Politics Plus is a progressive perspective. All points of view are welcome, but personal attacks against me or anyone who comments here are forbidden. Trading insults never changes anyone's mind. After over a year offline, it's great to be back! This is mostly a political blog, but on occation you will see posts about my personal life and the volunteer work I do in and out of prison as an ex-convict helping other former felons become productive, pro-social members of our communities. Enjoy!
These days the Appalachian Trail is a most unpredictable byway, leading first to sexy South America and now to the coffers of Washington, DC.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for which his state was eligible would lead to “a thing called slavery.” Even as his state’s unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.
But yesterday, Sanford flew to Washington to demand $300 million in stimulus money for education, the State newspaper reports:
Sanford, who spent much of last year fighting parts of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, now wants S.C. to have a piece of $4 billion in “Race to the Top” education money. [...]
Sanford met with [Secretary of Education Arne] Duncan to learn more about a charter school program Duncan started in Chicago, said Ben Fox, the governor’s spokesman. Sanford also took the trip to urge Duncan to support more charter school grants, Fox said. [...]
Sanford’s trip — which did not appear on his official calendar — is especially hypocritical because the majority of stimulus money destined for South Carolina was to fund education and save thousands of teachers’ jobs. Yet, in March, Sanford told Fox News host Glenn Beck that taking the money would be akin to “fiscal child abuse.”… [emphasis original]
What a hypocrite!! I would so like to suggest that Arne Duncan tell Sanford to take a long flying #$%& off a short pier. In good conscience, I cannot. To do so would be to suggest that the needy children of South Carolina, already suffering from RSDD, be penalized for Sanford’s GOP hypocrisy. What;s RSDD? It’s Red State Disability Disorder.
In my opinion, Barack Obama hit a home run with his State of the Union address last night. I do not agree with everything he said. However, I respect opposing points of view. My most serious criticism is that he is still clinging to bipartisanship and gave Republicans far more respect than they deserve. However, he made it clear that he took office in the midst of crises, and that the vast majority of debt under his administration was from enacting the bailout passed before he became President. He made fools of the Republicans be enumerating the many tax cuts that have been enacted under his administration. Because Republicans parrot “middle class tax cut” continually, they could not object. They had to be fuming, because in GOP-speak “Middle Class Tax Cut” means “Tax Cut for the Rich”. Obama’s tax cuts really were for the middle class. I also liked the way he lampooned the Senate, by listing all the bills the House has passed and making it clear that inaction by the Senate is the sticking point. I liked the way he called on Congress to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Although he could simply instruct the military not to enforce it, it is the law. If he did, he would let Congress off the hook, and leave the law on the books for some future administration to enforce. Congress passed it. Rescinding it is their obligation, one which I fully support. He also made it clear that Republicans are engaging in pure obstructionism, and made it clear that if they continue that tactic, they will have to answer to voters for it.
Keith Olbermann’s coverage excelled, as usual. Here are two videos. The first is with Howard Fineman:
According to a CBS News Poll, 83% of those interviewed approved of Obama’s proposals. Only 17% did not.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response. McClatchy also has the full text of his speech. While more respectful, better constructed, and better delivered that the Bobby Jindal fiasco after Obama’ last address to Congress, it contained only the standard GOP talking points. One thing was clear. McDonnell had not even listened to Obama’s speech before responding, because he did not know that Obama had put domestic fossil fuel development on the table.
Republicans were also polled. ;-)
(The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama's State of the Union address has already gotten a big thumbs-down from one key group of voters: Republicans who did not see the speech.
According to an instant poll conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, 90 percent of Republicans who did not see the President's speech strongly disagreed with it.
Additionally, 95 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement, "If I had seen the President's speech, I'll bet I would have hated it even more."
Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll, said there were certain difficulties in polling Republican voters: "Many of them would not let us finish asking the question before answering 'No.'"… [emphasis added]
Although Joe “You Lie” Wilson, promised to be on his best behavior, these Republican leaders just don’t seem to understand is that there are people watching who are trained to read lips.
Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined steps he plans to take “to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.” However, he first addressed right-wing criticisms that he is overseeing out-of-control spending by noting the situation he faced when he took office:
By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.
