public as his chief confidant and political genius, to the absurd extent of actually being mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate. Every US President and Presidential candidate in recent history has had a family. In almost every case, these families included spouses, or children, who had demonstrated real accomplishment, on their own, in business or journalism or education or medicine or the law. In no case has a family ever played such an important role in a campaign’s operations and in its public presentation as Trump’s family plays in his campaign. We are talking about a bunch of people in their thirties, who were raised with silver spoons in their mouths, and who have all risen to “success” as acolytes of their wealthy father. The situation would be laughable were it not so frightening. Some of these young people might be fine individuals. Some seem quite clearly to be arrogant punks. This is the “brain trust” behind the Trump campaign? These are the faces of the Republican party?

Finally, there is Melania herself, the woman who spoke the plagiarized words in question. It is difficult to comment on this woman given the rampant sexism in our culture. That she is Slovenian, that she is a beautiful former model, that she is a much younger woman — these are things that are not relevant to any assessment of Melania Trump’s character, personality, or accomplishments. At the same time, it is impossible to completely ignore such things, in connection to her husband, given the fact that she is being escorted across the public stage as “the next First Lady of the US.” For Donald Trump uses women, and he has a history of seeking approbation for the beautiful woman he has been able to use as “eye candy.” And Melania Trump was being showcased as a way of promoting Trump’s own masculinity, before the Republican Party and before the entire world. Her prescribed role was a simple one: to look beautiful, to say some things about the “hard work” that brought her before our eyes, and to sing the praises of Donald. What else could anyone expect from her given the role she has long played in her husband’s public performances? If she was put in a difficult or compromising position by the campaign, or furnished with plagiarized words, that is unfortunate. And ultimately the campaign is about Trump and not about her. So some of the sympathy being expressed for Melania in the media is understandable. At the same time, she is Donald Trump’s wife, the woman who represents his sense of “family values” (his previous two buxom and blonde former-model ex-wives are things of the past, having served their roles as carriers of the Trump genes). And she is 46 years old. She is a grown woman. Is she not responsible for herself and for her own words? It is claimed in her promotional materials that she is an accomplished and dedicated business woman. Perhaps she is (though apparently when she met her future husband the multi-millionaire she was a 26 year-old model). It is also claimed that she is a graduate of University in Slovenia. She is not a university graduate. And indeed, while the locution, with its capitalized “U,” seems to imply that there exists a particular university from which she graduated, there is in fact no actual university being referenced here. University in Slovenia? That would be like me listing on my CV “University in United States.” Fast and loose with the truth she is — assuming that she has had anything to do with her own narrative on her own website.

Last night we were treated to a diatribe about how awful American public schools are by a young man who never attended a public school: Donald Trump, Jr.

These days, those who know the least are likely to spout off the most.

Mr. Trump Jr. went to a fancy private school with a tuition that is about equal to the median American annual salary.

William Doyle watched the speech and dashed off a comment:

In his speech at the Republican convention last night, Donald J. Trump
Jr. managed to mix up the subject of education so badly that he stated
it completely backwards from the truth.

Trump said, “You know why other countries do better in K-through-12?
They let parents choose where to send their own children to school.
That’s called competition. It’s called the free market.”

In fact, the nations that have introduced measures of so-called
“free-market choice” in their education systems — notably Sweden,
Chile, and most recently the UK — have experienced no improvement in
overall results, and have instead seen quality and equity decline.

By contrast, the superstars of global education, including Finland,
Canada, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, have largely single-model
national delivery systems of education that stress teacher
professionalism and autonomy, equity for all students, and the regular
testing and assessment of students by experienced teachers, not by bad
data created by wasteful and low-quality standardized tests.

If we want to Make America Great Again in education, we should be
inspired by their example.

—William Doyle is a Fulbright Scholar who lectures on global education
at the University of Eastern Finland, and spends several months a year
as a public school father of an 8-year old in Finland.

Ken Bernstein here recapitulates a blistering article by David Frum about the debacle of Melania Trump’s speech. David Frum was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Say this for Bush: whatever his faults, he knew how to run a campaign. Trump doesn’t.

