Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

America Will Lament Its Failure To Act, Particularly When Interest Rates Were So Low

$
0
0

Alan: Calls for austerity come mostly from tight-fisted, shortsighted, self-seeking conservatives trying to pacify their internal demons, not solve any real world problems.

While they squat in miserliness, those problems get worse 
and their solutions eventually cost more.




Prophecy Of World's End, Sent By Retired Marine Friend Tom

$
0
0

Alan: Thanks to retired Marine friend (and military historian), Tom M, for sending Prince Ea my way. 

Here is Tom's appended comment: "I wonder how anybody that black could possibly reflect my honky-assed sentiments so precisely. Shit, man, the boundaries are breaking down."

***

"Apocalypse," Greek For "Removing The Veil"



Jon Stewart On American Democracy And Delusional Ideation

Russell Brand And Pope Francis On Economic Inequality

The Sound Of German Compared To Other Languages

Ruby Bridges: Black People Have Always Needed Protection Against White People

$
0
0
Happy 60th birthday to Ruby Bridges! As a six-year-old, Ruby Bridges famously became the first African American child to desegregate an all-white elementary school in the  South. When the 1st grader walked to William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans on November 14, 1960 surrounded by a team of U.S. Marshals, she was met by a vicious mob shouting and throwing objects at her.   One of the federal marshals, Charles Burks, who served on her escort team, recalls Bridges' courage in the face of such hatred: "For a little girl six years old going into a strange school with four strange deputy marshals, a place she had never been before, she showed a lot of courage. She never cried. She didn't whimper. She just marched along like a little soldier. We were all very proud of her."  Once Ruby entered the school, she discovered that it was devoid of children because they had all been removed by their parents due to her presence. The only teacher willing to have Ruby as a student was Barbara Henry, who had recently moved from Boston. Ruby was taught by herself for her first year at the school due to the white parents' refusal to have their children share a classroom with a black child.   Despite daily harassment, which required the federal marshals to continue escorting her to school for months; threats towards her family; and her father's job loss due to his family's role in school integration, Ruby persisted in attending school. The following year, when she returned for second grade, the mobs were gone and more African American students joined her at the school. The pioneering school integration effort was a success due to Ruby Bridges' inspiring courage, perseverance, and resilience.  If you'd like to share Ruby Bridge’s inspiring story with the children in your life, there are several excellent books about her story including the wonderful picture book "The Story Of Ruby Bridges" for ages 4 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/the-story-of-ruby-bridges), the early chapter book "Ruby Bridges Goes to Story" for ages 5 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/ruby-bridges-goes-to-school), and the highly recommended memoir that Ruby Bridges wrote for young readers 6 to 12 entitled "Through My Eyes" (http://www.amightygirl.com/through-my-eyes).   There is also an inspiring film about her story called "Ruby Bridges" for viewers 7 and up (http://www.amightygirl.com/ruby-bridges).  To give young readers more insight into the school integration struggle, Nobel Prize-winning author, Toni Morrison, has written an outstanding book, that's filled with photos capturing the major desegregation events of the period, entitled "Remember: The Journey to School Integration" -- for ages 9 and up -- at http://www.amightygirl.com/remember   For more stories about the courageous girls and women of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, visit our special feature on "Top Mighty Girl Books on Civil Rights History" at http://www.amightygirl.com/mighty-girl-picks/civil-rights-history   For Mighty Girl stories for children and teens that explore racial discrimination and prejudice, visit http://www.amightygirl.com/books/social-issues/prejudice-discrimination?cat=71
Ruby Bridges Wikipedia Page
A Mighty Girl

Happy 60th birthday to Ruby Bridges! As a six-year-old, Ruby Bridges famously became the first African American child to desegregate an all-white elementary school in the South. When the 1st grader walked to William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans on November 14, 1960 surrounded by a team of U.S. Marshals, she was met by a vicious mob shouting and throwing objects at her.
One of the federal marshals, Charles Burks, who served on her escort team, recalls Bridges' courage in the face of such hatred: "For a little girl six years old going into a strange school with four strange deputy marshals, a place she had never been before, she showed a lot of courage. She never cried. She didn't whimper. She just marched along like a little soldier. We were all very proud of her."
Once Ruby entered the school, she discovered that it was devoid of children because they had all been removed by their parents due to her presence. The only teacher willing to have Ruby as a student was Barbara Henry, who had recently moved from Boston. Ruby was taught by herself for her first year at the school due to the white parents' refusal to have their children share a classroom with a black child.
Despite daily harassment, which required the federal marshals to continue escorting her to school for months; threats towards her family; and her father's job loss due to his family's role in school integration, Ruby persisted in attending school. The following year, when she returned for second grade, the mobs were gone and more African American students joined her at the school. The pioneering school integration effort was a success due to Ruby Bridges' inspiring courage, perseverance, and resilience.
If you'd like to share Ruby Bridge’s inspiring story with the children in your life, there are several excellent books about her story including the wonderful picture book "The Story Of Ruby Bridges" for ages 4 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/the-story-of-ruby-bridges), the early chapter book "Ruby Bridges Goes to Story" for ages 5 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/ruby-bridges-goes-to-school), and the highly recommended memoir that Ruby Bridges wrote for young readers 6 to 12 entitled "Through My Eyes" (http://www.amightygirl.com/through-my-eyes).
There is also an inspiring film about her story called "Ruby Bridges" for viewers 7 and up (http://www.amightygirl.com/ruby-bridges).
To give young readers more insight into the school integration struggle, Nobel Prize-winning author, Toni Morrison, has written an outstanding book, that's filled with photos capturing the major desegregation events of the period, entitled "Remember: The Journey to School Integration" -- for ages 9 and up -- athttp://www.amightygirl.com/remember
For more stories about the courageous girls and women of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, visit our special feature on "Top Mighty Girl Books on Civil Rights History" at http://www.amightygirl.com/mighty-girl-picks/civil-rights-history
For Mighty Girl stories for children and teens that explore racial discrimination and prejudice, visit http://www.amightygirl.com/books/social-issues/prejudice-discrimination?cat=71


My Boy "Danny" And His Best Friends

$
0
0
The kids are alright.

Wrightsville Beach
North Carolina
September, 2014

Boo is second from the right.


