James Fallows: “Defund the Air Traffic Controllers”

By dianeravitch
February 18, 2025 //
13

James Fallows is a veteran journalist, one of the best. He predicts disaster ahead because of the ignorance of the DOGE team slashing the federal workforce.

Screenshot from CNN, credited to John Nelson, of Delta regional jet flight 4819 upside-down after landing at Pearson Airport in Toronto, after crash landing today.

He writes:

This post is about today’s crash-landing of a commuter jet, en route from Minneapolis to Toronto, which for still-unexplained reasons flipped over and landed on its back without killing any passengers.

Good news for all those aboard.

It coincides with cautionary news about anyone flying on US-based airlines. Let’s go through the de-brief:

The big questions.

Was today’s crash-landing in Toronto directly traceable to this past weekend’s Musk-Trump mass layoffs of FAA officials in the US? 

—Almost certainly not.

Will future crashes be directly traceable to this move?

—Almost certainly so. 

Any future-history of US airline disasters in 2026 or beyond will probably start its narrative in this past holiday weekend of 2025. That is when the Musk tech-bro team known as DOGE, instructed by Russel Vought and empowered by Trump, began its mass layoffs of air-safety officials whose employment status showed “probationary.” (Even if they had been on the job for decades, and were classified as “probationary” only because they had recently received a promotion.)

After any aviation disaster, the careful investigators of the NTSB try to reconstruct the “accident chain.” We’re beginning the accident chain for future disaster, right now. 

Let’s take this step-by-step.

What happened in Toronto.

As with almost any aviation accident, it will take time to be sure. What is known as the time I write is this:

  • The airplane was a Bombardier regional jet. By coincidence, this was the the same make, though a slightly different model, as the regional jet involved in the large-casualty collision near National Airport in DC this month. 
  • Many of the passengers have been taken to the hospital. But as of the time I write, all appear to have survived.
  • The weather was challenging, and the winds were very strong and gusty, when the plane touched down at Toronto/Pearson and then apparently flipped over onto its back. Did the gusty crosswinds cause the plane to lose its balance and flip? At this moment no one can be sure. The weather and winds appear to have been bad but not unmanageable.¹ We’ll see what further data might reveal.
  • Was this in any way related to the large-scale layoffs of air traffic control professionals by the new Musk-Trump-Doge regime? There’s no reason yet to think so. The recording of Air Traffic Control guidance from the Toronto tower, which you can listen to here², seems entirely routine until the moment the regional jet has a bad touch down.³

But will it be related to crashes in the future? That seems to me inevitable. 

—You lay off much of the fire-fighting force, you’re inviting a destructive fire. 

—You lay off teachers, you’re inviting ignorance. 

—And if you lay off the people who have made air-travel safe, you are inviting unsafe air travel. 

Which is Trump, Musk, and their ninjas seem to be doing now. 

But don’t ask me. Ask someone who has devoted his life to air-traffic safety. 

What will happen in our skies.

Someone I have been in touch with for many years, and whose airspace I once flew through during his time as a controller and mine as a pilot in that part of the country, sends a message today that I thought worth quoting in full. This correspondent writes:

They fired a bunch of probationery employees last night. Basically everyone other than controllers or safety inspectors, apparently.

It’s one of those things that has a slow but corrosive effect on safety. For example: Our team is bracing for cuts. One of the biggest things we do is environmental review and community engagement for proposed actions in airspace or procedures.

So if someone needs a new or amended approach [JF note: like those over the Potomac, in light of recent problems], the flight procedure team—currently staffed at 13, should be 17—designs it and gives it to us.

Our environmental specialists do the NEPA [environmental policy] review; myself and other ATC subject matter experts assist them by checking the procedures, explaining what’s going on, and checking it for any variety of things in how it fits in with everything else in the area. We also do community engagement stuff if it is called for. 

[On our team] all the ‘probationary’ people got fired.

Will it lead to disaster? Not immediately. But fewer people trying to do the same amount of work will lead to stuff getting missed….

We prioritize and do the most safety-critical stuff first. But a lot will fall aside.

‘Boys throw stones at frogs in fun…’

Let’s return to the theme of a preceding dispatch: Elon Musk and his acolytes are having fun, and perhaps preparing for a privatization of the FAA, but in the process they are putting all of the rest of us in danger.

—I submit that I know more about air safety, and about FAA procedures, than Elon Musk does, or any of the members of his zealot/ignoramus team.

—And I know at least a thousand people who are vastly more experienced and knowledgeable than I am.

The Musk/Trump people are empowering the know-nothings. Who tear things down because they have no idea of who built them up.

Conceivably this will be the barrier—the risk that constituents might die in airplane crahses—that stops them? When GOP politicians flying out of DCA think that Musk-ite shortcuts might kill them? When even Musk’s private jets have to deal with over-stressed air traffic controllers?

We don’t know. But the powers that be are pushing the limits.

—As a pilot, I trust air traffic controllers. As a passenger, I trust the multi-layer safety network that decades’ worth of relentless self-examination has built up.

—As a citizen, I do not trust the standards that the clown-corrupt Trump/Musk regime has introduced. 

‘Defund the police’ became a right-wing campaign slogan. ‘Defund Air Traffic Control’ will get us killed.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Disruption, Ethics, Ignorance, Musk, Elon, Stupid, Trump

Washington Post Kills Ad Calling on Trump to Fire Musk

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2025 //
7

Julie Creswell of The New York Times reported that The Washington Post killed an ad calling on Trump to fire his best buddy Elon Musk. The story was first reported in The Hill. Who could have given such an order?