The camera then cut to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who leaned over to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and appeared to whisper, “Blame it on Bush.” The two men then laughed. Watch it:
That was John “McConJob” McCain’s best act since singing “Bomb, Bomb Iran” into a mike he did not know was open.
But even worse was the despicable breech of decorum by reactionary-right activist Justice Samuel Alito.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama's criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words "not true."
Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates.
It proved to be a striking State of the Union moment: With six justices seated in their black robes directly in front of him in the House chamber, Obama said: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
As Democrats applauded, cameras showed the justices sitting expressionless. Except Alito.
"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."
The court's 5 to 4 decision, in which Alito was in the majority, said it did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign firms, because the law being considered did not differentiate between domestic and foreign corporations... [emphasis added]
I was impressed with Obama for taking on the Supreme Court to their faces for that horrid decision. While technically the court did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign firms, as Alito said, what Alito did not say, a lie by omission, is more important. The court did not have to address the question of electoral spending by domestic firms either. The only question before the court was whether or not broadcasting a single film crossed the line under settled law, well established by precedent. This decision was judicial activism at its worst, and Obama said so.
In summery, the speech was masterful. It was not what I would have said, but although I consider myself a wordsmith, Obama’s talents surpass mine far and away. What remains to be seen is whether or not he follows it up with appropriate action. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, which I admit is considerable.
The GOP Regime, with DINO help, has manages to sneak abstinence only funding into the Senate version of the Health Care bill.
ABSTAINING FROM MAKING SENSE.... If there's one thing conservatives claim to hate, it's wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.
Unless we're talking about funding for abstinence programs, in which case conservatives love wasteful federal spending on programs that have been proven not to work.
Proponents of sex education classes that focus on encouraging teenagers to remain virgins until marriage are hoping that the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs, which are facing extinction because of a cutoff of federal funding.
The health-care reform legislation pending in the Senate includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching to them to delay when they start having sex.
Under the federal budget signed by President Obama, such programs would no longer have funds targeted for them.
"We're optimistic," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is lobbying to maintain funding for the programs. "Nothing is certain, but we're hopeful."
Bush/Cheney spent about $150 million a year on abstinence programs that failed miserably. Obama's budget directs funds to "teenage pregnancy prevention" for programs that have been "proven effective through rigorous evaluation." The right objected, arguing that limiting funding to effective programs would exclude their preferred initiatives. Obama didn't budge.
But abstinence proponents believe health care reform might offer new opportunities, in large part because Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) pushed a measure to provide $50 million to states to use for abstinence programs. It was approved in committee thanks to the support of a couple of conservative Democrats, and for some reason, the provision ended up as part of the legislation passed by the Senate. (Hatch described himself as being "as surprised as anyone" to see the provision remain in the bill.)
Reality has been stubborn on the question of abstinence effectiveness, and policymakers shaping the final health care bill would be wise to acknowledge it. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that abstinence programs do not affect teenager sexual behavior. A congressionally-mandated study, which was not only comprehensive but also included long-term follow-up, found the exact same thing. Researchers keep conducting studies, and the results are always the same…
With the exception of parts of Arkansas, California and Nevada, we’re looking at the reddest of the red here, the places where abstinence only is taught most. While I certainly hope this will be stripped from the final bill in conference, you can visit the Politics Plus poll and make a New Years resolution to give up abstinence. Just say no! ;-)
With all the issues facing our nation today that were inherited from the eight year disaster, edication often gets lost in the shuffle. Here’s an excellent article on this key concern.
It's fall, and students are back in school, albeit in larger classes with fewer supports as school budgets are slashed. Much of their energy will be focused on preparing for the legions of tests purporting to drive accountability.
Here's one question they won't be asked on any test: In what category does the United States lead the world?
A) math and science achievement
B) high school graduation rates
C) participation in higher education
D) college and career readiness
E) support for teacher quality
The answer is "F" -- none of the above.
The U.S. has fallen further behind in each category. High school graduation rates have slipped to the bottom half of the industrialized world. College participation has fallen from first to 16th. As demand grows for scientists and engineers, the U.S. ranks 35th out of 40 nations in math and 29th in science, according to the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
The timing could not be worse. "Education is the currency of the information age," President Obama has noted. "The best jobs will go to the best educated, whether they live in the United States or India or China." We're struggling just to keep up with Latvia and Azerbaijan.