This Is The Speech Obama Would Give On ISIS Tonight If He Were Brutally Honest

$
0
0

This Sunday, the New York Times published the details of the Obama administration's new plan to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS). The president will formally announce the plan in a Wednesday speech. Because it is being given by a politician, Obama's speech will pull punches. It also won't fully explain what the administration actually thinks about the crisis in Iraq and Syria. What follows is the speech Obama would give if he took a couple of truth pills before walking up to the lectern.
My fellow Americans,
Today, I'm here to talk to you about America's approach to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State, which I insist on calling ISIL even though everyone else calls it ISIS, currently controls a chunk of territory about the size of Maryland or Belgium. ISIS is an international terrorist group that was ejected from al-Qaeda for being too violent, so this is not good.
To counter the threat, I'm announcing a long-term, three step American plan for fighting ISIS. Step one is to keep doing what we're doing: bombing ISIS targets in Iraq. Step two involves a major commitment to train and equip the Iraqi army, Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga, and possibly even Sunni tribes that might rebel against ISIS. Step three is to launch some kind of air campaign against ISIS in Syria.
I'd like to say that this means I — finally — have a strategy for not just containing but defeating ISIS, and I've previously said that this is the goal.
But let me be clear: this plan won't destroy ISIS, now or possibly ever. This is just not something that we can accomplish without re-invading, and there is no way I'm going to end my presidency with a second major American occupation of Iraq. That being said, what I'm proposing has a decent shot at pushing the group out of Iraq. And right now, that's the best we can hope for.
Now, I know that I've said the point of our new plan is, eventually, "to defeat them." The truth is that I'm just saying that because it sounds better than "we're going to drop a lot of bombs in Iraq and Syria, and hope our allies there don't screw everything up."
I do not believe we can fully defeat ISIS. My predecessor deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, and he still didn't manage to permanently defeat al-Qaeda in IraqThere is no silver bullet for destroying groups like ISIS. The American military is the finest fighting force in the world, but it can't solve every problem on its own.
So those who believe America can destroy ISIS if it simply applies enough force are wrong. But so too are those who want us to stand by and do nothing as a terrorist menace threatens the stability of the Middle East. I believe that there's a third way: the United States can, through force and diplomacy, slow ISIS's advance and roll back many of its gains in Iraq.
But make no mistake: it will not be easy, there is a high risk of failure, and even success will not be very satisfying. Our local partners are not very reliable, and my strategy is premised on the the gamble that we can get Iraqis and Syrians to step up to the plate, which they have shown next to zero willingness to do.
Iraq's Kurds are the best allies we've got, but they'd probably rather be trying to make their own countrythan saving Iraq — let alone occupying the Sunni Arab territory ISIS holds now.
So we'll have to partner with the central Iraqi government. I'm pretending, because my policy depends on it, that new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's government is going to be great. But it probably won't, and we will probably have to hold his hand every grueling step of the way.
We have pushed out former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who exacerbated the crisis by mistreating Sunnis, but the best we could do was make him one of three new vice presidents. He may be a bad guy, but he still has a fair amount of political support among Iraqi ShiasSo there's no guarantee our plan to roll back ISIS is going to work, because there's no guarantee the Iraqi government is going to address Sunni grievances, which is absolutely crucial to my plan working.
And that's the good news. The bad news is Syria.
As far as friends go, our best bet are the so-called moderate rebels, who I have personally resisted arming and supporting because I am concerned the weapons would end up going to ISIS. I now plan to try harder, but realistically that's not going to make them strong enough to take out ISIS on their own. Our other options include arming Jabhat al-Nusra, which is a branch of al-Qaeda, or partnering with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad — who I still believe must go even though I've basically given up on ever making that happen.
In other words, either the United States can invade Syria, or we can partner with one of ISIS's three main enemies in Syria: weak rebels, a mass-murdering dictator, or a group that is literally al-Qaeda. We may launch some airstrikes, but these will not eliminate ISIS unless someone actually sends ground troops against them, and all of those options are totally unviable.
That's why I'm asking the American people to give our campaign in Syria at least three years, because that will stretch into the next administration when it won't be my problem anymore. Have fun figuring out how to deal with that one, Hillary.
I've said that my priority, first and foremost, is stabilizing the situation in Iraq. I believe my new plan has got a decent shot at accomplishing that. The current airstrike campaign has already pushed ISIS back, and while the new government might not be perfect, there's a chance they'll unite around the ISIS threat.
But our best hope, ultimately, is that ISIS will be its own worst enemy. They've been massacring civilians, imposing barbaric laws based on their misinterpretation of Islam, and trying to build a state on land that's ultimately economically unsustainable. Eventually, Iraqi Sunnis will determine that ISIS's path is not theirs. In other words, I am really hoping that this problem will sort of solve itself.
Pushing ISIS out of Iraq would be a major victory, even if it leaves the group with a base in Syria. It will blunt their recruiting drive, protect Iraqi minorities from genocide, limit the regional humanitarian crisis, and curtail ISIS's ability to harm global oil markets or launch transnational terrorist attacks. As for success in Syria, let me be frank: it's unlikely. America cannot solve all of the world's problems, and this is a big one.
So, on Wednesday, when I tell you that I've got a plan for destroying ISIS, you should know I'm overstating things. But I believe our policy is the best chance we have for at least preventing the total collapse of northern Iraq.
Thank you. God bless. And God bless the United States of America.


"The Roosevelts: An Intimate History," By Ken Burns, Debuts This Sunday

$
0
0
Theodore Roosevelt, seen here in 1885, was haunted by the fact that his father didn't fight in the Civil War.

Diane Rehm Interviews Ken Burns, Director Of "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History"

(This is not the same interview referenced below.)
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/diane-rehm-interviews-ken-burns.html

***



"The Roosevelts: An Intimate History"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/ken-burns-upcoming-14-hour-documentary.html

***

Alan: The appended interview is superb. It puts an even keener edge on my long-standing desire to see this documentary. Starting this Sunday, "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History" will be shown in two-hour segments over seven consecutive nights.

Audio File: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347416175/ken-burns-the-roosevelts-explores-an-american-familys-demons

Ken Burns''The Roosevelts' 

Explores An American Family's Demons


Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt did as much to create 20th-century America as any three people linked by blood and marriage.
Teddy was the country's youngest president and an advocate of expansive government, economic reform and America's emergence as a world power. Franklin was his fifth cousin, meaning they shared a shred of DNA from a common great-great-great-great-grandfather; but they shared far more in ambition, conviction and outlook. And Eleanor was a Roosevelt by both birth and marriage. She was Theodore's favorite niece, Franklin's wife and a champion of liberal causes, including civil rights and the United Nations.
On Sunday, PBS launches a seven-night Ken Burns series about them called The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.
Burns joins NPR's Robert Siegel to discuss Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor's demons.