Creswell writes:

An advertisement that was set to run in some editions of The Washington Post on Tuesday calling for Elon Musk to be fired from his role in government was abruptly canceled, according to one of the advocacy groups that had ordered the ad.

Common Cause said it was told by the newspaper on Friday that the ad was being pulled. The full-page ad, known as a wraparound, would have covered the front and back pages of editions delivered to the White House, the Pentagon and Congress, and was planned in collaboration with the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund.

A separate, full-page ad with the same themes would have been allowed to run inside the newspaper, but the two groups chose to cancel the internal ad as well. Both ads would have cost the groups $115,000.

“We asked why they wouldn’t run the wrap when we clearly met the guidelines if they were allowing the internal ad,” said Virginia Kase Solomón, the president and chief executive of Common Cause. “They said they were not at liberty to give us a reason.”

News of The Washington Post canceling the ad was earlier reported by The Hill.

Although it is unclear who made the decision to pull the ad or why, the move comes amid growing concern about the changing mission of the Washington Post newsroom under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. The newspaper’s decision last fall to end its longstanding tradition of presidential endorsements and Mr. Bezos’ front-row seat at Mr. Trump’s inauguration have led some to wonder whether the news organization has been accommodating a Trump administration.

Last month, more than 400 employees sent a letter to Mr. Bezos requesting a meeting to discuss leadership decisions that they said “led readers to question the integrity of this institution.”

Mrs. Kase Solomón said that all the content for the ad — art and text — had been sent to The Post’s advertisement department last Tuesday and that “no alarm bells were rung” by anyone from the newspaper at that time. She said she did not know who inside the organization made the decision to pull the wrap.

The ad featured an image of Mr. Musk laughing over a picture of the White House with text that reads: “Who’s Running This Country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?” The ad called for readers to contact their senators and tell them it’s time for Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Musk…

Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man who controls six companies, including Tesla, SpaceX and the social media platform X, has been given far-reaching power by the president, who has allowed Mr. Musk to dismantle federal agencies and freeze funding for various grants and programs.

Margaret Huang, president and chief executive of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the disappearance of critical programs and grants would have a direct and negative effect mostly on lower-income individuals and people of color.

Categories Billionaires, Censorship, Corruption, Democracy, Ethics, Failure, Media, Musk, Elon, Trump

Louisiana: Vouchers Fail the Students Who Need the Most Help

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2025 //
4

Remember the claim that vouchers would “save poor kids from failing public schools”? As we see in state after state, it’s not true. Josh Cowen wrote in his new book The Privateers that voucher researchers have known for years that vouchers don’t help poor kids; in reality, vouchers actually hurt poor kids. The poor kids don’t go to elite private schools; they mostly go to religious schools with uncertified teachers. The greatest benefit of vouchers goes to wealthy kids, who use the money to subsidize their private school tuition. In every state with universal vouchers, the majority are used by students who are already attending private schools.

If you have read Josh Cowen’s new book about the failure of vouchers, called The Privateers, this story would not surprise you.

Louisiana ‘s academic results for poor kids has been consistently dismal. The state plans to increase the voucher program and weaken or remove regulations. That’s a way to help failing voucher schools evade accountability.

Here is the latest overview, which appeared at NOLA.com:

School vouchers were supposed to be an academic lifeline for Louisiana’s neediest children.

Under a 2012 law, the state would pay for poor students in struggling public schools to attend private or parochial schools where, it was promised, they would receive a better education.

But more than a decade since the statewide voucher program began, after Louisiana has spent half a billion taxpayer dollars to send thousands of students to private schools, data show the state’s lofty promise has not panned out.

On average, voucher students at private schools fare worse on state tests than their public-school peers, according to scores examined by The Times-Picayune and The Advocate. In 2023, just 14% of voucher students in grades 3-8 met state achievement targets, compared with 24% of low-income students at public schools.

“If the goal was to improve achievement, then the program is not succeeding,” said Doug Harris, an economist at Tulane University who has written about Louisiana’s voucher program.

Even voucher proponents acknowledge the lackluster results

“Louisiana is kind of famous for having one of the weakest, or maybe the weakest, private scholarship program in the country,” said Ginny Gentles, a school-choice advocate and former U.S. Department of Education official, while interviewing Louisiana Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley on a podcast last year. Brumley agreed that “it’s called the worst (voucher) program in the country” and “has its limitations.”

The private schools that get about $6,800 per voucher student face scant oversight. Unlike public schools, most don’t receive state ratings because they enroll too few voucher students. But 30 private schools were graded last year, and nearly 80% earned Ds or Fs.

State regulations forbid F-rated private schools from enrolling new voucher students. Brumley waived that rule in recent years, allowing even the worst-performing schools to take in more students and tax dollars.

Now, Louisiana is set to pump more public money into private schools — an approach that President Donald Trump urged more states to adopt in a recent executive order.

In March, the state will launch the LA GATOR Scholarship Program, which will cover students’ tuition and other private education expenses. State officials expect it to cost nearly $94 million next school year, more than double the annual price of vouchers.

“These kids, there’s no price we won’t pay to make sure they get a good quality education,” Gov. Jeff Landry said while promoting the program at a Catholic school in Metairie last year. 

While the scholarship program will replace vouchers, many of the same private schools already have signed up — including over 20 with D or F ratings.

“It makes absolutely no sense,” said Ashana Bigard, a New Orleans public school parent and advocate. The voucher schools struggled academically, “so we’re going to give them more kids?”

But proponents insist the scholarship program, which includes fewer regulations, will attract stronger schools and achieve better results than vouchers.

“I think what we learned is that a private-school choice program is only as good as the quality of the private schools that are enticed to participate,” said Patrick Wolf, an education policy professor at the University of Arkansas who studied Louisiana’s vouchers.

