May the symmetry be broken...because it is...

But don't tell Ramesh Ponneru of the National Review & Bloomberg News...In the link below he writes what purports to be a parody of excessive partisanship, apparently on the part of both sides, but nevertheless aimed a bit more at the left/liberal, IMAO...(I'm thinking of the remarks about that one cable news channel...)

I would not address the one or two conservatives on this list in quite such a caustic & personal tone, but his fictional ranter otherwise expresses what is pretty much my opinion of the current Republican Party & conservative movement leadership, and as such is as close to absolute objective truth as it is possible to get in politics.  Moreover, it is difficult for me not to believe that a conservative who entertains the same sentiments toward the left/liberal side is either in bad faith or totally delusional.  

Ponneru evidently believes that both sides ARE morally equivalent in holding to such firm views & partisanship is a BAD thing.  But IMAO that it is only a bad thing when it is done by the Right.   Doubtless, he would be cute and suggest that I'm simply proving his point.    But like ALL partisans on the Right he is simply WRONG.

Taking refuge in pseudo-objectivity is a common tactic on the Right & affirming a position that is somehow "above politics" is a hallmark of that politics that tends toward the fascistic...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/i-m-right-you-re-wrong-and-other-political-truths.html

R.   

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Dystopian thoughts on American Politics...

I would be happy for Obama to win in November & I would be overjoyed if the Democrats retained (and expanded) their grip of the Senate & ecstatic if they recaptured the House.  Even so, that would a triumph of the Politics of the Lesser Evil.  

So if Romney won't release his tax returns & loses the election because of that & similar reasons,  that would be a Good Thing, but all that happiness, joy & ecstasy I cited is at base mere relief.  

Because Republican policy positions ALONE, the contradictions, outright lies & red herrings therein SHOULD lead an informed electorate to turn out at rates exceeding 70% and deliver a defeat that renders the Republican Party, at least in its present form, as extinct as the brontosaurus. 

I am irritated that candidates seem to win or lose on the basis of personal foibles (short of actual criminality)--or even on the basis of acts of virtue that have nothing to do with their qualification for office or the adequacy of their policy positions.  

(I think of George Bernard Shaw, a professed socialist.   Through his plays he became a very wealthy man.  At one point he came in for quite a bit of criticism from his comrades because of his feud with the British tax authority about how much money he owed in taxes.   George's reply was that until the UK became socialist, he would not pay one red cent in taxes beyond what he legally owed.  Okay.  There's obviously some naked self-interest there, but George had a point.  I don't doubt that there are legal ways Romney could have gone 10 years without paying any taxes--he should either release the returns if that's the case or else refuse on a somewhat elaborated principle of some kind.  Privacy could be a good enough reason, but he needs to say why a principle of privacy is not only important for him, but for society in general. Why would I give good advice to the enemy?  Well, my advice might work for someone, but I'm pretty sure it would backfire somehow in Romney's hands.  Also, the chance of a politician learning of my good advice is approximately the same as that of the proverbial snowball in the Bad Place)  

One good target for blame is the so-called "independent voter."  Studies have shown that these are primarily people who are not particularly interested in politics--or who really dislike politics, but regard voting as an onerous duty, and who usually wind up voting for the same party each time--in other words, not really independent in the sense of being truly above party preferences.  They are also inclined to be "low information" voters, and even when they are interested in an issue, what they know about the issue is often wrong.  I remember one blogger-activist from 2004 describing his effort to convince a caller to vote for Kerry.  The caller was just such an "independent" and was convinced beyond reason that George Bush was a strong environmentalist.    I can only surmise the caller had heard in passing  the Orwellian descriptions the Bush Administration conferred on its anti-environmentalist positions (Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, etc.) and those descriptions had become fixed in the caller's mind--or it could be the caller simply heard pundits babbling in the background about the environment & George Bush and got the association stuck in her mind.  

I'm sure there are sociological & other reasons the independent voter could or should be forgiven, but here's what scares me:   ever since Reagan was elected--& maybe going back to the Goldwater campaign--the Right Wing has single-mindedly pursued, by any means of persuasion available, the destruction of the social safety net--in fact, any government function or agency that purports to serve the common good & replace them all private institutions whose primary purpose is to protect and promote the power and welfare of the super-rich.   

In fictional narratives, a strong villain is relentless.  In this real world narrative, the strong villain is equally relentless.   

I believe Obama is going to win this one & stave off The Worst--although I wouldn't bet the mortgage money.  

But some day, some combination of political circumstances, voter misinformation & apathy, bad weather--whatever--is going to allow the election of a President & some like-minded turkeys in Congress who *believe* in The Worst & people will wake up a few years later without social security, medicare & possibly without the right to vote or the right to join a union, no access to a decent education & the list could go on and on...