Interview Highlights

On how Theodore triumphed over adversity
He's in a family that's susceptible to depression and madness and alcoholism, but he's asthmatic and sickly as a child, not expected to survive childhood. He then suffers this unbelievable emotional blow, losing his wife and his mother in the same house on the same day — Feb. 14. And he flees to the West to sort of remake himself as he had remade his body.
[He] never escaped asthma, but all of his life he's outrunning demons. And if he ever slows down you can feel them sort of enveloping him. Like his favorite niece, Eleanor, who also had to stay in constant motion, this is a dramatic story of trying to avoid that. And Franklin is of course the opposite — he can't outrun his demons because he can't walk.
On Theodore's shame over his New York aristocrat father, who he adored, not having fought in the Civil War
It destabilizes Theodore Roosevelt. His mother was un-Reconstructed [and] wouldn't let her husband fight against her beloved South. ... She's from Georgia. And, you know, this was the man Theodore admired more than anyone else and this failure to go to war is sort of with him all the time and it gives him this very strange outlook. You know, he's reckless on San Juan Hill and Kettle Hill in the Spanish-American War. He pushes his four sons not just to World War I but into combat and danger with unspeakable, tragic consequences. So, you know, as much as we embrace this steam locomotive in trousers that Theodore Roosevelt was, you have to sort of balance it out with this other side of him that is so, in some ways, unstable. And yet, you love him. He's the guy you want to go out and have a beer with.
Eleanor Roosevelt, seen here in 1947, grew up with an alcoholic father and a mother who told her throughout her childhood how unattractive she was.
Courtesy of Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library/PBS
On Eleanor, who had an alcoholic father, a mother who told her throughout her childhood how unattractive she was and an unfaithful husband
I love Eleanor Roosevelt. She seems like a triumph of the human spirit. How could you possibly escape that childhood, with both parents dying early on and this hopeless situation? Sent with an abusive nurse and alcoholic uncles and pious relatives and feeling responsible for your younger brother who will eventually die in the throes of delirium tremens. This is a great, great story and triumph of the human spirit.
On how Franklin, a polio survivor, used leg braces throughout his presidency, and the strain they caused
It is a remarkable thing. It's sort of hidden from us because he knew that pity, which is what you'd feel, is political poison. And so we think it's sort of a simpler age, but if you just watch — and we've been able to find and piece together the little frames of the arduous attempt, just when they were supposed to turn the camera off and didn't or turned it on a little bit too early — and you see this strain. And then you wonder how it is that he is able to lift us up through the Depression and through the Second World War when he can't lift himself up. ...
It wasn't until near the end of his life that Franklin Roosevelt, seen here in 1937, finally acknowledged the steel braces he used throughout his presidency.
Courtesy of Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library/PBS
Eleanor said, you know, polio never bothered him. He never talked about it. Well, of course it was on his mind all the time.
On Franklin's New Deal as an extension of the Theodore's politics
[Theodore] is a progressive Republican and he's interested in certain policies that are going to help so-called ordinary people. And essentially the baton is handed off to Franklin Roosevelt. And it's summed up — there's a wonderful line in [Franklin's] renomination speech in '36. He says, "Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
All three of them would subscribe to that — a kind of passionate, moralistic sense of obligation to lift people up to parity with everyone else. And that you would have a new deal, a fair deal.

Pressured By Jewish "Lobby," Truman Made A Decision He Knew Was Bad

$
0
0

President Harry Truman, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Israel Ambassador to the U.S. Abba Eban in 1951

Truman's Israel-Palestine Dilemma




A conversation with author John Judis
After World War II, President Harry Truman was being approached on all sides about building a Jewish state in Palestine. 
The pro-Israel lobby was pushing for its own sovereign nation, but Truman was leaning toward a two-state solution while his State Department said the British should keep control of Palestine. 
Facing political pressure, Truman eventually called for the U.S. to recognize Israel, but his correspondence shows that he knew it would not be a peaceful solution. 
In his latest book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Farrar, Straus & Giroux/2014), John Judis traces the conflict back to Zionist movement in the 1880s, and Truman’s dilemma in the years leading up to the birth of Israel.
Judis will be speaking at the Kehillah Synagogue in Chapel Hill tonight at 7:30 p.m. Host Frank Stasio talks with John Judis about Genesis.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Distinguishes "Good Politics" From "Bad"

"We Coddle Bad Cops And Vilify Good Teachers

$
0
0
We coddle bad cops, vilify good teachers
Matt Damon as Colin Sullivan in "The Departed"

We coddle bad cops, vilify good teachers

We defer to cops even when they kill, and scapegoat schools for the ills America has given up on. This must change

The killing of Michael Brown brought a great many things into focus — so many that it can be hard to keep track of them all. One important point was the dramatic contrast between elite treatment of police — routinely deferred to, even when they kill — and the routine scapegoating of teachers, who are demonized for all the ills that America’s elites have given up on.  Of course, this has nothing to do with police officers and teachers themselves. It has everything to do with the roles they play — or can play — in either strengthening and defending the status quo, or in empowering possibilities of change.
Darren Wilson not only typifies how dangerous bad police can be in America, but also how heavily protected they are.  Shortly after he was publicly identified, the Washington Postrevealed that his first police job had been in Jennings, Missouri, a rare example of a police department shut down because it was so broken (primarily with regards to race relations) that the city council thought it was impossible to fix.  But Wilson carried no stain of that with him.
Teachers, in contrast, have grown all too familiar with mass firings in recent years, as schools are routinely closed with little or no relationship to actual teacher competency or conduct. Indeed, President Obama and his secretary of education, Arne Duncan, have been enthusiastic supporters of this trend. In Chicago, where Duncan ran the school system before his Cabinet appointment, successive rounds of “school reform” firings have reduced the percentage of black teachers from about 40 percent to just under 30 percent, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed in late 2012. In New Orleans, more than 7,000 teachers were fired without due process after Hurricane Katrina, and won a civil lawsuit providing back pay earlier this year. Yet, in 2010,Duncan said, “The best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina.” Both Duncan and President Obama strongly supported the Central Falls, Rhode Island, school board when it fired all its high school teachers without due process in February 2010. These are but the most high-profile examples of how mass-firing purportedly “bad teachers” without cause has become a routine part of “school reform.”  In light of such examples, Chicago educator Paul Horton has argued that “The Attack on Teacher Tenure Is an Attack on the Black Middle Class,” despite the fact that the corporate-driven “education reform” movement has branded itself as “the civil rights struggle of our time.”