In that program, he added, the “quality level appears to have been quite low.”

Early results disappoint

Louisiana first offered vouchers in the 1960s to parents fleeing school desegregation, before resurrecting them decades later as a refuge from struggling public schools.

“Parents and kids should not be trapped in a failing school,” then-Gov. Bobby Jindal said when the statewide voucher program launched in 2012, adding that all children deserve “an excellent education.”

One of several Republican-led states to adopt vouchers, Louisiana targeted its program to families with incomes at or below 250% of the poverty line with children in public schools rated C or lower. Participating private schools had to admit all applicants, charge no more than the voucher amount and administer the state’s annual LEAP test to voucher recipients.

When researchers analyzed the results after one year, what they found was stunning: Participating in the program caused students’ English and math scores to plummet.

“We’re talking about some of the worst results we’ve ever seen in the history of education research,” said Josh Cowen, an education policy professor at Michigan State University who opposes vouchers.

The low scores persisted for several years, especially in math. It was a far cry from Jindal’s assertion that vouchers would give students access to an excellent education. (Jindal did not respond to a request for comment.)

Voucher proponents posited that the private schools’ curriculums could be misaligned with the state tests or the program’s rules could have deterred higher-performing schools from joining. Less than a third of the state’s roughly 400 private schools participated in 2012, and those that did tended to be Catholic, have declining enrollment and charge low tuition.

“It was a very heavily regulated program and it tended to attract schools that were more desperate for the money,” said Michael McShane, director of national research at EdChoice, a pro-voucher group.

Advocates point to surveys showing many parents who receive vouchers are happy with their children’s schools. They also say public schools improve when forced to compete with private schools for students.

Last school year, nearly 6,000 students received vouchers, costing taxpayers $45 million. More than 75% of those students attended private schools where fewer than 1 in 4 voucher students achieved “mastery” on the state tests, meaning they’re ready for the next grade level, according to an analysis of state data by The Times-Picayune and The Advocate. At least 26% went to schools where fewer than 1 in 10 voucher students achieved mastery.

The raw scores don’t show where students started academically and whether the voucher schools helped them grow. But the state’s rating system tracks students’ academic progress, giving schools credit for boosting student achievement even if their scores remain low.

Even by that measure, 11 of the 30 voucher schools that received ratings last year earned Fs, 12 got Ds and five earned Cs. Just two earned Bs.

Lakeside Christian Academy in Slidell posted some of the worst results last year: Fewer than 5% of its voucher students achieved mastery. The school, which enrolled 79 voucher students, earned Fs three years in a row.

Principal Buffie Singletary said voucher students typically arrive at the school far behind, with limited reading skills, making it difficult to catch them up.

“It’s just really hard,” she said.

Under state regulations, F-rated private schools can keep their current voucher students but may not enroll more. But Brumley used his authority as state education chief to pause that rule, saying in memos that he sought to promote stability and parental choice.

The move has been a boon for schools like Redemptorist St. Gerard, a Catholic school in Baton Rouge. It earned an F in 2023, then enrolled nearly 40 new voucher students the following year, for a total of 134. In 2024, just 8% of those students achieved mastery.

School leaders did not respond to a request for comment.

Even as Brumley stopped imposing sanctions on voucher schools, he led the charge last year to adopt a stricter rating system for public schools.

Jackson Parish Schools Superintendent David Claxton said if the state is going to give private schools tax dollars, they should be held to the same standards as public schools.

“You still want parents to have choice,” he said, “but let’s make it a fair playing field.”

A new take on vouchers

Louisiana’s new private-school scholarship program has been hyped as a bigger, better version of vouchers.

At first, lower-income families will be eligible for the tax-funded scholarships, which will replace vouchers, but eventually, all will be eligible. Offering private school subsidies to all families, regardless of financial need, is a priority for Trump.

“With President Trump, we will continue working towards education freedom for all!” Landry posted on X last month.

Unlike with vouchers, private schools that participate in the scholarship program can decide which students to admit and how much to charge them. Rather than use the state test, they can choose which assessment to give students. And the schools will no longer be rated by the state.

“LA GATOR has fewer of the regulations that typically scare away high-quality schools,” Wolf said.

But critics are doubtful that the top-performing private schools will enroll students with the greatest academic needs. Instead, those students will likely land at less-selective private schools with more open seats, which tend to be lower performing.

“The fact that you’re getting rid of the regulations doesn’t solve that problem,” said Harris, the Tulane researcher.

As Landry and others set high expectations for the new scholarship program, the voucher results loom large.

Last year, as the Legislature considered a bill to establish the scholarship program, state board of education member Conrad Appel expressed misgivings to a state education official, according to an email obtained through a public records request. (In a recent interview, Appel emphasized that LA GATOR was designed to avoid the voucher program’s mistakes.)

With vouchers, “we ended up taking kids from bad public schools and basically encouraging them to go to even worse private schools,” he wrote. “I am afraid that the push to allow parental choice may mean a repeat of history.”

Editor’s note: This story was corrected to reflect that 24% of low-income public school students in grades 3-8 achieved mastery or above on the state tests in 2023, not 23%.

Email Patrick Wall at patrick.wall@theadvocate.com.

Categories Ethics, Failure, Louisiana, Vouchers

Sara Stevenson: Fully Fund Texas Public Schools Instead of Handouts for the Wealthiest

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2025 //
5

Sara Stevenson is a retired school librarian and Catholic school English teacher. She is a fearless advocate for public schools. Her article was published in The Austin American-Statesman. At this very time, the Texas Legislature is debating voucher legislation. It has already passed the State Senate. It is now being considered in the House.