To use a phrase I saw on FB, it's the "long con" of the Republican Party.  

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Re: Gov. Goodhair (of Texas) relents, accepts reality

I didn't know that about the ACA. Maybe that's why the same states that say they won't expand Medicaid are also refusing to create the Exchanges (forcing the Feds to create Exchanges for them) -- Federal dollars are available to create the Exchanges.

Interesting about TX. I had heard that the TX Hospital Association was up in arms about his position -- and they usually have a lot of political clout. They were expecting their unreimbursed costs to go down dramatically under the ACA.  They like the ACA.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Roy Griffin <roygg9@yahoo.com> wrote:

Apparently, any way.   Eliot Spitzer had the woman who is administering the State of California's implementation of the ACA on his show a few weeks ago.  At one point she said something interesting:   Once a state accepts *any* money through the ACA, it cannot legally refuse the Medicaid expansion--or something similar to that effect. 

That's likely a ball hidden in some deep weeds, but the below does seem to suggest that Texas will be getting the full monty version of the ACA.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/07/1117597/-Rick-Perry-budgets-with-Medicaid-money-he-said-he-d-reject 

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Gov. Goodhair (of Texas) relents, accepts reality

Apparently, any way.   Eliot Spitzer had the woman who is administering the State of California's implementation of the ACA on his show a few weeks ago.  At one point she said something interesting:   Once a state accepts *any* money through the ACA, it cannot legally refuse the Medicaid expansion--or something similar to that effect. 

That's likely a ball hidden in some deep weeds, but the below does seem to suggest that Texas will be getting the full monty version of the ACA.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/07/1117597/-Rick-Perry-budgets-with-Medicaid-money-he-said-he-d-reject 

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Re: Blows against public education in California and Louisiana

I'm sorry to hear about what is going on w charter schools. We had a very different experience. In fact, we were founders of a charter school.  But first, let me say that almost nothing upsets me more than the idea of my tax dollars being diverted to private schools. That's another rant . . . And what is going on in LA is a disaster!

After living in multicultural Los Angeles for 12 years, I found myself living in a largely white enclave in CT w two small children. Wanting them to grow up in a diversified environment, we sought out an elementary public multicultural magnet school in New London, CT. The school was regional, drawing students from 12 towns, and located in a more urban area. The student population was designed to reflect the ethnic diversity of the region, in the same proportions. Admission is through a lottery, based only on race; white applicants from the burbs have the least competition. (BTW: this school was NOT formed to satisfy any desegregation problems. It was formed because some parents got together and thought it was a good idea--something charter/magnet schools make possible.)

We were happy w it. It's test scores were not great (because the population was so diversified, including recent immigrants), but as long as my kids' scores were good, they were learning what they needed, academically. Classes were small, and both of my kids had true bi-lingual ed (Spanish) starting in kindergarten.  The school was primarily run by teachers, with a a lot of parent involvement.

When they were close to finishing, a bunch of us got together w some faculty from Conn College, and petitioned the state to start a multicultural charter middle school, modeled on the elementary school. It was an involved process. We found a very dynamic director and were really happy w it, until about the time my second child finished (The director was leaving, and a coupe took place. But that's another story.) This school was run by a parent-teacher-director board. The school is over ten years old now, and has a new director now who is supposed to be pretty good.

I know these schools reached some kids who would not have made it in the regular public schools--and some of them are now in college. I also think all of the kids benefitted from mixing all of the races and economic levels -- at least I hope so. My youngest took some kind of test in late middle school that measured ethnic identification, and she scored fairly high on African American! :-). She does have good social instincts and neither of them seems to give race a second thought.

And they are both Dems--one more passionate than the other.

Long story, but this is a topic close to my heart. I do understand how these schools can also be abused by those who want to profit from them. . . But they can also work.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Roy Griffin <roygg9@yahoo.com> wrote:

I would not necessarily want to question the competence & good faith efforts of every single charter school and whatever group of supporters it may have, but the charter school movement as a national movement is mostly a stalking horse for privatizing public education, using commercially developed standards that are more molded by the bottom line & local prejudices than by educational outcomes--but still funded by taxpayer dollars.   And I believe this is true, even if the charter school is still actually part of a public school district.  

Here's one instance reported in Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/05/1117114/-How-to-Destroy-a-Top-Notch-School-District-Open-a-Charter-School 

In a rather clear example of Naomi Klein's notion of *Disaster Capitalism,"*after Katrina, Louisiana chose to solve its public school problems by a massive effort to implement charter schools in New Orleans and throughout the state.  

So here's some raked muck concerning Louisiana's project:  http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2011/07/gulen-charter-schools-in-louisiana.html

Certainly, the Louisiana public schools were not the best to begin with--but I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the spirit of localism that pervades U.S. ideas about education & which also infects the charter school movement at the root.   