Further revealing the pattern of police abuse surrounding Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown, it was later reported that Ferguson police have been involved in four federal lawsuits and more than a half-dozen investigations over the past decade, for a reported 13 percent rate of misconduct. What’s more, in a New York Times Op-Ed, University of California Irvine Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky warned that even an announced Justice Department investigation would have limited impact. “ [I]f the conclusion is that the officer, Darren Wilson, acted improperly, the ability to hold him or Ferguson, Mo., accountable will be severely restricted by none other than the United States Supreme Court,” Chemerinsky wrote. “In recent years, the court has made it very difficult, and often impossible, to hold police officers and the governments that employ them accountable for civil rights violations.” The title of Chemerinsky’s Op-Ed? “How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops.”
Chemerinsky focused on a set of recent decisions — 2011 and later. But even before those decisions took effect, police accountability was almost nonexistent, according to an New York University law review article, “Police Indemnification,” by UCLA law professor Joanna C. Schwartz. When plaintiffs do recover money for police misconduct, it’s taxpayers, not the police, who foot the bill. In her conclusion, Schwartz wrote:
Law enforcement officers employed by the forty-four largest jurisdictions in my study were personally responsible for just .02% of the over $730 million paid to plaintiffs in police misconduct suits between 2006 and 2011. Law enforcement officers employed by the thirty-seven small and mid-sized departments in my study paid nothing towards settlements and judgments entered against them during this period. Officers did not contribute to settlements and judgments even when they were disciplined, terminated, or criminally prosecuted for their misconduct. [Emphasis added.]
This nationwide coddling of police misconduct — one might almost call it “encouragement” — stands in stark contrast to the above-indicated nonstop vilification of “bad teachers,” who never seem to kill anyone, and yet have been the subject of a sustained multi-decade bipartisan attack.
Brown himself was an educational success story, despite the odds, a high school graduate just days away from his first day in college, even though Ferguson’s school system is arguably as troubled as its police department.  As Rebecca Klein noted at Huffington Post, Brown’s high school, Normandy High, “is emblematic of a system that’s failing low-income kids.” It combines low graduation rates, high rates of violence, and soaring suspension rates; the state has labeled Normandy a “failed district” based on standardized test scores, and it’s located in a state where poor schools tend to get the least funding — one of two worst states (along with North Carolina) in terms of low scores on all four equity measures.
“Do you know how hard it was for me to get him to stay in school and graduate?” his mother told news station KMOV. “You know how many black men graduate? Not many.”
Yet, graduate he did. Michael Brown’s success seemed due to his efforts, his family’s support, and the attitudes of those who taught him. At least that’s the strong impression you get from Brown’s kindergarten teacher, Deidre Sealey, who posted a moving commentary about him on Facebook, which has been tweeted as well. “Michael was one of the kindest kids that I have taught,” she wrote. “Michael was quiet, yet funny. He had an infectious smile. Some things I remember most was how Michael’s grandfather or dad picked him up from school every day. His mom, dad, and extended family were fiercely protective of Michael and at that time, his only sister, Deja. They were active in every aspect of his education, conferences, school performance, et al….  Each of my colleagues, who had the opportunity to teach Michael, have echoed my sentiments.”  The picture Sealey paints is not just of a young man who did everything right, educationally, but of a whole extended family that did — and, implicitly, educators who valued their years of dedication.
So where is the Deidre Sealey of the Ferguson police force? If there were one, odds are very good that Michael Brown would still be alive. Yet, the officer who killed Brown had a spotless record, according to the department, while the school district was overrun with “bad teachers,” according to the logic of the system that labeled it as “failed.”
There is something very wrong with the diagnostic systems that send us such signals, and it’s not that hard to decode what they actually mean: The police are supposed to maintain social order, and they are judged accordingly by those who call the shots; they can do no wrong. Teachers, on the other hand, are an unreliable lot. They can fill kids’ heads up with all sorts of crazy ideas. Liberty, equality, democracy. Maybe even a hint of what a real civil rights movement looks like. So they’ve got to be policed, themselves!
This isn’t to imply that Ferguson’s schools are actually much better than they seem—they’re not.  But it’s not the fault of “bad teachers.” It’s the fault of multiple factors, most of the largest ones traceable back to race and class. A recently published working paper, based on nationwide data, found that a 20 percent increase in school funding, due to changes that began in the 1970s, produced dramatic results in the academic success of low-income students:
[A] 20 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public school for children from poor families leads to about 0.9 more completed years of education, 25 percent higher earnings, and a 20 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; we find no effects for children from non-poor families. The magnitudes of these effects are sufficiently large to eliminate between two-thirds and all of the gaps in these adult outcomes between those raised in poor families and those raised in non-poor families.
The problem, quite simply, is that those school funding changes have not gone far enough, and have even been reversed in some cases.  In Missouri, specifically, as noted above, the state actually increases disparities between affluent and poor districts. Add to that the nationwide reversal of desegregation gains, as documented by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, and you’ve explained the vast majority of what ails Ferguson’s school system.
As education policy expert David Berliner (co-author of “The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America’s Public Schools” and “50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education“) wrote in an email published at top education advocate Diane Ravitch’s blog: “[O]utside-of-school variables count for about 3 times the effect of the inside-of-school variables, and they count for about six times the effect of teachers on the aggregate scores of classes and schools.”
As Berliner notes, these figures hold both nationally and internationally. Similarly, the American Statistical Association, in a cautionary statement about the use of “Value Added Measurement” to evaluate teachers, added: “Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.” [Emphasis added.]
The strongest contrast with how well-protected even lethally bad policing is compared to teachers came three weeks after Brown was killed, when the final review was issued in Vergara vs. California, striking down California’s teacher tenure laws.  The ruling — which has already been appealed — actually strikes down five California education laws, including teacher tenure, which for K-12 teachers merely means due process protection against arbitrary firing. Bad teachers deprived them of their civil rights, the plaintiffs argued, and the judge agreed — even though there was no solid evidence that any of them actually had a “bad teacher” as Diane Ravitch explained in June. One plaintiff said she had a bad teacher, and pointed to Christine McLaughlin, a Pasadena “teacher of the year.” Other plaintiffs were in charter schools or a pilot program where the tenure protections for teachers didn’t even apply!
With “standards” like that for who qualifies as a “bad teacher,” it’s impossible to say if Michael Brown ever had one. We only know one thing for sure: He wasn’t killed by one.
What should be obvious from all the above is that cops are unfairly protected when they do something grievously wrong, and the teachers are unfairly blamed when they simply show up for work in a difficult educational environment.  But my purpose here is not a simple role switch, arguing that individual police should be presumed guilty and individual teachers presumed innocent. Instead, I’m saying three things:
1)  The most important factors for both law enforcement and education are not individual performance, but the conditions in which people work, the larger systems in which their work is embedded.
2)  We need to understand those systems as systems in order to avoid pursuing counterproductive strategies, no matter how right or “common sense” they may seem.