She writes:

Many years ago at a school financing conference, I approached an East Texas House member from a rural district. I asked him, “Do y’all even have private schools for vouchers in your district?” He answered, “Hell, no. Private school vouchers are a tax break for families that already send their kids to private schools.” I thanked him for clearing that up.

Now most of those rural House Republicans opposing private school vouchers are gone. Jeffrey Yass, a Pennsylvania billionaire investor in TikTok, gave Governor Greg Abbott $10 million to primary them out of office.

Texas has been trying to pass a school voucher or (ESA: Educational Savings Account) bill since 1995, but the bills keep failing session after session. In their earlier forms, these bills called for ESAs (using public tax dollars to pay for private school tuition) as a way to help poor children or those with disabilities trapped in Texas’s “failing public schools.”

Sidenote: If Texas schools are failing, the Republican party is responsible since it has dominated the Legislature for more than two decades and has controlled the governor’s office since 1994.

But over time, the proposed bills kept demanding more, not only in the amount of tuition money offered, but in the expanding pool of students qualified to receive them.

With this year’s version, Senate Bill 2, which passed the Senate, the GOP is saying the quiet part out loud. No longer are the ESAs solely for the families who can’t afford private school tuition or those with disabilities; now a family of four, making as much as $161,000 a year, five times the federal poverty level, can still receive up to $10,000 toward private school tuition or $11,500 for students with disabilities.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick then reassures us that 80% of the vouchers will go to special needs or “low-income” children. Since eligibility is universal, 20% will go to families making more than $161,000 per year.

I remember in 1976 when Ronald Reagan talked about people who abused the welfare system by getting government handouts they didn’t need. He called them “welfare queens.” In those days the GOP praised the working poor for their dignity in refusing a government handout.

Fast forward to 2025. Now families making over $161,000 per year are entitled to your tax dollars to send their children to private schools with little to no accountability. In fact, Sen. José Menendez’s Amendment 36, requiring the state to collect data to determine if the program is even successful, failed.

In earlier iterations, the student had to be enrolled in a failing public school before receiving a voucher. Now children already enrolled in private schools are eligible. Promoters argue this is only fair because private school families pay thousands each year in property taxes to schools their children don’t attend. Well, if they deserve a taxpayer refund, what about all the Texas property taxpayers, including seniors, who have NO children currently attending Texas schools?

No, because contributing to public education is a common good; an educated citizenry benefits all Texans and the Texas economy.

And speaking of children with disabilities, this bill clearly states that these students receiving vouchers must waive any rights for accommodations guaranteed by IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

Although SB 2 boosters contend the bill promotes school choice for parents, the bill really means “schools’ choice” for private schools. While public schools must accept every child, private schools, including those receiving vouchers, are free to turn away or expel any child for any reason. For instance, they can continue to prefer legacies and the siblings of current students.

SB 2 earmarks $1 billion for this program in order to give vouchers to just 100,000 students. In contrast, 5.4 million Texas students currently attend public school, 10% of all U.S. school children.

Let’s first pass Senate Bill 1, the budget bill, and include increasing the basic student allotment to fully fund our public schools. Since Texas ranks 44th among the states in per pupil spending, let’s first invest in the school system we already have rather than spend a billion dollars to fund another one.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Dark Money, Democracy, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Hoax, Religion, Separation of church and state, Shame, Texas

Karen Attiah: Call the Attack on DEI What It Is: A Rollback of Racial Integration

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2025 //
25

Karen Attiah is Global Opinions Editor of The Washington Post and a columnist. She says in this column exactly what I have been thinking. The attack on DEI is intended to restore the days when women, Blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities had little or no chance to rise in their field.

It’s ironic to hear Trump talk about the importance of merit when he has stocked his cabinet mostly with people who lack experience, knowledge, wisdom, or any genuine qualification for the position. His cabinet was not chosen based on merit. In what world would Pete Hegseth–no administrative experience, serial philander with an alcohol problem–be considered qualified to be Secretary of Defense? Or RFK Jr. qualified to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, having spent years fighting vaccines and having zero medical expertise? Or Tulsi Gabbard, Putin apologist, qualified to be Director of National Intelligence?

Attiah writes:

Across the United States, in government agencies and private corporations, leaders are scrambling to eliminate DEI programs. President Donald Trump is not only destroying any trace of diversity work within the government: He has ordered a review of federal contracts to identify any companies, nonprofits and foundations that do business with the government and keep their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and he has warned that they could be the target of investigations.

Let’s call this what it really is: resegregation.
I don’t mean resegregation in the sense of separate water fountains. I mean it in the sense that a Black woman would never even be considered for a federal job or a management position at a big company — the way it was in, say, the 1960s. It is not “inclusion” the Republicans want to get rid of, it’s integration.

If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at a post made by Darren Beattie, who was just named an acting undersecretary of state: “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work,” he wrote on X — not 10 years ago but in October.

Trump’s GOP is also threatening private companies that are trying to level the playing fields for Black people, women and other groups. After Costco’s shareholders voted to keep its diversity programs in place, 19 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Costco asking it to explain why it was maintaining a policy of “unlawful discrimination.”

A number of other corporations have begun their cowardly capitulations. In a memo, Kiera Fernandez, chief equity officer for Target, said the company would be ending its diversity, equity and inclusion goals “in step with the evolving external landscape.” Amazon, Meta and Walmart have also announced rollbacks.

For anyone wondering why “inclusion” is still needed: Since the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in 2023, first-year Black enrollment at top universities has dropped by 17 percent. That’s the sharpest drop of any major racial group. (For comparison, White enrollment has fallen by 5 percent.)