Frum lists ten reasons why the speech was a disaster. Here is one of them:

Plagiarism draws attention to content of the passage plagiarized. In 2008, Michelle Obama summed up the values that she had learned from her parents and that she and Barack Obama now tried to instill in their children: work hard; tell the truth; keep your promises; treat others with dignity and respect. Donald Trump epically does not tell the truth, does not keep his promises, and does not treat others with dignity and respect. A plagiarized speech (and the failure to detect the plagiarism) pretty strongly confirms that the Trumps do not much care about hard work, either. “Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee.”

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine interviewed writer Tony Schwartz at his home about his experiences as Donald Trump’s ghostwriter for “The Art of the Deal.”

It is one of the most enlightening articles you will read about Trump.

Last June, as dusk fell outside Tony Schwartz’s sprawling house, on a leafy back road in Riverdale, New York, he pulled out his laptop and caught up with the day’s big news: Donald J. Trump had declared his candidacy for President. As Schwartz watched a video of the speech, he began to feel personally implicated.

Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ”

Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties. The book was a phenomenal success, spending forty-eight weeks on the Times best-seller list, thirteen of them at No. 1. More than a million copies have been bought, generating several million dollars in royalties. The book expanded Trump’s renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon. Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, “Tony created Trump. He’s Dr. Frankenstein.”

Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”

It seemed improbable that Trump’s campaign would succeed, so Schwartz told himself that he needn’t worry much. But, as Trump denounced Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” near the end of the speech, Schwartz felt anxious. He had spent hundreds of hours observing Trump firsthand, and felt that he had an unusually deep understanding of what he regarded as Trump’s beguiling strengths and disqualifying weaknesses. Many Americans, however, saw Trump as a charmingly brash entrepreneur with an unfailing knack for business—a mythical image that Schwartz had helped create. “It pays to trust your instincts,” Trump says in the book, adding that he was set to make hundreds of millions of dollars after buying a hotel that he hadn’t even walked through.

In the subsequent months, as Trump defied predictions by establishing himself as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Schwartz’s desire to set the record straight grew. He had long since left journalism to launch the Energy Project, a consulting firm that promises to improve employees’ productivity by helping them boost their “physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual” morale. It was a successful company, with clients such as Facebook, and Schwartz’s colleagues urged him to avoid the political fray. But the prospect of President Trump terrified him. It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology—Schwartz doubted that he had one. The problem was Trump’s personality, which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.

Schwartz thought about publishing an article describing his reservations about Trump, but he hesitated, knowing that, since he’d cashed in on the flattering “Art of the Deal,” his credibility and his motives would be seen as suspect. Yet watching the campaign was excruciating. Schwartz decided that if he kept mum and Trump was elected he’d never forgive himself. In June, he agreed to break his silence and give his first candid interview about the Trump he got to know while acting as his Boswell.

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

Ezra Klein watched Lesley Stahl interview Donald Trump and Mike Pence on “60 Minutes,” and the sheer incoherence of their answers left Klein wondering if Trump actually wants to be president.

He is going to get tough on ISIS, unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, by declaring war on ISIS. Stahl asks what then. Trump says he won’t send ground troops, he will rely on NATO and Turkey to do the fighting. He has previously said that we give NATO too much support.

When Stahl asked about Trump’s opposition to the war in Iraq, she pointed out that Mike Pence voted for the war (he was a co-sponsor of the resolution to go to war). Trump said he didn’t care, the vote was a long time ago.

But, she asked, why do you keep harping on Hillary Clinton’s vote but not your running mate.

Read how Trump slips around that question.

Anyone who appalled by the thought of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President must search for words to explain what a horrifying idea this is.

Trump is a snake oil salesman. Trump is a con man. Trump is a fraud. Trump is hoaxing working people into believing that he has a secret plan to bring back the jobs that were outsourced to low-wage countries (by people like Donald Trump) or that were lost to new technologies.

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post says quite simply that Trump is a charlatan. Ken Bernstein, a regular blogger for the Daily Kos, dissects that article here.

Should a First Lady go sleeveless? Should she show bare arms in public? These questions were raised in 2009 because First Lady Michelle Obama audaciously exposed her arms.

 

The conservative media went berserk!

 

Shocking! Inappropriate! How dare she! Utterly classless!

 

What does the conservative media say about Melania Trump? She bares her arms and her legs. Sometimes she packs heat, which should please the NRA.

 

Actually they don’t say anything at all.

 

Double standard, anyone?