3)  Both law enforcement and education are ultimately embedded in the same larger social system, and a significant portion of the problems they face must be tackled on a broader scale.
Bad Individuals Are a Relatively Small Problem
Let’s turn to each of these points in turn. I’ve already alluded to data showing that individual teacher performance has a relatively small impact compared to other factors.  I’d like to provide some more detail before considering how similar arguments apply to law enforcement.
First, regarding teachers, I’d like to quote further from David Berliner’s email mentioned above.  It was written specifically about results from the 2012 international educational assessment known as the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. At one point, Berliner refers to an analysis of earlier data by Doug Willms, published in 2006. He writes:
His analysis suggests that if children of average SES attended one of their own nations high performing schools, or instead attended one of their own nations’ low performing schools, the difference at age 15, the age of PISA testing, would be equivalent to about 4 grade levels. Thus a 10th grader of average SES who can attend a high performing school is likely to score at about the 12th grade level (a grade level approximation from PISA data). And if that same child were to attend a low performing school, he or she would score at about the 8th grade level. It’s the same hypothetical child we are talking about, but with two very different lives to be lead as a function of the makeup of the schools attended. It is not the quality of the teachers, the curriculum, the computers available, or any number of other variables that are often discussed when issues of school quality come up. Instead, the composition of the school seems to be the most powerful factor in changing the life course for this hypothetical, average child.
Note that this analysis applies internationally; it is not limited to the U.S.  The problem that the U.S. has, which other nations do not, is that we have such a large proportion of low-performing schools, and that they tend to be racially segregated to a high degree. This analysis does not say that you can simply pluck a child out of one environment, place them in another, and then miracles will happen. It is about the entire life course of their education.  The effects involved clearly dwarf what even the most talented teacher could hope to accomplish in a single year. Obviously, it is better to have a good teacher than a bad one, but it’s much more important to go to a high-quality school, which is why schools figure so prominently in housing decisions of parents who can afford to consider and act on them.
Turning our attention to police, we can find support for a similar conclusion — that individual performance is a relatively minor factor in overall effectiveness — by looking at a very different sort of data, which came to wide public attention in the wake of Ferguson: data about the use of body cams to record police/civilian interactions.  Most commonly cited was the example of Rialto, California, where the use of body cams reduced citizen complaints by 88 percent and use-of-force incidents by 60 percent.  This was just one of five studies examined in a report for the Department of Justice, “Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras Assessing the Evidence,” by Arizona State University criminologist Michael White. White’s report is filled with caution and nuance, particularly given how new the technology is, and how few studies have yet been done (some still ongoing), but the general pattern seems to be borne out. White noted: “Several of the empirical studies have documented substantial decreases in citizen complaints (Rialto, Mesa, Plymouth, and Renfrewshire/Aberdeen studies) as well as in use of force by police (Rialto) and assaults on officers (Aberdeen).”
This is not to claim that body cams are a magic bullet.  As Carlos Miller highlighted at Photography Is Not a Crime, results were quite different in Albuquerque.  This does not negate the point I’m making here, however. Rather, it serves to underscore another, closely related point in my argument: that systemic causes and forces predominate. When the system aligns itself with the goals of reducing use of force and citizen complaints, body cams have proven effective in helping to bring that about, without the need to replace “bad cops.” Most bad policing is a situational product, not a product of individual bad character.
Second, as I reported here in February, there is significant evidence that professional training eliminates a crucial aspect of shooter bias — the tendency to shoot unarmed black suspects more readily than white ones: “A test of trained police officers – one group from the Denver Police Department, the second a national sample – found that although the reaction-time bias remained, the far more critical error-rate bias was eliminated among trained police.”
These were results using a simulation game, but they’re the best evidence we have, and they clearly indicate that one of the most troubling — and subconscious — sources of perceived police misconduct can be virtually eliminated with no change at all in personnel.
Despite what I’ve just said, both police and teachers can perform poorly, of course, and this is an important concern, even if it’s not the most important factor.  However, the most effective way to deal with poor performance, in general, is first through supportive corrective measures, which means making changes to the systems that cops and teachers are a part of. An excessive reliance on punitive measures, including termination, reflect a failure of the systems as much or more than a failure of the individuals involved. Very few people go to work in any field wanting to do a bad job.  Even fewer do so when offered the means to do better. By all means, we should get rid of the ones who do, but we need to credibly assure the vast majority of good employees that they will not be unfairly targeted.
Undertanding Police and Education Problems As Systemic Problems
Shifting focus from individual teachers and cops to the systems they work in can sometimes lead to surprising results. Other times, it simply reaffirms common sense. The value and effectiveness of community-based policing in improving police-community relations is an example of the latter. On the other hand, an example of a surprising result comes in the area of arguments about “bad teachers” and teacher tenure.  That result, quite simply,  is that focusing intently on trying to get rid of bad teachers misses much more important factors, and may only make the problem worse.
It’s one of the best-known facts in the education community that teacher turnover is a major problem. The “bad teacher”/“bad teacher tenure” narrative tries to heap enormous blame onto a small minority of bad teachers — which, when you think about it, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  How can a tiny minority of teachers — 1-3 percent was the figure cited in the Vergara case — bring an entire system to its knees, without being so outrageously bad that it’s easy to fire them for cause?  It makes sense as a fairy tale, of course. There has to be a super-evil villain, but of course nobody’s anti-teacher!  So it’s only a very, very small number of them, right?  But we have to take all their rights away, just to be on the safe side!
Meanwhile, in the real world, virtually everyone in the education field knows that the real problem is the difficulty of hanging on to promising new teachers.  Richard Ingersoll is perhaps the nation’s leading expert on the subject of why schoolteachers leave.  He is also an example. He taught high-school social studies and algebra for six years, before quitting and getting his Ph.D. in sociology. In 2012, Ingersoll wrote:
Teacher attrition—teachers leaving teaching—is especially high in the first years on the job. Several studies, including our own analyses (Ingersoll, 2003; Ingersoll & Perda, in press), have estimated that between 40% and 50% of new teachers leave within the first five years of entry into teaching. Moreover, we have found that the attrition rates of first-year teachers have increased by about one-third in the past two decades. So, not only are there far more beginners in the teaching force, but these beginners are less likely to stay in teaching.
So, contrary to the notion that America’s big education problem is a tiny minority of bad teachers who hang around forever and just won’t quit, the real problem is almost the exact opposite: a near majority of new teachers who won’t stay. The subject of Ingersoll’s article was  “employee entry, orientation, and support programs—widely known as induction,” which the data suggest can be highly effective in reducing turnover rates, if they are sufficiently robust. Ingersoll found that “The factors with the strongest effect were having a mentor teacher from one’s subject area and having common planning or collaboration time with other teachers in one’s subject area.” There’s a good prima facie reason to think that such support programs are also an effective way to deal with the “bad teacher” problem before it ever comes to that.