Or look at the business world: Black people represent 13.7 percent of the population but Black-owned businesses generally get less than 2 percent of venture capital funding. Despite a smattering of promises from venture capital companies to do better after the murder of George Floyd, funding to Black companies dropped from $4.9 billion in 2021 to $705 million in 2023 — an astonishing 86 percent drop. Sounds like a segregated market to me.

These facts, taken together, point to the removal of Black people from academic, corporate and government spaces: resegregation.
People are vowing to push back with their wallets — to shop at Costco and boycott Target, for example. But I believe the fight starts with language. Journalists have a role and an obligation to be precise in naming what we are facing.

Frankly, I wish the media would stop using “DEI” and “diversity hiring” altogether. Any official, including the president, who chooses to blame everything from plane crashes to wildfires on non-White, non-male people should be asked whether they believe that desegregation is to blame. Whether they believe resegregation is the answer. We need to bring back the language that describes what is actually happening.

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction,” Toni Morrison said. “It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do.”
Black people have spent nearly 70 years “proving” ourselves. And in a flash, with a new administration, the gains of those decades are being washed away.

While Attiah focuses on the expansion of opportunity for Black people, the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies–that is, efforts to diversify student bodies, the workforce, and corporate leadership–have been white women.

Thanks to DEI, white women now serve on corporate boards, as corporate leaders, and in positions that would have been closed to them in the past.

Categories Bigotry, Civil Rights, Democracy, Economy, Ethics, Gender, Race, Trump

ALERT! The Disturbing Background of the Teen in the DOGE Group

By dianeravitch
February 16, 2025 //
13

Do you have 10-15 minutes to read a very important article? It contains a lot of alarming details about the 19-year-old computer whiz on Elon Musk’s DOGE team.

Brian Krebs, a former Washington Post reporter, writes a blog about Internet security called Krebs on Security. In this awesome post, he describes the links of Edward Coristine to known cyber criminals.

Krebs is an expert on cybercrime.

He writes:

Wired reported this week that a 19-year-old working for Elon Musk‘s so-called Department of Government Efficiency(DOGE) was given access to sensitive US government systems even though his past association with cybercrime communities should have precluded him from gaining the necessary security clearances to do so. As today’s story explores, the DOGE teen is a former denizen of ‘The Com,’ an archipelago of Discord and Telegram chat channels that function as a kind of distributed cybercriminal social network for facilitating instant collaboration.

Since President Trump’s second inauguration, Musk’s DOGE team has gained access to a truly staggering amount of personal and sensitive data on American citizens, moving quickly to seize control over databases at the U.S. Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Resources, among others.

Wired first reported on Feb. 2 that one of the technologists on Musk’s crew is a 19-year-old high school graduate named Edward Coristine, who reportedly goes by the nickname “Big Balls” online. One of the companies Coristine founded, Tesla.Sexy LLC, was set up in 2021, when he would have been around 16 years old.

“Tesla.Sexy LLC controls dozens of web domains, including at least two Russian-registered domains,” Wired reported. “One of those domains, which is still active, offers a service called Helfie, which is an AI bot for Discord servers targeting the Russian market. While the operation of a Russian website would not violate US sanctions preventing Americans doing business with Russian companies, it could potentially be a factor in a security clearance review.”

Mr. Coristine has not responded to requests for comment. In a follow-up story this week, Wired found that someone using a Telegram handle tied to Coristine solicited a DDoS-for-hire service in 2022, and that he worked for a short time at a company that specializes in protecting customers from DDoS attacks.

DDoS is “denial of service, meaning that one’s access to the internet has been cut off. So, I learned that there are companies that can be paid to implement a DDoS and companies that can be paid to protect against DDoS. Presumably, a clever cyber criminal could be on both sides, sort of like the early 20th century mobsters who demanded protection money from small-time merchants so that no one would break their windows.

Krebs’ writing about cybercriminals got personal when they retaliated:

The founder of Path is a young man named Marshal Webb. I wrote about Webb back in 2016, in a story about a DDoS defense company he co-founded called BackConnect Security LLC. On September 20, 2016, KrebsOnSecurity published data showing that the company had a history of hijacking Internet address space that belonged to others.

Less than 24 hours after that story ran, KrebsOnSecurity.com was hit with the biggest DDoS attack the Internet had ever seen at the time. That sustained attack kept this site offline for nearly 4 days.

The other founder of BackConnect Security LLC was Tucker Preston, a Georgia man who pleaded guilty in 2020 to paying a DDoS-for-hire service to launch attacks against others.

The aforementioned Path employee Eric Taylor pleaded guilty in 2017 to charges including an attack on our home in 2013. Taylor was among several men involved in making a false report to my local police department about a supposed hostage situation at our residence in Virginia. In response, a heavily-armed police force surrounded my home and put me in handcuffs at gunpoint before the police realized it was all a dangerous hoax known as “swatting.”

Woven throughout this story is the career trajectory of Edward Coristine, a core member of DOGE’s elite team. He possibly has a thumb drive with all of your and my personal data on it.

Krebs wonders whether and how Coristine got a top security clearance, given his history.

Given the speed with which Musk’s DOGE team was allowed access to such critical government databases, it strains credulity that Coristine could have been properly cleared beforehand. After all, he’d recently been dismissed from a job for allegedly leaking internal company information to outsiders.

According to the national security adjudication guidelines (PDF) released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), eligibility determinations take into account a person’s stability, trustworthiness, reliability, discretion, character, honesty, judgment, and ability to protect classified information.

The DNI policy further states that “eligibility for covered individuals shall be granted only when facts and circumstances indicate that eligibility is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and any doubt shall be resolved in favor of national security.”

Now that Tulsi Gabbard is DNI, maybe she’ll give young Edward the clearance he needs.