Minimally, at least, I would like to see a core national curriculum developed and applied throughout the country. 

In my more extreme moments, I sometimes assert I would like to see the nation's educational  system run by a powerful rigid bureaucracy headquartered in DC, and run by mostly by teachers & with a minor advisory role for parents--but otherwise insensitive to them and the local communities.  I think I'm mostly joking.  Most of the time.  

In any case, charter schools are an inadequate or pseudo-solution to most of the large issues in public education.  

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Blows against public education in California and Louisiana

I would not necessarily want to question the competence & good faith efforts of every single charter school and whatever group of supporters it may have, but the charter school movement as a national movement is mostly a stalking horse for privatizing public education, using commercially developed standards that are more molded by the bottom line & local prejudices than by educational outcomes--but still funded by taxpayer dollars.   And I believe this is true, even if the charter school is still actually part of a public school district.  

Here's one instance reported in Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/05/1117114/-How-to-Destroy-a-Top-Notch-School-District-Open-a-Charter-School 

In a rather clear example of Naomi Klein's notion of *Disaster Capitalism,"*after Katrina, Louisiana chose to solve its public school problems by a massive effort to implement charter schools in New Orleans and throughout the state.  

So here's some raked muck concerning Louisiana's project:  http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2011/07/gulen-charter-schools-in-louisiana.html

Certainly, the Louisiana public schools were not the best to begin with--but I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the spirit of localism that pervades U.S. ideas about education & which also infects the charter school movement at the root.   

Minimally, at least, I would like to see a core national curriculum developed and applied throughout the country. 

In my more extreme moments, I sometimes assert I would like to see the nation's educational  system run by a powerful rigid bureaucracy headquartered in DC, and run by mostly by teachers & with a minor advisory role for parents--but otherwise insensitive to them and the local communities.  I think I'm mostly joking.  Most of the time.  

In any case, charter schools are an inadequate or pseudo-solution to most of the large issues in public education.  

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Know-Nothing Thuggery...

Apparently the gunman who shot and killed six  Sikhs in Wisconsin today had a 9/11 tattoo.   Law enforcement is calling it a case of "domestic terrorism" rather than a "hate crime."  I suppose there are good reasons for such fine distinctions.  And few facts seem to be available as yet.  

But those that we have in hand strongly suggest that the gunman went on a murderous spree in the belief that he was killing Muslims.  Of course it was a hate crime, or domestic terrorism--whatever--even if he *had* killed Muslims, but my anger is supplemented with an additional dollop of pitiless contempt for the kind of vicious ignorance that was operational in this murderous thug.  

R. 

 

http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/

Contra Cruz

 Here's Paul Sadler, the Dem who will face Ted Cruz in November.  He won a runoff against Grady Yarborough, a black Democrat.  http://sadlerforsenate.com/where-i-stand/

Sadler has the good-ol'-boy Texas bullshit down pat.  In this case, I have to say, that's a plus.   He was a pretty conservative Democrat from East Texas but he has, like Obama, (mostly) "evolved."  This is a *very* hopeful thing.  He has, unlike many Democrats, figured out that if you run as a faux Republican against a real Republican, the real Republican will win almost every time.  On the down side:  I don't think he has got a pot to piss in--that is, he got no money.   (Sadler is also trying to pander to the artificially induced public anxiety about the national debt--Democrats *still* need to get over that.)  

I believe that if he got a big enough infusion of that Jewish-Commie-banker-Illuminati-George-Soros-type cash, he could actually beat Cruz, but I'm not too optimistic.  Guess I will check out what (if anything) Moveon.org (or AVAAZ) is planning to do about the race.  One thing:  complaints about "outside money" and "outsiders" intervening in the election won't mean jackshit, given what came in to support Cruz. 

Writers in Daily Kos have been reduced to hoping that a good many conservatives will simply stay home on election day because they don't want to vote for anybody with a Hispanic surname.  (Hah!  And lose a chance to vote against that...black guy)

I can't document what follows off the top of my head, but I know it can be done because insurance companies do something similar all the time:   If  Tea Party policies supported by the likes of Ted Cruz were actually enacted, the real world effects would mean 100's of thousands of people dying prematurely, many of them children.  

In my less charitable moments, I feel that the rich thugs, their enablers,  and the politicians who are their avatars, who promote such vicious policies taint the very air by breathing it.  

I get most of my news from the Internet and so I only saw this a few minutes ago on the Burnt Orange Report (BOR) blog:  The *Austin American Statesman*  ENDORSED Ted Cruz in the runoff between Cruz and Dewhurst.   Why?  Because Dewhurst is "as interesting as a jar of sand" and knows it, so he was ducking the media and this pissed off the editorial writers of the *Statesman*--who then blithely endorsed the political thug Cruz.  (See "enablers," above).  

R.  
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/--