One study, “The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts,” found that “turnover costs, although difficult to quantify, are significant at both the district and the school level. We also find that teachers left high-minority and low-performing schools at significantly higher rates,” thus confirming the point that this is the actual teacher problem specifically impacting students in low-quality schools, even more so than the nation as a whole.
One of the key recommendations of the study was:
2. Target comprehensive retention strategies to at-risk schools
Teachers leave at-risk (low-income, high-minority, low-performing) schools at high rates.
Retention initiatives in these schools have the greatest potential for a high return on investment, both in terms of resources and school performance.
But that’s just one piece of the puzzle.  The second piece is how the obsessive focus on firing “bad teachers” actually makes the existing real challenges even worse, as indicated by the following from a story about the state-level trend to repeal teacher tenure:
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union, said taking away due process rights ultimately hurts low-income schools because teachers won’t want to take a risk to teach in such schools without strong labor protections.
Due process allows good teachers to “take risks on behalf of their kids,” Weingarten said.
As just noted, these are already the most difficult schools to retain new teachers in. The more rapid turnover is, the less experienced teachers these schools will have. Given that these schools have lower test scores for reasons having nothing to do with teacher quality, why would any new teacher with long-term aspirations want to teach in such schools, if they could be fired for no other reason than that they failed to produce a sufficient number of miracles?
The Larger System Where Police and Education Problems Come From
Finally, if we want to understand how both systems — education and criminal justice — fit together into a larger whole, we need to look at society as a whole. To make things more manageable, taking Ferguson as an example, we need to consider the history and political geography of the St. Louis region over a period of decades, and how this impacts people’s everyday lives. This story has been masterfully woven together by Radley Balko (“Rise of the Warrior Cop“) in the Washington Post, “How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty.”
Balko combines street-level reporting and interviews with key local actors in a cultural/historical/geographic framework derived from the work of Colin Gordon, author of “Mapping Decline: St. Louis and the Fate of the American City,” which is supplemented by a website of historically progressive maps and related documents. Balko also interviews Gordon, and the local actors he interviews include members of Arch City Defenders, whose recently released white paper on St. Louis County municipal courts provides a detailed account of how the deeply dysfunctional system operates today.
Gordon’s publisher, University of Pennsylvania Press, describes his book as follows:
“Mapping Decline” examines the causes and consequences of St. Louis’s urban crisis. It traces the complicity of private real estate restrictions, local planning and zoning, and federal housing policies in the “white flight” of people and wealth from the central city. And it traces the inadequacy—and often sheer folly—of a generation of urban renewal, in which even programs and resources aimed at eradicating blight in the city ended up encouraging flight to the suburbs. The urban crisis, as this study of St. Louis makes clear, is not just a consequence of economic and demographic change; it is also the most profound political failure of our recent history.
As Balko describes the accompanying online maps: “Gordon illustrates how white people didn’t just flee St. Louis, they used whatever tools were at their disposal to prevent black people from joining them, including race-restrictive deeds and covenants until they were struck down in 1947, segregation until it was struck down in 1954, real estate pacts, and finally zoning laws.”
As the most blatant forms of discrimination were struck down, blacks first began settling in St. Louis County in significant numbers, and a new dynamic emerged, Balko explained:
[W]hites engaged in what you might call a pattern of zone and retreat. It’s during these two waves of black immigration that you really begin to see the proliferation of municipalities in St. Louis County.
“Until only relatively recently, the state of Missouri had almost no rules for municipal incorporation,” Gordon says. “In just about every other state, when a new subdivision would spring up in an unincorporated area, the state would say, ‘If you want public services, you need to be annexed by the nearest town.’ In Missouri, you didn’t have that.”
Instead, developers would create new subdivisions outside a city. White people would move in. As black families moved north and west of the city, these subdivisions would try to keep them out by zoning themselves as single-family housing only. That barred the construction of public and low-income housing…
As black families moved out from the city and slowly infiltrated white towns, new white developments would spring up further out still, incorporate, and zone to keep the black population at bay. Blacks would move in to those towns too, and the process would repeat itself.
This is the historical origins of the pattern of exploitative policing that Arch City Defenders uncovered in their report.  Driven by racism, the development pattern for the entire suburban county was even more lacking in organic, socioeconomic cohesiveness than suburbs typically are. The lack of an economic resource base has both undermined the quality of schools, and turned local law enforcement agencies and court systems into revenue-generating bounty-style operations, particularly in the poorer, blacker communities.  This is the specific, concrete manner in which underlying housing discrimination, spanning generations, has created a broader framework of racial and class inequities, in which both police systems and educational systems exist.
Rather than focusing on Ferguson, let’s consider an example on the other extreme, which Balko writes about. For reasons Balko explains, the town of Berkeley has high black political participation, a black mayor, black city manager, an all-black city council and a majority-black police department.  But it’s still constrained by its history and limited economic options. Balko explains:
If any town could overcome the legacy of structural racism that drew the map of St. Louis County, then, it would be Berkeley. And yet this town of 9,000 people still issued 10,452 traffic citations last year, and another 1,271 non-traffic ordinance violations. The town’s municipal court raised over $1 million in fines and fees, or about $111 per resident. The town issued 5,504 arrest warrants last year, and has another 13,436 arrest warrants outstanding. Those are modest numbers for St. Louis County, but they’re high for just about anywhere else.
“We’ve tried to rely on revenue from our municipal court as little as possible,” says Berkeley Mayor Theodore Hoskins. “We emphasize that traffic laws and ordinances are about public safety, not about revenue.” But there’s a cost to that. The town ran a $1.3 million deficit last year, and recently considered dissolving its police department to save money.   
One can only conclude that if one could solve all the problems Ferguson faces that have garnered the most attention in the last month, then Ferguson would look a lot like Berkeley — and it would still be a community living on the edge of disaster.  Getting rid of bad cops or defending them would make little or no difference at all, in the larger scheme of things. As for bad teachers?  You’ve got to be kidding!
The underlying problem is a fundamental lack of resources, which turns poor communities into self-cannibalizing entities. Both national and international statistics are clear: The two most important factors in predicting academic success are the wealth of one’s parents and the wealth of one’s community. The demonization of teachers does nothing to address this. It merely develops a preferred cuisine for the self-cannibalization menu.
Even focusing too much on a single incident of the police killing an innocent black teen risks missing the forest for the trees. Which is why it’s so important to heed the examples of groups like the Dream Defenders, who approach individual outrages like the killing of Michael Brown in terms of a whole array of interlocking issues, as when they speak out against the school-to-prison pipeline. Or the rapidly-spreading Moral Mondays movement, which approaches a whole broad multi-issue spectrum of concerns from a unifying moral perspective. These — not Wall Street-funded charter school operators — are the true living inheritors of the mantle of the civil rights movement. And if the past is any guide for us, they have only just begun.
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. 