What went wrong? Forty years ago, America educated more citizens to higher levels than any other nation. In the last two decades, a blizzard of initiatives has been launched to improve schools, including, most recently, billions of dollars in "Race to the Top" incentives for states with innovative reforms. President Obama has set a new goal of leading the world in college graduation by 2020.
Goal-setting, however, is not magic. In 1989, President Bush and the nation's governors vowed to graduate all students and become first in the world in math and science by 2000. Today, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation whose next generation is on pace to be more poorly educated than the last -- a shocking blow to the American Dream.
Changing our schools requires changing our strategy. Americans are great innovators, and educators have created thousands of exciting and successful schools and programs. But bottom-up innovation, while necessary, is not sufficient. We must end our love affair with passing fads and small-scale projects that live at the margins of the system, often in hostile policy environments. These cannot be spread to other schools that lack the knowledge, resources, and capacity to adopt them.
Instead, like high-achieving nations, we must invest in a comprehensive teaching and learning system that can routinely produce excellent schools.
It starts with equitable funding. A yawning "opportunity gap" has driven the achievement gap ever-wider. Most states have a 3-to-1 ratio between high- and low-spending schools. African-American and Latino students increasingly attend severely segregated, under-resourced schools with larger class sizes, a lower-quality curriculum, and a revolving door of inexperienced, untrained teachers. "The kids with greatest needs don't remotely get their fair share of the highest-quality teachers," said New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.
By contrast, high-achieving nations fund schools centrally and equally. Dramatic inequalities are not tolerated. Educators are valued. Finland and Singapore, for example, competitively select teachers from a pool of college graduates and provide several years of top-quality preparation, free of charge. Once in the classroom, they are carefully mentored and well-supported, with salaries comparable to those of engineers.
Meanwhile, aspiring teachers in the U.S. often go into debt to earn about 25 percent less than other college graduates. Those in the poorest schools earn even less, and must dip into their own pockets to buy basic supplies. Is it any surprise these schools suffer severe teacher shortages?
In high-performing nations like Singapore, Canada, and Australia, curriculum is integrated with assessments. Teachers help develop and score the exams, spurring continuous improvement in instruction. The exams focus on higher-order skills in high demand by universities and employers -- essay writing, scientific investigation, research, and complex problem-solving. The U.S. is still wedded to factory-model multiple-choice tests, which are poor measures of students' capabilities.
We have a chance for real reform... [emphasis added]
I graduated from High School 43 years ago, back when the US led the world in education. Sadly, a high school graduate in that era received a better education than many college graduates do today. We learned the higher order skills the author mentioned: essay writing, scientific investigation, research, and complex problem solving. In short, we learned how to think. Today, especially in red state schools, the emphasis is more on what to think. I agree with most of this woman’s suggestions. Also, as much as I am pro-union, incompetent , unmotivated teachers now hiding behind tenure, need to be retrained and remotivated or weeded out of our schools, despite NEA objections.
Yesterday President Obama spoke to school children in a manner so well received that even some Republicans praised it.
President Barack Obama spoke before what I'd posit was one of his toughest audiences in his presidency so far: American high school students. President Obama's speech Tuesday at Wakefield High School in Arlington, VA was met with a screaming, standing ovation and copious handshakes and thank-yous in the rope line on his way out.
Listening to the reaction from listeners who called into C-SPAN, not one person had a negative comment about the speech, except to criticize the prejudgment of some conservative parents who threatened to keep their kids home from school so as not to allow their indoctrination by the president's words.
Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush, and even the White House Resident, who was never a real President, used speeches to school children to push their political agendas. Obama’s speech had none of this. Not only was it magnificent, but also, it could have been given by an arch-conservative without any ideological conflict. If you want to read the full text of the speech, you can find it HERE.
Of course, the wing-nut faction (majority) of the GOP, still found cause to object. For example:
Is that pathetic, or what? Friends, this one is a win for our side!
I'm just a retreaded activist from the 1960s trying to promote progressive values one day at a time, remove the GOP stranglehold on our nation, and insist that Democrats stop acting like Republicans.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for which his state was eligible would lead to “a thing called slavery.” Even as his state’s unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.