Please read it and let me know if you were as horrified as I.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Data and Data Mining, Ethics, Fraud, Justice, Lies, Musk, Elon, Technology, Trump

Trump Is Breaking the Law By Banning Teaching About DEI

By dianeravitch
February 16, 2025 //
10

Haley Bull of Scripps News reported yesterday that Trump sent out an order to all 50 states warning that the federal government would cut off funding to any school that teaches about “diversity, equity or inclusion.”

She wrote:

The Department of Education is warning state education agencies they may lose federal funding if they do not remove DEI policies and programs to comply with the department’s interpretation of federal law.

A letter from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, according to the Department of Government Efficiency.

“Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding,” acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor writes in the letter. The message warns that “the department will vigorously enforce the law” to schools and state educational agencies receiving funding and that it will start taking measures “to assess compliance” in no more than 14 days.

The letter argues that a Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found that affirmative action in the university’s admission process violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, should apply more broadly. 

“The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent,” the letter states.

This letter fails to mention that since 1970, the U.S. Department of Education has been subject to a law that states clearly that no officer of the federal government may interfere with what schools teaching.

The law states: “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, employee, of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials.“

The law is P.L. 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, section 432.

These zealots are trying to turn teaching about civil rights, about Black history, and about LGBT people into a criminal act.

They are wrong. Reality exists no matter what they ban and censor.

They are violating the law, and they must be stopped.

They must be sued by the ACLU, the NAACP, and every other legal organization that defends the rule of law.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Curriculum, Disruption, Equity, Extremism, Fraud, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Gender, Ignorance, Inequity, Injustice, Racism, Trump, U.S. Department of Education

A Tribute to Two Black Pioneers in Brooklyn

By dianeravitch
February 16, 2025 //
2

It’s Black History Month. Ignore the fact that this annual tribute to the achievements and culture of African-Americans has been stripped of recognition by the federal government since the inauguration of the worst President in our history. Trump thinks that the nation was greatest when it was ruled by straight white men, and everyone else was submissive. I don’t work for him, so here is a tribute to two pioneering Black women. It was posted by CBS News, which is also not covered by Trump’s racist war on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

NEW YORK –  A peaceful playground in Williamsburg bears the name of Sarah J. S. Tompkins Garnet. Two miles away in DUMBO is a park named after Susan Smith McKinney Steward. These are not the only places that bear their names — a school in Fort Greene and another in Prospect Heights are also named after them. 

Dr. McKinney Steward specialized in childhood disease, co-founded a hospital and, later in life, ventured out West with her second husband, Theophilus Gould Steward, a U.S. Army Buffalo Soldier of the first all-Black Army regiment. 

Her great-granddaughter is the late actress Ellen Holly, America’s first Black soap opera star who died in 2023. 

“Its very special when someone recognizes your work,” Holly said in a 2004 interview recognizing her contribution to the history of TV.

Both sisters were also involved in the Women’s Suffrage movement and helped create the Equal Suffrage League, which worked to abolish race and gender discrimination in the late 1880s.

“Once abolition was achieved, a lot of those allies kind of went away. And you had women standing there asking, ‘well, what about us? ‘So women like Sarah and Susan took it upon themselves to take up the mantle for Women’s Suffrage,” Robbins explains.

Among the idyllic hills of Brooklyn’s historic Green-wood Cemetery are two graves, steps away from each other — the resting places of both sisters who desired to educate and heal their community. 

Categories Character, Courage, Democracy, Ethics, Gender, Race

Trump Is Destroying Our Country, Putin Benefits

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2025 //
8

I am posting a large excerpt from Olga Lautman’s Tyranny Tracker. Christine Langhoff shares this link with us. I urge you to subscribe. I have given up trying to keep track of Trump’s destructive orders, but Olga Lautman has not. She is a patriot. Trump is not. He is Putin’s puppet. Hillary warned us.

Olga Lautman posted yesterday:

📆 Trump Tyranny Tracker: Feb 14

Welcome to today’s Trump Tyranny Tracker, where I’m breaking down the key news from the day alongside ongoing developments as Trump and his regime move swiftly to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and dismantle civil rights and freedoms.

Happy Valentine’s Day to everyone!!

🔥 In Corruption News

Musk’s Treasury Appointee Retains CEO Role, Raising Conflict Concerns

What Happened: Elon Musk ally Tom Krause, newly appointed to oversee U.S. government payments, is still CEO of Cloud Software Group, a private tech company. Treasury’s ethics office approved the arrangement, which is a massive conflict of interest. 

Why It Matters: A sitting CEO running federal payment operations raises ethical and security concerns over potential financial manipulation, insider deals, and corporate favoritism. With Treasury’s $5.45 trillion in annual transactions, watchdogs warn of unprecedented conflicts as Musk’s allies tighten their grip on government finances.

Source: WIRED

Trump DOJ Guts Public Corruption Investigations

What Happened: Trump has dismantled federal efforts to fight public corruption, pausing investigations into corporate bribery, weakening the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and considering eliminating the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. Trump also fired inspectors general across multiple agencies. The move follows the DOJ’s controversial dismissal of charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, sparking mass resignations among prosecutors.

Why It Matters: The Justice Department is shielding Trump’s allies while curbing corruption investigations, signaling an unprecedented shift in enforcement priorities. The DOJ’s politicization raises concerns about legal accountability under Trump’s regime.

Source: CNN

Kash Patel’s Undisclosed LLCs Raise FBI Nomination Concerns

What Happened: Trump’s FBI director nominee, Kash Patel, failed to disclose multiple LLCs tied to a $1.8 million Virginia land deal in his Senate financial disclosures. His filings contradict each other on the land’s value, and he delayed submitting records until after his Senate hearing, avoiding scrutiny.