The Real Tragedy Of Gov. Bob McDonnell: Busted For Gizmos, Not Plutocratic Cash

$
0
0



"Bob" McDonnell, 1st Virginia Governor To Be Accused And Found Guilty Of Crime


***

Bob McDonnell's Corruption: The Real Scandal Is What's Legal

Why does the system penalize quid pro quo bribery severely but shrug off the malign effects of campaign donations?
The conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen on several corruption charges reveals yet again that Americans are more troubled by elected officials who pocket personal gifts than by those who accept large campaign contributions, sometimes from the same special interests. If it were otherwise, a considerable number of members of Congress would be on the docket right next to the governor—and on the way to jail.

The public can readily visualize an elected official doing special favors for someone who pays for designer clothing and accessories, a Rolex watch, and even his daughter’s wedding. They get even more enraged if someone gets a free trip of Vegas or a week at a choice golf course. (Such junkets are now labeled “educational" trips, because while Congress piously tightened ethics rules on junkets in 2007,  some lobbyists deftly redefined themselves to evade the restrictions).

The public is much less troubled, I regret to report, by boatloads of cash called campaign contributions delivered by special interests to members of Congress and other elected officials, which are much more harmful to the public interest and U.S. Treasury than personal gifts. What did businessman Jonnie Williams get for his gifts to the McDonnells? The governor promoted Williams’s dietary supplement and encouraged a state university to conduct research on it. Now compare this to the power of campaign contributions. For example, the vitamin-supplement industry has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to SenatorsOrrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat. The pair has helped keep the FDA from regulating these supplements to ensure that they be safe and effective.

This is far from unusual. Effective lobbying and campaign contributions have, to offer just a few examples, given the country battle tanks anddrones the military neither wants nor needs; allowed hedge-fund managers’ salaries to be taxedas if they were capital gains and not income, saving them millions; and protected major subsidies for oil and gas corporations who are doing very well on their own.

Of course, campaign contributions not only affect this or that piece of legislation or tax exemption or regulation; they play a key role in determining who gets elected—giving them a role in all the votes that an elected official casts. True, some candidates who raise a great deal of money lose, but few candidates can run in competitive elections without raising funds from special interests, which often give donations to both sides. A considerable number of members of Congress run uncontested, among other reasons because their large campaign chests deter challengers. (Special interests tend to favor those in office, which is one reason that more than 90 percent of members of Congress were reelected in 2012 despite the fact that the public holds those in office in such low regard.)

This is not to suggest the McDonnells did not cross a line, or that pocketing personal gifts should not be considered a serious dereliction of duty. But we need to pay much more attention to the corrupting effect of campaign contributions. To prevent the double standard, which punishes those who gain personal gifts severely but lets elected officials all but sell pieces of legislation for campaign contributions, we need to redefine corruption. Despite what the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has to say, the term ought to include not just quid pro quo bribery but any exchange of official favors for cash.

AMITAI ETZIONI is a university professor and professor of international relations at The George Washington University. He served as a senior adviser to the Carter White House and taught at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is Hot Spots: American Foreign Policy in a Post-Human-Rights World.


ISIS Threat Overblown

$
0
0
Alan: Philosophically, Timothy McVeigh holds much in common with anti-government "conservatives."
His stated reasons for bombing the Murrah Building were ""what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge"

***

"ISIS Panic In A World Where Islamics Mostly Kill One Another"

***

Alan: In terms of America's domestic security, I am more concerned with The Tea Party's militia wing than I am with ISIS.

"Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East. Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a 'farce,' with 'members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.'” Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Mark Landler inThe New York Times.


Uncle Sam Confronts A Regional Civil War Between Sunnis And Shiites

$
0
0
Would foreign intervention have helped?

***

Alan: In my lifetime, two rules have emerged in foreign policy.
Vietnam demonstrated that it is foolhardy to intervene in a Civil War.
Iraq demonstrated that it is foolhardy to start a Civil War.
Utilitarian Americans believe there is a solution to every problem and it probably involves violence. 
Civil Wars are not resolved by foreign intervention.
To believe otherwise is to prove that "Failure IS an option."

***

"But the U.S. has a poor track record of taking or keeping control in areas such as Iraq and Libya for extended periods, experiences that underscore the risks of depending on moderate rebels in Syria and state security forces in Iraq. Relying on local forces and eschewing the use of American combat troops has become a favorite strategy of President Barack Obama as a way to reduce the risk of being dragged into a protracted foreign conflict. But some defense officials and experts say that approach also can heighten the risk of failure. In Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, results have been mixed at best." Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman in The Wall Street Journal

Again...
Would foreign intervention have helped?




America's Ruling Class Considers The Problem Of Poverty

$
0
0
cut the smell

The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism

The hard, central "fact" of contemporary "conservatism" is its insistence on a socio-economic threshold above which people deserve government assistance, and below which people deserve to die. 

The sooner the better. 

Unless conservatives are showing n'er-do-wells The Door of Doom, they just don't "feel right." 

To allay this chthonic anxiety, they resort to Human Sacrifice,  hoping that spilled blood will placate "the angry gods," including the one they've made of themselves. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/harvard-study-45000-americans-die.html 

Having poked their eyes out, they fail to see  that self-generated wrath creates "the gods" who hold them thrall.

Almost "to a man," contemporary "conservatives" have apotheosized themselves and now -- sitting on God's usurped throne -- are rabid to pass Final Judgment

Self-proclaimed Christians, eager to thrust "the undeserving" through The Gates of Hell, are the very people most likely to cross its threshold. 

Remarkably, none of them are tempted to believe this. 