Why It Matters: Patel’s lack of transparency and hidden financial dealings—including ties to Kremlin-linked payments—raise serious ethical concerns for a potential FBI director. His pattern of secrecy and conflicts of interest fuels fears about his ability to lead an impartial agency.

Source: Mother Jones

🛡️ In Power Consolidation News

Mass Layoffs Spark Chaos as Trump Purges Federal Workforce

What Happened: Trump and Elon ordered mass layoffs of probationary federal employees, impacting thousands. Over 1,000 VA workers, including cancer and opioid researchers, were fired. The CDC lost 1,300 employees, cutting 10% of its workforce, while the Education Department, USDA, and DOE also saw deep cuts. Many were terminated without warning, including some who had already accepted buyouts.

Why It Matters: This politically driven purge weakens veterans’ services, public health, and environmental protections, prioritizing loyalty over competence. The purge will cripple government operations and vital social services.

Source: Associated Press

IRS Prepares for Mass Layoffs Amid Tax Season

What Happened: The IRS is set to fire thousands of workers, including many probationary employees, just as tax season reaches its peak. The move follows Trump and Elon Musk’s federal purge, aimed at gutting the government. The IRS had 100,000 employees, including 16,000 probationary workers, many of whom are now at risk.

Why It Matters: The cuts threaten tax processing, refunds, and enforcement, gutting Biden-era efforts to audit corporations and wealthy taxpayers. 

Source: Reuters

Elon Musk’s DOGE Arrives at Pentagon, Eyes Massive Cuts

What Happened: Elon Musk’s operatives arrived at the Pentagon as part of Trump’s push to gut government agencies and veterans’ services. This follows similar moves across Treasury, DOJ, DHS, and intelligence agencies, where Musk’s operatives have gained access to financial, security, and intelligence data.

Why It Matters: Musk’s Pentagon access raises major conflict of interest concerns, as SpaceX and Starlink hold billions in defense contracts. Unvetted DOGE operatives could gain access to classified military programs, including cyber defense, nuclear strategy, and global operations. The Trump regime’s prioritization of loyalty over security vetting risks espionage, military compromise, and insider financial manipulation.

Source: Reuters

Mass Firings Loom Over CDC and NIH as Trump Reshapes Public Health Agencies

What Happened: Senior officials at the CDC and NIH are bracing for mass layoffs, with up to 700 public health workers targeted, including members of the CDC’s elite “disease detectives” corps—the first responders to global infectious disease outbreaks. Some high-ranking officials could be forced to resign as the regime continues its efforts to gut agencies.

Why It Matters: Slashing frontline pandemic and disease response teams cripples America’s ability to contain deadly outbreaks. Experts warn this will devastate public health preparedness, drain critical expertise, and politicize key agencies—as the U.S. faces a bird flu outbreak, a resurging measles crisis, and the worst flu season in decades.

Source: The New York Times

DHS Cuts 405 Employees, FEMA Hit Hardest

What Happened: DHS laid off 405 employees, including 200+ at FEMA, 130 at CISA, and others at USCIS and Science & Technology. 12 Coast Guard DEI staff were reassigned to border security.

Why It Matters: This purge weakens disaster response, cybersecurity, and national preparedness.

Source: ABC News

Trump Purges Leadership at National Archives

What Happened: Trump purges senior leadership at the National Archives and Records Administration. Deputy Archivist William Bosanko resigned Friday, following the firing of Archivist Colleen Shogan last week. At least five other senior officials are expected to leave, as the White House moves to replace them with Trump loyalists.

Why It Matters: This purge comes after NARA’s role in referring Trump’s classified documents case to the DOJ, signaling an attempt to reshape the agency’s leadership for political control. The loss of experienced, nonpartisan officials threatens historical preservation and government transparency.

Source: CNN

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Cruelty, Dark Money, Democracy, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Trump

Keith Barber: Making Sense of Tariffs

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2025 //
29

Keith Barber posted this point-counterpoint on Medium. Barber is a retired lawyer and lifelong Republican (pre-Trump). He presents the best arguments for tariffs, then explains why none of those claims make sense.

Keith writes:

A friend sent me a pro-tariff missive a MAGA friend of his shared. My friend wanted to know what I thought of it. Here is what he sent me.

“In its most basic form a tariff is a tax placed on imported goods. For instance, China sells widgets in the U.S. A 10% tariff on China would mean that for every widget China sells in the U.S., China must pay the U.S. federal government 10%.

Currently, foreign trade with the U.S. is extremely imbalanced. For example: the U.S. may charge China a 10% tariff BUT, China charges the U.S. a 50% tariff. This means more Chinese goods get sold in the U.S. than U.S. goods sold in China.

These grossly imbalanced tariffs (international tax) have encouraged U.S. manufacturers to move manufacturing OUT of the U.S., eliminating good paying middle class U.S. jobs. By raising tariffs on imported goods, U.S. companies are incentivized to return manufacturing to the U.S. because it will be more profitable to produce in the U.S. than to pay high import tariffs.

In the short term U.S. pricing will increase. HOWEVER, within 1 year those prices will decrease as manufacturers return to U.S. production. Not only will prices return to more affordable pricing but, 100’s of millions U.S. middle class jobs will become available hence, raising the standard of living for the American worker.

Prior to 1850 over 90% of all federal revenue came from international tariffs AND income tax did not exist and was deemed unconstitutional. In 1913, the U.S. federal government implemented the federal income tax scheme upon all U.S. workers. Today only 2% of all federal revenue comes from tariffs. The remaining federal revenue comes from income taxes, state taxes and borrowed money from the Federal Reserve, which weakens the U.S. dollar.