Climate Change Accelerating Death Of Western Forests

$
0
0
Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY

DENVER — The iconic pine and aspen forests of the Rocky Mountains are dying off at an alarming rate thanks to conditions exacerbated by climate change — drought, insect infestations and wildfires — a new report says.
Colorado alone could lose 45% of its aspen stands over the next 45 years, says the report released Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. Pine bark beetles alone have killed 46 million acres of trees across the west, an area nearly the size of Colorado.
"The wildfires, infestations and heat and drought stress are the symptoms; climate change is the underlying disease," Jason Funk, the report's co-author and a senior climate scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.
Projections by the U.S. Forest Service that were included in the report, predict that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue increasing at recent rates, by 2060 the area climatically suitable in the Rocky Mountains for lodgepole pine could decline by about 90%, for ponderosa pine by about 80%, for Engelmann spruce by about 66% and for Douglas fir by about 58%.
National forests and parks play a key role in the economies of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. National parks in those states, including Yellowstone and Glacier, host about 11 million visitors annually, generating $1 billion in tourist spending, the report,Rocky Mountain Forests at Risk, said. If the landscapes significantly change, tourists may no longer visit those areas, it said.
The trees grow in different areas, depending on how cold the winters get and how warm the summers are. If climate change alters those levels, the trees won't grow there anymore.
"So far, we have had relatively modest climate changes, but they have already jolted our forests," said Stephen Saunders, report co-author and president of Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. "If we continue changing the climate, we may bring about much more fundamental disruption of these treasured national landscapes."

American Healthcare At Turning Point: Get More Pay Less

$
0
0

"Politically, Obamacare Isn't About Healthcare," National Journal


***

"While we were covering less people, we kept spending more on health care. National health spending, over that time period, rose from 12 percent of the economy in 1990 to 17.2 percent in 2012. Adjusted for inflation, health-care spending rose from $1.1 trillion to $2.8 trillion over those 22 years. That's been the typical story of American health care: a lousy deal where we get less and spend more. But there's a growing body of evidence that this trend is changing; that we're starting to get a shockingly better deal in a way that has giant consequences for how America spends money. Call it the 'get more, pay less' era." Sarah Kliff in Vox

***

The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism

The hard, central "fact" of contemporary "conservatism" is its insistence on a socio-economic threshold above which people deserve government assistance, and below which people deserve to die. 

The sooner the better. 

Unless conservatives are showing n'er-do-wells The Door of Doom, they just don't "feel right." 

To allay this chthonic anxiety, they resort to Human Sacrifice,  hoping that spilled blood will placate "the angry gods," including the one they've made of themselves. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/harvard-study-45000-americans-die.html 

Having poked their eyes out, they fail to see  that self-generated wrath creates "the gods" who hold them thrall.

Almost "to a man," contemporary "conservatives" have apotheosized themselves and now -- sitting on God's usurped throne -- are rabid to pass Final Judgment

Self-proclaimed Christians, eager to thrust "the undeserving" through The Gates of Hell, are the very people most likely to cross its threshold. 

Remarkably, none of them are tempted to believe this. 

***

Obamacare And The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism



'Citizens United Is Money Laundering,' Al Franken Speaking On Senate Floor

$
0
0

al franken

By: Jason Easley

As the Senate continues to debate final passage of a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) came to the Senate floor and called Citizens United money laundering that was made legal by the Supreme Court.

During his remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Franken said,
This is real, M. President: spending by outside groups more than tripled from the 2008 presidential election to the 2012 presidential election, when it topped a billion dollars – that’s billion with a “b.” What happened in the interim? Well Citizens United was decided in 2010 – the floodgates were opened.

And, worse still, the middle-class isn’t just being flooded; it’s being blindfolded, too – because these wealthy special interest groups often can spend the money anonymously, so voters have no idea who’s behind the endless attack ads that fill the airwaves. Here’s how it works: if you have millions of dollars that you want to spend, you can funnel it through back channels so that it ends up in the hands of a group – typically one with a generic and benign-sounding name – that uses the money to buy ads, often without disclosing the source of its funds.

This whole thing looks to me a lot like money laundering – except that it’s now perfectly legal. And, again, this is real: a study just came out which showed that, in the current election cycle alone, there’s already been over 150,000 ads run by groups that don’t have to disclose the source of their funding.

And get this: things are only getting worse. Earlier this year, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court was at it again, recklessly doing away with a law that prohibited people from giving more than $123,000, in the aggregate, directly to candidates in an election cycle. One-hundred-and-twenty-three-thousand-dollars. Who has that kind of money lying around to spend on elections? The super-rich, maybe. But the middle class sure doesn’t. The folks I meet with in Minnesota – who are trying to make ends meet, pay off their student loans, train for a new job, save some money to start a family – they sure don’t. And those are the folks who most need a voice here in Washington.
….
So the way I see it is this: there are two ways that we can go from here. On the one hand, we can continue to let Citizens United be the law of the land. We can perpetuate the fallacy that corporations have a constitutional right to flood our elections with undisclosed money; we can let deep-pocketed special interests buy influence and access – and then set the agenda for the rest of the country.

Or … Or, we can say, enough is enough. We can restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided – and, more to the point, we can restore a voice for millions upon millions of everyday Americans who want nothing more than to see their government represent them.

The majority of Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell,voted with Democrats yesterday to advance a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. The vote was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote to move towards debate and vote on passage. By not filibustering the bill yesterday, Senate Republicans have given Democrats a platform this week to discuss the attempts by right-wing billionaires and special interests to buy the government.

Senate Republicans tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people yesterday by casting a vote to move legislation forward that they have no intention of voting to pass. Republicans are hoping that you won’t notice when they vote against the constitutional amendment later this week.

Sen. Franken was correct. Citizens United is money laundering hidden behind a Supreme Court provided excuse of speech. Billionaires have flooded the campaign system with dollars, not out of patriotism, but as an attempt to buy complete and total access to elective office holders.

The Koch name has become toxic, so Republicans are trying to cover their tracks. The Citizens United decision empowered right-wing billionaires to attempt a hostile takeover of the government. If you want your country back, you can begin by supporting the movement to overturn Citizens United.

Utah Is Next Republican State To Expand Medicaid. More To Come After November

$
0
0

"The Obama administration has agreed in concept to Utah’s novel alternative to expanding Medicaid, including the notion that able-bodied people who get insurance subsidies should accept the state’s help with finding work, Gov. Gary Herbert said late Tuesday....HHS did not agree that insurance subsidies would be contingent on recipients holding a job or looking for work, but the agency did agree that employment can be a goal of Utah’s program, Healthy Utah." Kristen Moulton in The Salt Lake Tribune


Too often, the flag we blindly wave becomes someone's shroud.

An analogous truth applies to much of the work we do.


"Why We Fight"
Prize-winning documentary film


Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live