A strong and fair tariff system has the potential to not only reduce federal income taxes but, even eliminate them. Again, providing a higher standard of living for the American worker.”

I responded to my friend pointing out the numerous flaws, and flat out factual misrepresentations, of his friends arguments. What follows is a cleaned up version of that, along with some additional thoughts.

Let’s start with this: “For instance, China sells widgets in the U.S. A 10% tariff on China would mean that for every widget China sells in the U.S., China must pay the U.S. federal government 10%.”

Absolutely false. The American importer would pay the 10%, not China. Think about it. How would you, how could you, make China itself pay? This fundamental error of fact alone is sufficient to trash the rest of the arguments above. It also shows that whoever authored it is absolutely clueless regarding how tariffs work.

Nor is the 50–10 characterization of tariffs accurate. To be sure, China uses a variety of arguably unfair regulatory procedures to limit U.S. imports, but Chinese tariffs have generally been imposed as responsive to American tariffs. Cheap labor is why Chinese goods are less expensive compared to American products, not tariffs.

The entire notion of tariffs returning production to America ignores the economic concept of competitive advantage. It also ignores the realities of things as simple as geography and weather. You really think lost avocado imports from Mexico and Central America can be moved to the United States? That Colombian coffee can be grown here? And even if it could, which it can’t, Trump’s taking the cheap employment base out of this country to do it.

Things that used to be produced in America were moved out because they could be made less expensively elsewhere. Government intervention in the market with a tariff/tax to compel production in the United States means the product will be more expensive for the simple reason that it costs more to make it here (more on that in a moment).

Which gets to another ridiculous claim: “100’s of millions U.S. middle class jobs will become available hence, raising the standard of living for the American worker.”

First, in a nation of about 330 million there are not 100s of millions of workers to work in additional middle class jobs. Right now the United States has only about 7 million unemployed.

Further, most of these jobs would not be middle class. Does the idiot who wrote this really think China is paying American middle class wages to the workers doing it now? Made in America will only be as cheap if we pay our workers what China pays its workers. If you think the price of your iPhone is high now, try paying American middle class wages to the workers who make it.

This proposed government market intervention/manipulation operating against the free enterprise model conservatives falsely claim to love. We would understand it be exactly that sort of government powered market manipulation (dare I call it “socialism”?) if, for example, the state of Florida attempted to tax cars made in Michigan in order to use this governmental power to compel the development of a Florida auto industry. And Florida would get to say this state “tariff” is also to raise revenue and reduce the tax burden on Floridians. But the truly nonsensical nature of this can be understood when Michigan retaliates by imposing a tariff/tax on Florida oranges. As if oranges can be grown in Michigan.

I also got a laugh at the “within 1 year” the production will magically shift to the America, which is simply made up. How long does it take to build a steel mill? An auto plant? The highly sophisticated factories where microchips are made? What divorced from reality lunatic thinks that can be done at scale in less than a year? Oh, and when you build those microchip factories, you need the raw materials, coming from . . . well not here.

That tariffs could ever make near enough money to eliminate federal income taxes is just another flat out absurdity. A comparison to 1913 when the federal budget was 2% of GDP (it’s well over ten times that now) reflects the dishonest approach involved. U.S. military spending alone now is nearly double that 2%. Even getting close to the 1913 standard would require eliminating social security, medicare, medicaid and much more. Of course, maybe that is the real objective.

Further, this use of tariffs to substitute for income taxes involves an obvious Catch-22. If tariffs won’t financially harm Americans because of increased domestic production, then tariffs can’t make much money either. It is only by transferring the expense of tariffs on still imported goods to American consumers that tariffs can make any money at all. Whoever wrote this rubbish completely disregarded that the benefit they claim, of tariffs increasing domestic production, totally destroys their argument that tariffs will make so much money we can eliminate income taxes.

To the extent tariffs would substitute for income tax that substitution would be to create what amounts to a regressive sales tax to reduce progressive income taxes. Which means the entire tax substitution argument is shell game trying to sneak a benefit for the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.

I’d like to conclude with a truncated version of the last paragraph: “A strong and fair tariff system has the potential to . . . [provide] a higher standard of living for the American worker.”

If this argument is valid, then it would be valid for every nation. Supposedly the standard of living for everyone in the world would be better if every nation in the world had “a strong and fair tariff system.” The workers of the world would be better off if every nation just hunkered down its entire manufacturing and agricultural and energy bases to make everything it needs so every country imports nothing and exports nothing.

For reasons of competitive advantage, that include everything from geography to labor costs to climate, this notion is simply not true. As but a single extreme example, how is landlocked Mongolia to get fish? How is America to get inexpensive coffee? And so on.

Whoever wrote this simple minded garbage could not pass the most basic course in economics, or for that matter, common sense.

I would add another bonus point. Trump isn’t even trying to justify the tariffs with the bogus economic arguments presented in the “point” piece above. Rather, Trump is trying to claim that it’s all about stopping illegal immigration and fentanyl.

Neither argument legitimately applies to Canada, and the fentanyl argument does not apply to either Canada or Mexico. The vast bulk of fentanyl is smuggled into the United States through legal ports of entry. Further, it is Americans who bring 86% of the fentanyl across the border. As it turns out, the drug lords pushing fentanyl don’t want to trust so valuable a product to some desperate middle aged mother trying to cross the border with her five year old daughter to escape political persecution in Venezuela.

Blaming immigrants for fentanyl tells me you are not serious about that problem. You don’t want to solve it, you just want to blame it on people you already don’t like.

Categories Economics, Economy
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »