Quriltai on the Shore

One for five

2011-01-24T16:55:00.000-08:00

Funny...looking back through some old, stuff I found this from a year ago:

So, if I'm going to take the 2011 State of the Union seriously, 3 of these 5 things must be true:

-Guantanamo no longer holds foreign captives;
-Openly gay and lesbian Americans serve in the military;
-There is an exit date for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan;
-There has been a test vote on a public option in health care;
-Tim Geithner is long gone.

I don't care if this is done as a result of political considerations facing the midterms, or just because it's the right thing to do. But considering that numbers 2 and 5 can be done by Obama's office regardless of anyone else's disposition, this is an achievable list.

I'm not trying to put out a litmus test. If Obama wants to ignore a fair economic policy in favor of smart projection of American power, he can. If our president wants to ignore full rights for LGBT Americans, perhaps we can start respecting international conventions. But if Obama can't be bothered to do any of this...well, why should we vote for him?

Huh. One out of five, sorta. To be implemented. On the positive side, the banking business is doing rather well again...

Far as I can tell...

2010-12-09T13:55:00.000-08:00

There are two groups that love the "deal" on taxes struck by President Obama. Those who think he's American salvation who is clearly the bestest president ever...and those who think he's a secret African Muslim.

Oh, and...

O'Malley FTW

2010-12-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

So get this...Martin O'Malley is named "Education Governor for the Year" by those evil lazy teachers over at the NEA. Kiss of death in a Republican year, right?

Hah.

He crushes, absolutely destroys, his Republican opponent to a degree only dreamt of by most Democratic incumbents in 2010. He doubled his margin of victory from 2006. Now he's the head of the Democratic Governors' Association. I'm not saying it's all related, but it is another data point that proves that supporting teachers who believe in quality education is good policy...and good politics.

Getting to Excellent

2010-11-30T17:41:00.000-08:00

A data-rich, methodical, and transparent report prepared by McKinsey offers the passionate follower of education much to consider. Unlike, say, the Boston Foundation's pamphlet, this 124-page, rigorously detailed study gives serious policy wonks food for thought. The methodology is carefully detailed, not hidden. The data is easy to weigh and follow.

The most fascinating aspect of this report (PDF) is tracing how school systems develop and improve from one stage of performance to another. One of the more interesting findings is that what works for a school system seeking to spread literacy needs something different from a system seeking to prepare students with 21st century thinking skills.

So how does this affect Massachusetts? Well, of the international spectrum of system provided, Boston is mentioned as a much improved system in the nation's pre-eminent public education structure -- Massachusetts. So how does a system such as Boston, that is good, or great, improve?

"Move the locus of improvement from the center to the schools themselves; the focus is on introducing peer-based learning through schoolbased and system-wide interaction, as well as supporting system-sponsored innovation and experimentation."

Decentralize. Experiment. Professionalize and respect teachers. Provide ways for teachers to collaborate for results, not compete for dollars. Further in the guts of the report, the research team mentions the following imperatives:

In the final frontier of school improvement, the journey from great to excellent, systems focus on creating an environment that will unleash the creativity and innovation of its educators and other stakeholder groups. At this point in the improvement journey, system educators are highly skilled and have a body of agreed routines and practices that have become innate to how they work.

The intervention cluster for the journey from great to excellent serves further to enhance the educators’ responsibility for looking after each other’s development; the systems give their teachers the time, resources, and flexibility to reflect upon and try out new ideas to better support student learning.

[...]

When teachers achieve a higher level of skill, as is the case in good to great and
great to excellent improvement journey stages, such tight central control becomes counterproductive to system improvement. Rather, school-level flexibility
and teacher collaboration become the drivers of improvement because they lead to innovations in teaching and learning. The center learns from these school-based innovations and then encourages their use in other schools across the system. Higher
skill teachers require flexibility and latitude in how they teach in order to engage in such innovation and to feel motivated and fulfilled as professionals.

In case you were wondering about those systems that are better than good, the report identifies four. Only Finland is rated excellent in this report; Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea are great.

As mentioned in the last post, all systems are decentralizing at the precise moment that the United States is starting to march in lockstep to Washington DC's tune. Obama wants states, districts, even schools and teachers to compete for dollars; this report mandates that collaboration as superior. Obama wants to tighten control over what is taught on a daily basis; this report mandates the contrary. Obama pushes for an unprecedented level of centralization in this country; the data say this will hurt our students.

This report merely confirms what is widely understood:

A large and growing body of data indicate how to improve public education in this country.

Those responsible for running education in this nation and state insist on doing the exact opposite.

Wrong Way Again

2010-11-28T17:18:00.000-08:00

One of the most annoying things that I see in America's approach to education is the oxymoron of claiming we need to "catch up" to other countries...then promptly doing the opposite of what they do.

One can easily question many of the international tests used to compare national education outcomes -- many are entrusted to foreign ministries to be administered and reported fairly. However, I think it's fascinating that just when Obama is using a few pennies to control education in each individual state, our supposed betters are moving in the opposite direction.

Today's object lesson in the United Kingdom. David Cameron's oddly hybrid liberal-conservative government may be the last place on might look for progressive ideas on education. Yet it is there that Education secretary Michael Gove is asserting what people who enter classrooms on a daily basis realize: centralization doesn't work.

Just when Massachusetts turns over its constitutional competences to vague inter-state groups working on shared standardized tests, suborning its achievements to a dumbed-down national curriculum, Michael Gove advocates for the opposite:

While each of these exemplars has their own unique and individual approach to aspects of education, their successful systems all share certain common features. Many have put in place comprehensive plans for school improvement which involve improving teacher quality, granting greater autonomy to the front line, modernising curricula, making schools more accountable to their communities, harnessing detailed performance data and encouraging professional collaboration. It is only through such whole-system reform that education can be transformed to make a nation one of the world’s top performers.

Compare this to Obama's current drive (with Deval's complicity) to take autonomy from the front line, divorce them from their communities and tie them to the state, and poisoning professional collaboration by throwing funding in as a prize of competition rather like the Apple of Discord.

Just reading this White Paper is enough to make any American teacher look at visa requirements. Here are some choice lines:

"We envisage schools and teachers taking greater control over what is taught in schools, innovating in how they teach and developing new approaches to learning"

"The guidance on the National Curriculum is weighing teachers down and squeezing out room for innovation, creativity, deep learning and intellectual exploration."

"Government cannot determine the priorities of every school, and the attempt to secure compliance with its priorities reduces the capacity of the system to improve itself."

"Reform initial teacher training so that more training is on the job."

There are some baffling name-checks on the most destructive practices in America in this document, which contradict pretty much everything else contained therein. However, combined with a McKinsey international study that demonstrates the direct relationship between international achievement and school/teacher autonomy due for release tomorrow, it is clear in which direction the UK is moving.

The same direction prescribed in Germany (PDF) Japan, or South Korea. The same direction embraced by the industrialized world -- except for the United States.

Education: "Thank God for Massachusetts"

2010-11-12T17:05:00.000-08:00

On education, the The Atlantic Monthly is an interesting magazine. It's honest enough to be honest about the facts in its education reports and articles. An article some time ago on No Child Left Behind made clear that the target that every single American must possess adult-level math and English literacy skills by 2014 was a political decision. Politicians simply didn't have the courage to admit that somebody learning English, or with severe learning disabilities, wasn't going to get there. In the current issue, the Atlantic gives some notice to Diane Ravitch, who has reversed her stand for the test-and-punish system for something that matches up with research. She has gone back on previous policies based on the copious research that speaks in another direction.

Of course, while admitting the facts -- something the Boston Globe generally doesn't do -- it still pushes the common viewpoint of an elite thoroughly unfamiliar with public education. Of course, the Atlantic sees that nothing in education can't be fixed by the judicious firing of many people. Hence, a worshipful article on what "Teach for America" can tell us (hint, it's common sense to anyone familiar with public education, and epiphanic for the ignorant). This issue's profile of Diane Ravitch is knee-capped by a harrumphing parenthetical that the editor disagrees with her, and a coda for "balance" that praises the superintendent in Rhode Island who arbitrarily fired every teacher in her high school.

So, much like the Wall Street Journal on economics, the Atlantic gives every sign of strong fact-based reporting on education that is utterly ignored by the editorial staff. Hence an article online that includes the following:

One cannot help but thank God for Massachusetts, which offers the United States some shred of national dignity—a result echoed in other international tests. "If all American fourth- and eighth-grade kids did as well in math and science as they do in Massachusetts," writes the veteran education author Karin Chenoweth in her 2009 book, How It’s Being Done, "we still wouldn’t be in Singapore’s league but we’d be giving Japan and Chinese Taipei a run for their money."

I can't see why we'd want to emulate that gerontocracy. They do well on test scores and horrible on democracy. I also highlight this author's kowtowing to the Chinese-mandated name for Taiwan.

What did Massachusetts do? Well, nothing that many countries (and industries) didn’t do a long time ago. For example, Massachusetts made it harder to become a teacher, requiring newcomers to pass a basic literacy test before entering the classroom. (In the first year, more than a third of the new teachers failed the test.) The state also required students to pass a test before graduating from high school—a notion so heretical that it led to protests in which students burned state superintendent David Driscoll in effigy. To help tutor the kids who failed, the state moved money around to the places where it was needed most. "We had a system of standards and held people to it—adults and students," Driscoll says.

Does the article mention how the standards were arbitrarily set when not enough teachers and students weren't failing? No. Does it even attempt to find a reason for Massachusetts' success beyond the preset viewpoints of the editors of the Atlantic? Of course not. But it does admit the truth -- the Bay State was once the national leader on education. We may still be, but not for long.

I say "was" advisedly. Obama's people plow ahead with Bush's failed policies on education. One innovation is to dangle a fractional percentage boost in federal funding for Massachusetts if we dumb down our standards, double the amount of testing in the classroom, short-circuit local democracy, and change laws to fit the model of an education secretary whose own reputation is built on cheap tricks, articles like this need to be cherished. Because I doubt they'll be written five years from now.

From time to time

2010-11-08T15:58:00.000-08:00

This blog went dark as personal life got more complicated, aside from a very few occasional posts. Honestly, I figured that what little I felt a need to say I could say on BMG.

That was before my recent post on BMG suggesting Menino for Senate was picked up by the Globe, who asked the mayor's office for a reaction. Meanwhile, the Herald is pushing Brown for Prez. Imagine that -- a ticket where Sarah Palin is the experienced candidate.

Crazy Commonwealth we live in. I may need to resume blogging.

Dodd-Peterson debate liveblog

2010-10-21T16:41:00.001-07:00

Summary: The biggest change, the biggest difference between these candidates is not their beliefs, but their focus. Tim Dodd talked about people -- people with whom he's worked, people he's met on the campaign trail, people he's helped as selectmen. George Peterson talked about laws, bills, funds, taxes, budgets, and programs. It's an interesting take on their viewpoints. After 16 years of looking at line items and categories, that's what Peterson seems to see when he thinks of the 9th Worcester district. After years as a selectman and a teacher, Dodd sees the people next to him, with whom he works. He seems to want to represent the district, not facilitate it.

7:15 - It's a lot colder outside than it seemed on the way to the car. Standing in the cold holding a sign is proof.

7:30 - Dodd supporters outnumbering Peterson backers. Peterson sign-holders head in first. Small victory.

7:45 - Sheriff's debate starting first. Evangelides, the Republican sheriff candidate, couldn't be bothered to show up. Oops...it's a "prior commitment", which comes in second to "more time with his family" on the list of bulls--t political excuses. The Democrat (Foley) and the unenrolled candidate (Nicholas) came. Both are law enforcement professionals. I'm reluctant to comment further as someone unfamiliar with this race.

8:10 - Break time. Foley lays into Evangelides (not by name) for ducking the big issues by skipping the debate. Dodd and Peterson are up in a few. At least half the crowd leaves.

8:15 - Off we go! Peterson's up first with his opening which commences with the pre-Nixon days. He reads it from a paper in front of him. Peterson's been married for 34 years -- good for him! He's also got kids. I just have no idea why he's running for office.

Dodd's opening begins with thank yous to people in the debate, including Rep. Peterson. Calls himself a "citizen legislator" who wouldn't take per diems or a salary raise. Talks about the constituents in each of his four towns.

8:20 - First question asks "what kind of legislator would you be?" Dodd speaks about availability to constituents and would be a full-time legislator. He earned a doctorate while teaching. How many legislators do we have with doctorates? Methinks not enough. Rep. Peterson is full-time, and speaks about constituent services, constant meetings on constituent issues.

8:24 - "Name a concrete proposal you have to create jobs/implemented to create jobs". For Peterson, the answer -- surprise! -- is to cut taxes. The US Chamber of Commerce would be so proud. He's against the excise and income tax, and probably refuses to accept the "Poor Tax" Chance Card when he plays Monopoly. Dodd speaks about his proposal for a district-wide task force to bridge the 2 chambers of commerce in this district that would include local small business owners. Peterson protests that although Massachusetts unemployment has gone down, but we've lost jobs so don't think we aren't in a "terrible situation in this economy". DOOM!

8:26 - "Name a concrete proposal you would implement/have implemented to improve education...touch on a response to the Chapter 70 formula question". Peterson is proud to continue funding through the "Ed reform formula", even though they haven't followed through with the commitment. So, like all state legislators, he brags about how awesome they are at defending local aid. Peterson dodges the Chapter 70 question. This is an easy question for Dodd, as he's in the classroom every day. He knows this law inside and out, and talks about revisiting the charter school funding formula. This formula treats student dollars differently depending on which type of school to which the student transfers.

8:31 - Term limits and pensions. Dodd commits to a five-term/ten year limit of service. Constitutional term limits are "murky water", but he believes in citizen legislators. Defends the idea of hard-working people earning pensions, but continuing Governor Patrick's work against loopholes. Peterson does not, and did not support term limits. Rep. Peterson talks about unfunded pensions, but believes that anyone who pays into a pension system should get it back. Not much daylight between the two of them on this one.

8:35 - Position on ballot questions. Peterson says YES, NO, NO. Claims "double taxation" and dismisses the idea of using those funds for fighting addictions, which is a "gimmick". Calls for reform on Chapter 40B. Supports a sales tax rollback to 5%, but to 3% as per the question. Dodd says NO, NO, NO. People fighting alcohol addiction need the help. Peterson says that raising the sales tax gives these programs too much money.

8:42 - To Dodd...how can you have a "fresh perspective" if most legislators are Democrats? Dodd responds that being a selectman and a teacher gives him everyday contact with the issues, which has resulted in the plans mentioned on his website. To Peterson...three bills he proposed to help the district. Peterson doesn't/can't mention three bills. Everything is everyone else's fault. But government is bad, and there aren't enough Republicans. Oh, government is bad, except when I'm getting all sorts of money for the district -- government is bad when it helps other people, I guess.

8:45 - Peterson asks Dodd "what is the fresh perspective? Can you define it?" Dodd answers that it is not new issues, but rather new ideas. For him, it includes putting bottle bill redemption funds for teaching arts and physical education.

Dodd asks Peterson about Charlie Baker's term limits plan to limit legislators to ten years. Karyn Polito introduced 46 bills, George Peterson passed one bill to rename a road in Upton. So what idea do you have that you could actually done? Peterson talks about restoring the funding for the underground storage tank fund, but he's busy playing defense. Admits that as a legislator, he doesn't have a legislative record.

8:51 - Closing statements. Peterson comes out against taxes and spending, and calls for God to bless the district and America. Dodd again offers energy and experience as a "citizen legislator" bringing new ideas to the district.

Debate liveblog tomorrow

2010-10-20T16:38:00.000-07:00

I will be blogging, hopefully live-blogging, the debate between Tim Dodd and George Peterson tomorrow in Grafton. In a contest between a motivated selectman and teacher, and a do-nothing Republican whip on the other, this is a clear choice for anyone who cares about education in the Commonwealth. I'll do it here, possibly on BMG, too.

Ride the wave: Dodd and Cutler

2010-10-20T16:31:00.000-07:00

I suppose we could play defense and say that 2010 is an anti-Democratic year. Try to keep what we can keep. Surrender. Alternatively, we could micro-analyze every warp and woof of the governor's race and ignore every other election slated for November. I think there's a better way.

I suspect that 2010 is an anti-people in charge year. Sure, that's a problem for many of us as most of the people in charge at the moment happen to Democrats. Rather than stop at fighting over whose fault is the economic downturn that began months before Obama took office, let's use the tide. Let's ride the wave. No need for Bennett, Murkowski, Crist, and Castle to be the only Republicans thrown out of office this year.

If people want to vote out incumbents, we have a couple Democrats working very hard to help them here in the Bay State. Tim Dodd and Josh Cutler. Two hard-working guys giving of themselves in a tough environment, while the Democratic Party runs its usual incumbent-protection racket. They deserve our help.

Is there an easier job on Beacon Hill than Republican whip? What does that entail -- keeping people awake so they can vote no? Well, Tim Dodd is looking to replace that piece of decorative furniture that is George Peterson. Dodd is a current selectman -- he knows what the towns are going through and how to improve laws to better people's lives. He's a teacher -- he knows how to reform education, not just perform a sound bite. He'll work with the state leadership, not just vote no and go home. And hustle? The guy's everywhere in that district -- and you should see his proposed schedule for district hours. It would make a lesser man keel over. Don't look for him at campaign HQ though, as he's knocking on doors.

Some Republicans offer a differing voice in the Legislature. Peterson offers his constituents indifferent service, and the rest of us a seat warmer. Dodd wants to change that. Smart work on budgets, education, environment, jobs. Far more than "not my fault, I said no" that typifies the incumbent. Unfortunately, the reactive ethics law in force prevents this candidate, pretty much alone on this, from asking for campaign donations. So I'm doing it for him -- give this guy some scratch. Ride the wave, and get someone who knows how to work, and wants to work, in the State House.

Josh Cutler has stepped up when so few would -- to take on a longtime incumbent in SE Massachusetts. To color blue a district largely surrounded by blue, and to add a voice to the Beacon Hill conversation whose vocabulary will extend beyond "no". He's been running hard for several months now, and unlike the current occupant -- he wants this job. He's a businessman who knows how to be responsible for his actions. Cutler knows how to get away from our over-reliance on capital gains taxes. Cutler knows 40B and Open Meeting Law have problems. He's willing to take positions...and fight for them. If the people in Webster's district want to get rid of the incumbent. It will be a real step up. Will you help?

Gov. Patrick, Lt. Gov. Tisei?

2010-10-03T19:56:00.000-07:00

Maybe I'm missing something here. But if memory serves, voters vote for candidates for governor and lieutenant governor separately. This usually doesn't matter.

Here's a hypothetical. The race for governor comes down to a very close margin, but Deval Patrick is re-elected. However, a number of voters nevertheless choose Cahill, say about 5%. These voters see Loscocco's name still on the ballot, but as they know that Loscocco withdrew from the race because he's a rat, they vote for the Republican candidate, Richard Tisei. Those additional votes overcome Governor Patrick's margin of victory, and our next governor has a Republican LG.

I know that in some places (Arizona under Governor Napolitano springs to mind) managed with a mixed-party executive. Would our Commonwealth? How do you think that would work out?

Is it really so hard?

2010-09-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

Ad starts with a photo of a precocious, adorable 11-year old.

"Meet Billy. Billy loves his Mom and Dad, America, and especially his dog Skip. Until recently, Billy loved Little League, too. But Billy learned that he had (horrible disease). Billy's Mom and Dad weren't worried, because they had health insurance."

Switch to photo of dense, official looking letter.

"But their health insurance was with Charlie Baker's company, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Incorporated. Baker raised profits by enacting policies like the one that said that Billy didn't qualify for (procedure, care, test) for his (horrible disease)."

Switch to photo of Charlie Baker.

"Charlie Baker made sure that his company sent many letters like this to families that had trusted him with their money. Now, Charlie Baker is running for governor, so he can do to Massachusetts what he did to the people who trusted their health insurance to his company. Charlie, we just can't take that chance."

Last photo, of a happy Billy in a baseball uniform.

"Happily, under CommonwealthCare and Deval Patrick's governorship, Billy's family found affordable medical care, and Billy is make catching fly balls in centerfield."

Sorry, but if Deval loses to a health insurance executive -- one step above losing to the CEO of British Petroleum -- there's no excuse. If his campaign doesn't want to run an ad like this, find someone who will. It's not really that hard.

Huh? What?

2010-03-11T15:40:00.000-08:00

You mean I'm supposed to keep this blogging thing going still? Since when?

Okay, it's been a bit of a break enforced by real-life. I have a great thing lined up on the reality v. the rhetoric of pensions, I'll type and buff up in the next few days. However, there's good stuff out there worth reading:

Globe

Globe

He's just out of ideas

2010-03-01T17:16:00.000-08:00

Presidential Mad Libs, Education Edition. Fill in the blanks:

Speaking today on education, Barack Obama said that in order to deal with the problem of (1)______ in the public education system, it is necessary to make it easier to (2) ____ . This is an approach that is (3) ____ conservative approaches.

The answer to #3 is "similar to", "indistinguishable from", or another synonym.
The answer to #2 is "fire teachers".
The answer to #1 is....well, it doesn't matter what the answer to #1 is, because the answer to #2 is always, always, "fire teachers".*

If the health care bill fails, and the Republicans win in 2010, I'm not sure I'll be able to tell the difference with this guy.

*Obama's current proposal, delivered before his natural allies in the anti-middleclass US Chamber of Commerce, is to spend his apparently unlimited funds on districts that fire more teachers. That will ~~raise student achievement~~, ~~close the achievement gap~~, lower the dropout rate.

Tune in a several months from now when Obama tells CPAC that we need to fire more teachers to, er, um, improve the quality of high-school basketball, or something like that. Remember: Fire Teachers!

LA does it smart

2010-02-28T16:09:00.001-08:00

Los Angeles has figured out that maybe letting teachers do their job might work (emphasis added):

In a move that affects nearly 40,000 students, the Los Angeles Board of Education has let teachers' groups -- instead of charters -- take over failing schools in the city's Unified School District (LAUSD). Twelve failing campuses were overhauled, as were 24 newly built ones. Though charters were selected to operate a portion of the new campuses, the teachers' groups are charged with improving the failing programs.

The teachers' groups, composed of instructors previously under LAUSD authority with local union support, fought hard to maintain a certain level of autonomy -- they argued that greater control over staffing, budget, and curriculum allows teachers to target specific school needs that may not be addressed by district mandates. And so far, giving teachers a more active role in campuses has been an effective tool in fixing the problems of L.A.'s public schools, with various pilot programs receiving high remarks from district administrators.

Wow. What a concept. Have doctors, not HMOs, decide on medical procedures. Give the say to farmers, not multinationals on how to raise healthy food. Allow teachers, not paper-movers to direct education.

It's so obvious you'd have to be a private-sector politician not to get it. Speaking of which...

The Superintendent who unilaterally fired all the high school teachers in her district rather than suffer the indignity of negotiating with them has found two sources of support: a group of far-right taxhaters...and Obama's ~~basketball friend~~ Secretary of Education Arne Duncan could love.

Thank goodness they won

2010-02-28T15:45:00.000-08:00

While the jingoistic side of me wished Team USA had won the hockey match for the gold medal today, it's better in the long run that Canada won.

It's a matter of perspective. See, there is no medal in any sport that means as much to the American zeitgeist as this one did to Canada. Ice hockey is Canada's only notable athletic endeavour and more than any singular event, an ice hockey tournament is the only measure of Canada's athletic greatness. On the other hand, basketball tournaments are pretty much a joke for the US in the modern era, we get silvers in ice hockey even though the vast majority of Americans live in areas where it isn't a realistic sport, and arguably most of our better athletes go into American football. Heck, in the second-tier sport of soccer, we made the quarter-finals of the last World Cup. Admittedly, baseball isn't America's strong suit at the moment.

On the other hand is Canada, a regular doormat in international tournaments (didn't qualify for the soccer World Cup, 2008 Beijing Olympics in basketball, etc.). The "Canadian" Football League survives on NFL sufferance and funding. Canada doesn't have the chops to handle more than a single major league franchise in pro baseball or basketball. This is truly all they have. Add in the fact that in a nation as culturally cleavaged as Canada, where one-fifth of the people live in a Quebecois culture which is more distinct than anything else in North America, and hockey is the only national touchstone the nation has. This wasn't an athletic win...it was amusingly close to a vindication of the Canadian experiment.

America wanted this gold medal.
Canada desperately, cryingly needed it. Good for them.

That said, I'm still more pissed about the Celtics losing at home to the New Jersey Nets.

PS: Anybody who watched the closing ceremony knows what I mean. A somewhat limp presentation from Sochi, Russia was followed by a tedious 45 minutes about what it means to Canadian, and Canadian iconography. If there's a culture in the world that cries out for legitimacy more than English-Canadian culture, I don't know it. I'd really have to rate this as the worst closing ceremonies I've ever seen.

Questions of Europe and Race

2010-02-24T09:11:00.001-08:00

Do Europeans understand what race is?

Quite a contrast in two stories out of Western Europe today. First of all, a rather stunning decision of the French railways to post some rather, er, targeted signage at some railway stations. The signs read:

"In the last few weeks concerns have arisen about Romanians. Indeed, numerous baggage thefts have been noticed.
"We ask you to redouble your vigilance. In addition, all the activities of Romanians should be brought to the attention of the PCNS [rail security services]."

So apparently, there was little proof of this happening by people of a certain, distinct nationality. But to single out a single group (not Roma, or Gypsies, but Romanians) for pubic notice and shaming represents an astounding callousness -- especially seeing that France is probably the most ethnically diverse country in Western Europe, with about 9% of its residents being non-white. It also indicates that a typical French railway worker or customer unfailingly distinguishes between Romanians and Bulgarians, Hungarians, and other neighbors.

On the other side of the Channel, a merchant in England is apparently getting in some hot water for selling what seem to me to be rather humorous shirts:

A company selling "Anyone but England" T-shirts for this year's World Cup has rejected suggestions it is racist after police in Aberdeen visited its store.

First off, the idea that Aberdeen Scots would be upset about this shirt humors me...I'd sooner expect them to support that shirt as "Yankees Suck" is supported in Boston. Secondly, I think the shirt is funny, and understandable. The English have a less-than-sterling reputation as players and fans, and selling these shirts in Scotland seems plain smart to me. If they were selling an "Anybody but Canada" shirt in reference to Olympic hockey, I’d buy one. Thirdly, even if it's in poor taste, it amuses me that police would feel compelled to visit the store.

There are differences in the two stories: undersensitivity in France, oversensitivity in England, for example. However, what they have in common is two things: an official reaction...and poor understanding of the concept of race.

I don’t grasp how the police in England and a union in France declared these respective actions to be "racist". Sure, if you’re an English yob with no sense of humor, I guess you could say the t-shirt is prejudiced -- if you leave aside the fact that it refers to the English soccer team rather than the nation, and the team itself is mixed-race to begin with. But racist? Since when are the English a separate race? Or Romanians?

I’ve read many a survey form that lists "White (non-Hispanic)" as an option, implying that Hispanics are white. Even in the broadest definition, though, I can’t see how Romanians are a different race than the French, the English a different race than the Scottish. What I do see is a culture so inexperienced with multiculturalism and diversity that prominent unions and law enforcement don’t really understand what racism is, and isn’t.

It’s a good thing that whatever it is, they’re against it; but as trackless as American discussion of race seems to be at times, we’re still light-years ahead of the folks across the pond.

Health-care tale from abroad

2010-02-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

The good news is that many Americans (such as Ezra Klein, kinda) have fallen out of love with the Canadian system as a model for health care, after they've gotten a decent look at it. Others (such as this example) haven't:

I'm not saying that Canada's approach is perfect. I am sure that it has its troubles, too, but it looks to me that they are doing a better job of caring for their citizens and that we could learn a thing or two from their approach.

However, north of the border, passions are aflame due to the decisions of an administrator of health care in the country. I remember weekends in Montreal where emergency room wait-times exceeded 24 hours. Danny Williams, premier (equivalent of governor) of Newfoundland decided in was in his interest to avoid the Canadian system:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the decision.

Later on, Williams defended his decision, because "this was my heart, my choice and my health". The premier of each province is responsible for administrating health care in his province and is presumably more familiar with his/her system than any other person. Yet Premier Williams -- like Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney years ago -- ducked out to Florida for care he didn't want to get in Canada.

Living in Canada for about six years, I can't and won't blame either one of them one bit. Wait times were atrocious, medical technology obsolete, and understanding of medicine too often questionable. Now, I am fortunate to be in the 84% of Americans who have health insurance. Before that, I was in the significant number of Americans in the remaining 16% who chose not to have it because I was in decent enough physical health.

Of course the system needs reform, for many reasons. However, whatever form that takes I hope it isn't the kind that gives some 30% of Americans better health care, and drives the other 70% to the point where they get care outside of the country if at all possible.

Question of scale I guess...

2010-02-19T14:02:00.001-08:00

Why is something like this presented as a human interest oddity:

A shaman in Norway has suggested aboriginal people in B.C. might have cursed the Nordic country's Olympic athletes...when Norway's early results in the Vancouver Games were not as good as expected, the Norwegian broadcaster NRK sought out a Sami shaman — or indigenous spiritualist — who speculated his counterparts in B.C. might be the cause.

The main reactions are ones of mocking dismissal, treating this story as a spiritual amuse-bouche. Meanwhile this is seen as a serious (if outrageous) statement by millions:

Pat Robertson, the host of the "700 Club," blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it."...
The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "

Thinking of this sort has engendered actual discussions here and here, for example.

As for the wider scope of the Vancouver 2010 games, it's been interesting contrasting the coverage from American/Canadian sources, and the far less fawning -- even acerbic -- British. I'd say a lot of the British writing makes sense.

PS: I wrote up a thing of Louis Riel months ago. Think the story of that 19th century isn't still sharp? Check this out:

Liberals are demanding a Tory MP apologize for criticizing Métis leader Louis Riel. Edmonton MP Peter Goldring sent out a pamphlet in December to "set the record straight" about Riel's actions in the late 1800s...Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville said the Conservative party should apologize to the Métis for what she calls a "smear campaign" against the founder of Manitoba.

But why?

2010-02-15T13:46:00.000-08:00

During an online conversation at BlueMassGroup on charter schools, I got an interesting reply to some questions I posed to the still-not-fired Secretary of Education, Paul Reville:

Secretary Reville often notes himself: the distribution of student performance across charter schools is actually quite similar to the distribution of student performance across traditional public schools. That is really what the aggregate of available charter studies tells us. Meanwhile, some charter schools and some traditional public schools have achieved remarkable results.
--Tom Weber, Secretary Reville's Chief of Staff

I appreciate the willingness of Secretary Reville and his staff to continue this conversation, and the honesty of Mr. Weber in saying this. I'll give him credit.

But this statement to me is stunningly flabbergasting. The most rigorous study in the country says this, and Secretary Reville accepts that data. On average, there is no appreciable difference in student outcomes between district schools and charters. While student outcomes are the most important way to compare the two models, they aren't the only one. If outcomes are equal, then we go to other metrics.

District schools are accountable to democratically elected committee members. Charters are not. District schools educate all students, not just the easy ones. District schools don't shut down suddenly (PDF), get managed by felons, or squirrel public money into a rat's-nest of family and friends receiving astronomical salaries.

So here we see that Secretary Reville knows that charters don't offer anything better than districts in terms of student outcomes, and are beset with other problems. Yet he continues to promote charters in the general and the specific, to the point of engaging in legally questionable acts. On balance, district schools offer as strong an education as charters, yet offer superior service to the communities they serve.

Now, desperate, well-paid charter advocates may try to make hay of the fact that Reville implies that some charters are superior to some public schools, if you take the best extreme of the charter aggregate and the worst extreme of the district aggregate. Well, true. Some private security is superior to some police departments -- should we pour public money into private companies that provide security? If a Blackwater soldiers shoot better than a soldier in the US Army, should we make it easier to hire mercenaries? I don't hear anybody saying Medicare dollars should go to Anthem Blue Cross because an occasional Medicare procedure is ~~worse~~ the same as private ones. Smart policy making does not hope for the best of a given policy, but plans for the aggregate...not what we hope will happen, but what is most likely to happen. Doing otherwise is akin to betting on double zero at the roulette table.

So why does Reville so enthusiastically favor charters, when he frankly knows such policies do not benefit students and harm the democratic process? Why does our governor? I can't answer that question, but the best guide I've found is Secretary Reville's own words:

A number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation

HB376 update and denouement

2010-02-05T15:56:00.000-08:00

A draft post became published a while ago on this blog about HB376, a bill in the State House. The thinking is much more logically and clearly presented at my post on BlueMassGroup. I'll talk about the bill in a second, but I do want to relate my experiences attempting to contact the Democratic co-sponsors.

I have made three attempts to contact each Democratic state representative who signed on as co-sponsor of this bill over the past two weeks. I can understand that these representative are busy, so I must highlight Representatives Calter, Dwyer, DiNatale, and Rosa not only for replies to my initial inquiry, but extended the kindness of responding to a follow-up with a real discussion. I also had a productive talk with the legislative aide for Representative Lantigua.

The other representatives' offices have yet to offer even the courtesy of indicating that they have received my message. If anybody would care to contact the representatives below with questions of their own, please feel free. Maybe you'll get an answer; if you do, please comment it here.

Paul J. Donato 35th Middlesex 617-722-2090
Kevin J. Murphy 18th Middlesex 617-722-2877
Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk 617-722-2783
Angelo M. Scaccia 14th Suffolk 617-722-2060

As for the status of the bill itself, I've gathered through my conversations the following impressions:

1 - This bill was filed in a political and legal vacuum of sorts. Representatives signed on as co-sponsors before the initial process of examining the implications of this bill could be addressed. The facts that this law would be swatted down by settled precedent, or the effect of deputizing school committees to arbitrate between different religion(s) seeking time in ceremonies had not even been considered.

2 - Furthermore, given the paucity of sponsors and the deadline for the session on the horizon, there is little chance of this bill advancing toward debate, vote, or passage.

3 - This bill was written in reaction to a student's recounting of a solitary incident to members of the General Court. As described to me, that incident was mishandled by school administration according to current law. The law was not the problem; administration understanding of it was. This is an issue for that district's administration, not the Commonwealth's legal code.

All this to say that this misguided bill seems to have little chance of going anywhere, probably wouldn't stand up much to real scrutiny in the first place, and hopefully will not be re-introduced in the next session.

15%

2010-02-04T18:39:00.000-08:00

Well, this is a new spot in which to find oneself.

Grace Ross is going to run for governor as a Democrat, forcing a primary between her and Deval Patrick for the nomination. Mind you, she isn't a Democrat, or at least wasn't when she ran four years ago. She was the Green-Rainbow candidate. This blog post from two weeks ago implies she wasn't a Democrat as recently as the special election.

So I'm in no hurry to welcome somebody who just joined the Massachusetts Democratic Party to campaign for the most prestigious post for a member. I do hope she'll rush out a platform and agenda soon, to make clear where she's coming from. Right now, were I in the voting booth on primary day, I'd likely side with Deval (whose inexperience and idealism resulted in a disappointing tenure) over Ross (who I think would be even worse).

But...

But. I'm hoping to attend the Democratic convention as a delegate. And one of my strongest beliefs as a delegate is that any candidate that rises above LaRouche-level insanity should be on the ballot. The voters should decide, not party activists. To my knowledge, Grace Ross is a serious candidate. And to get on the ballot, a candidate must win 15% of the delegate votes.

So as I present myself as a candidate for delegate, I gotta decide. Do I promise to vote for Deval Patrick, the better candidate, or do I stand with Grace Ross, so the people of Massachusetts can decide.

Thoughts?

Obama, talk, and action

2010-01-28T18:12:00.001-08:00

I really like Obama. I really do, and so far I think he's done a fairly decent job. If somebody is forced to put out a fire he didn't start, it's not fair to blame him for getting everything else wet. He's handled the Afghan situation decently well, finding a way for the American military to basically ignore the Afghan-Pakistani border without the people in the two countries get upset as they'd have a right to. That takes finesse

However, I'm having trouble taking the State of the Union seriously, because a lot of it is talk we've heard before, without seeing much done to make it happen in the intervening period. There are a number of tools to deal with the Senate filibuster that have gone unused. If Obama pushed the public option, I missed it. Great Democrats such as Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano were sucked into the Cabinet and have pretty much disappeared from view. We're seeing a bad case of good intentions in bad times.

Ghosts of Jimmy Carter are in my peripheral vision when Obama's on-screen.

So, if I'm going to take the 2011 State of the Union seriously, 3 of these 5 things must be true:

-Guantanamo no longer holds foreign captives;
-Openly gay and lesbian Americans serve in the military;
-There is an exit date for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan;
-There has been a test vote on a public option in health care;
-Tim Geithner is long gone.

I don't care if this is done as a result of political considerations facing the midterms, or just because it's the right thing to do. But considering that numbers 2 and 5 can be done by Obama's office regardless of anyone else's disposition, this is an achievable list.

I'm not trying to put out a litmus test. If Obama wants to ignore a fair economic policy in favor of smart projection of American power, he can. If our president wants to ignore full rights for LGBT Americans, perhaps we can start respecting international conventions. But if Obama can't be bothered to do any of this...well, why should we vote for him?

PS: What real leadership sounds like:

You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

-- Nancy Pelosi, aka the only federal Democratic leader with my full admiration.

11 Mass. Dems against religious equality

2010-01-28T13:06:00.000-08:00

Note: I did not mean for the following article to be published until Monday. It requires editing and will be updated and significantly clarified then. A special apology to Representative DiNatale, who has corresponded with me.

A bill designed to promote majority religions in public schools pushed forward by eleven Democrats. A law built on the template adored by the "Concerned Women for America". The end result would be local officials deciding which faiths to highlight and implicitly endorse at graduations, competitions, and school events. Is this Texas? Alabama? Wyoming?

No, it's happening right here in Massachusetts through bill HB376 -- "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom of Students". You can find it here in PDF format. Any time spent following the far-right knows that "protection of religious freedom" is just right-wing speak for "promoting Christianity". It's the same thinking that a doctor can abandon his obligations and oath if he doesn't like his patient for religious reasons. This particular bill is designed to order schools to accommodate the promotion of religion at public school events. It's the usual foolishness of the far-right, but I just don't know why eleven Democrats in Boston would think that's a good idea.

The bill mandates that public schools implement:

A policy that allows for a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious views at school events, graduation ceremonies, and in class assignments, and non-curricular school groups and activities.

First, ignore the word "limited" -- everything, even the universe, has limits (heat death scheduled in several billion years). What this bill provides for is a small group of people (perhaps one) deciding the appropriate expression of religious views at public school events. This bill provides for the exclusion of non-religious students and students holding less common faiths at public events. Make no mistake, a public school allowing the expression of any certain beliefs has the impact of endorsing those beliefs to the detriment of those who do not agree. And let's be clear that if only one speaker is making religious declarations at a school event...which religion do you suppose will get the slot? If 90% of the fans at a softball game are Christian, what's the chance of a reading of the Qur'an starting the game? As for the 22% of Bay Staters without a religious affiliation, well, they're excluded entirely. For that matter, even if the Qur'an is read at a certain high school graduation, non-Muslim students are left out that year.

This failed in the bright red state of Oklahoma, where Democratic Governor Brad Henry understood that this type of bill puts school officials in the place of balancing the Constitutional freedoms of students.

Texas school boards are constantly fearful in navigating what school boards call "the rock and the hard place" of mixing church and state, but in a "limited manner". Of course, far-right groups such as the hate-powered Massachusetts Family Institute love this idea and want to see it happen. It's an easy way to push popular religions in schools at the cost of religious freedom -- a trade-off reactionaries of the world would love.

Make no mistake: students have ample opportunity to live their religious beliefs in public schools as things stand. They do not have the opportunity to use public time and resources to compel others to endure their proselytization. This bill would change that. No student should attend their hard-earned graduation, only to hear the invocation of somebody else's God as school officials applaud, all on that student's dime. Participating on the local high school football team should not include hectoring to change your beliefs. That is what this bill would do.

Now, I don't expect much from Republicans, but I would urge people to call the Democrats who signed onto this bill and ask why non-Christians in public school should be left out of part of their own graduation ceremonies and other events (numbers here):

James Dwyer 30th Middlesex
Bruce E. Tarr First Essex and Middlesex
Dennis Rosa 4th Worcester
James R. Miceli 19th Middlesex
Angelo M. Scaccia 14th Suffolk
Stephen L. DiNatale 3rd Worcester
Paul J. Donato 35th Middlesex
Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk
William Lantigua 16th Essex
Thomas J. Calter 12th Plymouth
Kevin J. Murphy 18th

Reading elections: Lessons from Japan

2010-01-25T08:49:00.001-08:00

Today, a note on how implacably elections are reduced to a single-issue frame so quickly and easily. Many Bay Staters are reasonably irritated that outsiders (especially those in Washington, DC) are taking Brown’s victory last week as a repudiation of the health care reform process underway in the nation’s capital. While health care was an issue in this election, it was not the only issue. Such a view ignores Brown’s skilled campaign, the Coakley implosion, Democratic over-confidence, and a number of other factors in the result. Worse still, it led to a short press to force House passage of the Senate health care bill, almost regardless of the bill’s contents.

Many bad effects of the special Senate election stem not from the results themselves, but a widespread inability to view an election result as having more than one cause. Just as the Brown victory was likely a combination of the factors listed above (see Nate Silver’s dissection) but has been reduced to a health-care referendum by DC Republicans, it has been simplified a populist surge among Bay State Republicans, and a poor Coakley campaign among most Democrats. However, this tendency to over-simplify election results is not necessarily ideological, nor is it restricted to the American press. One obvious example is the tendency to view every Israeli election as turning on relations with the Palestinian government(s). The fact that Netanyahu was largely elected on economic concerns rather than relations with Fatah and Hamas was almost ignored worldwide. A smaller example presents itself today in the BBC’s summary of the recent election for the mayoralty of Nago on the island of Okinawa. I choose the BBC as the high-water mark of thinking English-language journalism, and even that august organization has failed the test today.

This election occurred against the background of change in Japan. Recently elected prime minister Yukio Hatoyama has declared an interest in a more equitable relationship with the United States, and has been seeking allies within and without Japan on that score. Meanwhile, the US military was well into plans to move a large base on Okinawa (a source of great tension with the surrounding Japanese) per government request, when Hatoyama was elected. His activism on this issue has led to some arch tension between the two countries.

Anyway, let’s get into the story. The prospective new site of the base, the city of Nago on Okinawa, held a recent election wherein a candidate opposed to the base won election, beating the incumbent by a 53-47 margin. And universally, this election is being back-labeled as a referendum on the incoming American base. If the BBC is playing the role of FoxNews, Hatoyama is playing the role of the Republicans, trying furiously to spin a victory of a distant candidate who shares a belief on one issue as confirmation that the people are on his side.

But there are many things at play here (a partial list of issues from the subjective Stars and Stripes for example). Japanese frustration with incumbency has reached levels beyond even the American public and is narrowly targeted at the Liberal Democratic Party, that of the former mayor of Okinawa. The victor, Susumu Inamine, was kept at arm’s length by the government throughout the campaign, the actions of a popular party that wants to claim someone else’s victory of their own only after the fact. At the same time, the LDP is identified with the assimilation of the unique religious and cultural traditions and dialect of Okinawa into the larger Japanese culture, a trend that concerns many Okinawans. Add to this the ongoing problem of the economy – the main point of discussion about the base in Nago wasn’t about the cultural disruption of the American military, but the economic impact of it – not to mention the ground-level dynamics of the election, something that was a major factor in last week’s result for Brown.

The fact is that this election result was the sum of an array of elements, and not one issue -- you have a complex beast that’s being oversimplified by media from outside the electorate.

Kinda like our own Senate election. One wonders how many frustrated Okinawans today are having words put into their mouths by the Japanese prime minister and the worldwide media, just as is happening here in Massachusetts. Something to keep in mind next time we’re told why an election ended the way it did -- at home or abroad.

PS: Not at all related, but worth passing on; I present to you the most professional newscaster in Australia. That's the danger of using a live feed as a backdrop.

Thoughts going into the weekend...

2010-01-23T09:00:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court is just making sh-t up with that "Citizens United" decision. I still don't see how money is speech (strange how the Canadian court can declare the exact opposite), or how corporations are persons. Next, the Supreme Court will decide that computers are actually trees. I think corporations should have to serve jury duty.
This decision now makes unions more important as far as the left is concerned. I wonder if their input on bills will be accorded more weight. Considering their strong opposition to the middle class tax hike included in the Senate bill, that's another blow to the "pass a crap bill and call it reform" camp.
If all this is true, anyone to the left of ExxonMobil's board of directors should be worried that union memberships in the private sector is shrinking -- by 10% this year.
The best idea I've seen on health care in the Browned-out Senate is fixing the Senate bill already passed through the 51-vote process of reconciliation. That's smart, and smart is better than desperate.
I'm thinking we have a tripartisan system -- Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the rest of the Democrats. This headline is pitch-perfect: "House doesn't trust White House or Senate on health care".
I'm not saying it would have changed the result of Coakley-Brown, but I feel that if Chuck Schumer were still head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee rather than nobody Senator Bob Menendez. This doesn't augur well for November.
If Republicans are electable in Massachusetts, and Deval has the market cornered on hope...what's left for Cahill? I predict he finishes below 20% on Election Day.
With Norfolk County Treasurer Joe Connolly out, Steve Grossman stands unopposed for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts treasurer. Of anyone on the November ballot, my vote for him and Barney Frank will likely be the most enthusiastic.
Just how out of touch is the Obama White House? Their featured comic at the Correspondants' Dinner is...Jay Leno. As much as a bland comic can tick people off, he's done it. Why not just roll out Tiger Woods for some putting humor?
An 84-year-old woman is found alive after 10 days in the Haitian earthquake rubble. In the wake of the calamity, when so many need so much and have so little, at least there is hope.
After a half-hour of searching, I've found the text of the law named the "Education Reform Act of 2010" in some reports (PDF). I plan to be reviewing the text over the next few days.
In other news, 11 Democrats are teaming up with the hate-driven Massachusetts Family Institute in a Texas-style cramming of religion down the throats of Massachusetts public school students. More on that next week.

This isn't the way to do it

2010-01-21T15:35:00.000-08:00

For anyone still agitating that Democrats in the House must vote to push the Senate version to Obama's desk, let me remind them of two consequences:

1. It makes the "Nebraska exception" law. It was embarrassing enough that it was even in a bill (heck, even Senator Nelson was trying to backtrack it) but now the Democrats will write it into the books. This follows us into November and beyond.

2. The law hits people with medium- to high-value health plans with a 40% tax on those plans. Let me repeat this -- people with a good health plan will pay a 40% tax on the value of that. Some of those people are rich, lawyers and stockbrokers, etc. And it is virtually every cop, firefighter, nurse, doctor, and teacher in the country. Five groups that are middle-class and provide enormous union muscle and money to politics (of particular use in the wake of today's Supreme Court decision). If Obama and Pelosi decide that members of those five groups should pay hundreds, if not thousands, more in tax, there will far fewer Democrats on the rolls, at the polls...and in office.

Finally, anyone who still says that placing a new financial burden on the poor ("individual mandate") is synonymous with extending coverage, you're lying to yourself. You may as well just force all Americans to buy a computer, and announce who you've expanded Internet access around the country.

Three years ago, if someone you were asked which political party would force all Americans to buy health insurance from HMOs without a public option, place a huge tax burden that disproportionately affects government workers, and carve out a special exception for Nebraska...would you have said the Democrats? Amazing how people eagerly lower their standards.

Thoughts on the "day after"

2010-01-20T14:33:00.000-08:00

First off, everyone step away from the panic button. Just because the Democrats lost this special election doesn't mean that the entire agenda gets junked. Nor does it mean that we slap together a pile of cr-p, call it "health care reform" and pass it before Brown gets there (edit: or pass the crap that is the Senate bill through the House without even thinking). A morass that insists all Americans must funnel cash to a private industry is not going to help any Democrat on the campaign trail this summer and fall. Don't read too many implications into this odd election -- the last law passed in the midst of blind panic was the Patriot Act. Whoops.
Politically, it's better to fail spectacularly at Republicans hands than fail incrementally with Democratic help. In policy terms, the best thing is for Reid to grow a pair, as he'll likely lose his re-election anyway. He may as well go out as the Senator who implemented real health care reform after junking the filibuster. Seriously -- if there's a legislative chamber that requires a 60% supermajority on all laws (as the Senate has over the last few years, suddenly) anywhere in the Western world, I've not heard of it. Nuke it.
Moving on, there's plenty of blame for this loss to go around. Coakley, having forgotten about people like Weld and Romney, apparently felt that she didn't really need to earn anyone's vote in Massachusetts. Even the greats, Kennedy and Kerry, hustled against Romney and Weld for hard-won victories. She disappeared, and not just around Christmas but for several days in either direction.
But it wasn't just her -- if you see your candidate screwing up, you're supposed to do something about it, I thought. There are people whose job it is to tell candidates to get over themselves and hustle for votes, often called the party "elders". They were snoozing as deep as Martha, whether it was the staties in Charlestown or the muckymucks in DC. Would it have killed them all for someone -- someone! -- to take a poll? At the end, Coakley owns the loss because her name was on the ballot, but Democrats who should know better were as complacent as her.
Anyway, it's not all the Dems' fault. Brown came up with clever ads, got the help he needed across the state and nation, won every news cycle going away, courted the media smartly, interrupted any Coakley narrative, held his ground in the debates, and worked for the vote. You can be a Democrat with a sucky campaign and win -- just ask John Kerry after his victory over Beatty. Coakley gave Brown oxygen, and he used it in a way that connected with the electorate. Any Democrat who denies this is going to be caught unprepared as well.
The electorate didn't change its mind from 2008...the electorate itself changed. People who would have helped Coakley in a regular election didn't vote -- turnout was under 40% in major cities. This gives me hope for 2012, but expecting the Democratic base to show up without being told why is a fool's game, as we saw last night. This to me is the grand lesson about preparing for November, and how to handle the agenda going forward.
As to who takes on Brown in 2012, we'll have to wait and see. Here's what I expect: census indicates that some Congressperson must lose his/her seat. After some semi-public negotiation, one of them announces a run for Senate, and allows his/her seat to be re-districted out of existence out from under him/her.

Talk about the issues, Coakley

2010-01-17T09:22:00.001-08:00

"How did it end up this close?" will be a question studied by academics and "pundits" for ages. There is no earthly reason that the typically measured electorate of Massachusetts would even be considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material, yet he's tied, perhaps leading, in the polls for Tuesday's election. So what's happening?

My answer is that the electorate of Massachusetts isn't considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material. They're not thinking of Coakley and Brown as possible Senators, but as celebrities.

Brown has masterfully guided this raise from any semblance of the issues, with a narrative-hungry media playing accomplice. When I call voters, they're not talking about health care, torture, or foreign policy. They're talking about the "negative tone" of the campaign and "it's the people's seat". This is a conversation where Brown has a shot, especially with his excellence at playing victim, and sending out his daughters to do the same. He's moved the question from who do you want doing the work of a Senator to who do you want to be Senator. It's a fine difference, but it allows him to move the conversation from the issues (where he loses) to random crap (where he does well). It may seem crazy, but George W Bush turned this strategy into two electoral victories.

The media, of course, has joined in, shelling Coakley with questions about the "negativity" of her campaign -- heaven forbid anyone point out what a nut Brown is -- and focusing on process stories. Unfortunately, bringing in Clinton and Obama makes it look that Coakley is playing down to Brown's level, hoping to borrow some charisma against his. Answering these silly questions rather that insisting that we talk about foreign policy or health care is a disastrous move. The race starting getting wobbly when the issues took a back-seat. The fact that Brown is too cheap and cruel to pitch in on his own employees' health care isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a regime where those employees don't have to rely on the goodwill of their bosses for affordable health-care. The fact that Brown breaks military policy by posing in his uniform for campaign materials isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a policy where the military isn't risking soldiers' lives by carrying out a dead-end mission in Afghanistan.

I personally find that the most effective thing in talking to voters is to stick to the issues. The message you send with your vote will be received that day. The consequences of your vote last two years. What consequences do you want?

Topic	Coakley	Brown
Placing any limits on US government use of torture	Yes	No
Women's medical needs override personal beliefs of doctors	Yes	No
Returning tax rates of the rich to Reagan/JFK-era levels	Yes	No
Expanding health care coverage of Americans	Yes	No
Respecting entirety of Roe v Wade	Yes	No
Preserving equality in marriage	Yes	No

The values of Attorney General Coakley are the values of the people of Massachusetts. This is the reality that Brown is trying to drown out with noise about his pickup truck and tender feelings. This is the reality that must be hammered home over the next 48 hours, top to bottom.

PS: Future studies of "what happened" would also do well to examine the decision to keep the Mass. Legislature in session over this period to discuss attempts to throttle labor rights in connection with Deval's education bill. Had all these folks been organizing, instead of defending the idea that contracts should be enforceable by law, how would things have gone differently?

I make the National Review!

2010-01-15T16:04:00.000-08:00

For all the wrong reasons, of course. The Scott Brown subpage at National Review picked up my last post here (via BMG) as "When Massachusetts Democrats stop being polite and start getting real". My biggest exposure since DailyKos picked up on a sarcastic remark I made almost exactly one year ago. I guess I do my best writing in January.

I was pleased that the writer understood the tone I was attempting, although he indicated so with a dated cultural reference. Naturally, National Review was mendacious about what I said, claiming (without any supporting links) that the agenda promoted by Brown was prevailing public opinion. Of course, polling is against the excise tax on good health care plans and oppose the War in Iraq and believe we've done all we can there. But who reads NR for the truth.

The best part, of course, is in the last line. Unwilling to give anyone else the last word, the post ends with an attempt at flippancy:

With this kind of support for Coakely, who needs negative ads?

A tip to this guy: it's tough to condescend if you can't spell a candidate's name right.

PS: Andrew Sullivan quotes my title, too. This should be my last blog post...I'm peaking.

Suck it up: Vote Coakley

2010-01-13T16:02:00.000-08:00

Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.
Pissed? Me, too. Not just because I supported Mike Capuano. I'm frankly pissed about Washington, DC. Things are going very wrong -- President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Health care reform is heading toward a route where more money comes from the middle class, with about half going to people who need health care, and half going to the insurance companies. Oh, and Guantanamo is still open while American soldiers walk the streets in Baghdad and Kabul. Remember Employee Free Choice? Meanwhile, Harry Reid races to catch Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's farts on Capitol Hill.

But I don't think Senator Coakley wants to torture people, give the obscenely rich a tax refund, or tell a rape victim to hospital-shop until she can find the care she needs. Senator Brown does. And the right-wing, desperate to believe it's been forgotten how they ruthlessly dimmed America's power and pride over the last eight years, is pouring as much corporate money as possible onto our airwaves. Disciples of failure are already slavering over bullrushing one of their own into the Senate.

So suck it up and vote Coakley on Tuesday. If you stay home on Tuesday, and a smirking Jim DeMint puts his arm around Senator Brown next month, will you feel good about yourself? Will you take pride in your "message" when Tom Coburn assigns Scott Brown the task of maintaining the filibuster on any health care reform? When you see Scott Brown publicly wetting his pants over terrorists getting American justice, or the latest moron who fails in an inept plan to hurt our country, will you think "Yep, I'm the reason he's there to embarrass Massachusetts on the Senate floor."

I think some folks are already getting a message. The mortal scare the DC Dems are feeling this week about the voters of Massachusetts -- Massachusetts! -- considering walking away. They can read polls, and they realize what they've wrought. Maybe Reid, Nelson, heck even Obama needs a primary next time around, I don't know.

But nowhere on the ballot will be an option to send a message to DC. Your and my only choice is to send a Senator. And that Senator should be Martha Coakley.

(cross-posted on Blue Mass Group)

Collection of thoughts....

2010-01-12T15:54:00.001-08:00

It sure is strange to read high-profile blog posts and receive nationwide blast emails asking for help to move the vote in Massachusetts. After a lifetime of being taken for granted by American Democrats, it is a bit odd to be the receiver, not driver, of help. I'm not saying I want to be New Hampshire, where presidential candidates offer to scratch my a-- every day for two months, but it is nice.
Fact is, though, Coakley's a rotten candidate. After accepting the primary victory, she (and her team) seem to have gone into hiding. I've gotten zero mail from her, and nothing on the phone. Then again, it says something for these high-charging political consultants that my cell number has been my sole number for over 5 years, and nobody in the political universe has gotten their hands on it yet.
Obama lied to me. After promising not raise taxes on any family making under $250,000 Obama is backing a plan that would entail a tax hike. Obama backs a plan that would put a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac health care plans". My health care plan somehow qualifies, and my family makes less than a fifth of this $250,000 limit. Then again, my mistake must be in choosing public service that offers decent benefits to compensate for the low pay rate of qualified workers. I'd have been better off as one of those investment bankers who receive tender care from Obama.
It's crap like that that's leaving Coakley on the ropes. That, and the whole not-campaigning thing.
A local bank has come up with a cutesy campaign urging people to have a "game plan" for their retirement. The cutesy poster is accompanied by the traditional "x and o" format of a football play. Unfortunately for these geniuses, anyone the least bit versed in football recognizes the play as a Hail Mary -- the long-shot play you uncork only in desperate circumstances. Doesn't anyone in the banking world play Madden?

What does it take?

2010-01-07T17:32:00.000-08:00

Massachusetts Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester just won't give up. You likely recall that Chester was the recipient of the infamous email wherein Secretary of Education Paul Reville urged his underling to approve an inadequate school because a refusal would:

cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation

With Reville and Chester shoving their weight around, the application to open this charter school was approved. But playing Massachusetts education as their political plaything would come to undermine them. Upon request, the Massachusetts Inspector General reviewed the situation and agreed with the obvious, reporting that the school should never have been approved:

the process used in approving the GCACS charter was procedurally defective...granting of the charter was without authority of law

Wihtout Chester's obstinancy, however, we'd perhaps not have learned that his incompetence extended into a "Big Jim Rennie" style of skullduggery:

DESE and CSO officials apparently implemented a policy of disposing of virtually all documents containing the written records of individual DESE and CSO evaluators in determining whether the GCACS charter school application had met the criteria of the final charter school application; and 3) The OIG finds that DESE was not fully responsive to document requests made by the OIG and by legislators for records of DESE and CSO evaluators in determining whether the GCACS charter school application had met the criteria of the final charter school application.

So an illegal decision was made after quite possibly shredding key documents to prevent review, and efforts at oversight were given a stiff-arm. A hands-on executive would have dispatched Chester and Reville long ago. But Deval Patrick is a guy who stood by people like Dan Grabauskas and Jim Aloisi beyond belief. Hopefully, continuing pressure on the governor will convince him to engage in leadership and enact accountability among his allies/appointees. You'd think he'd learn...as with the others (and Marian Walsh), this corruption will not die out as a story...now Republican State Senate leader Tisei is calling on Chester to step down.

Shredded documents...contravening the law...currying media favor for the boss...all in service of the private sector to the decrement of the public sector. Even Governor Patrick admits this charter venture is a loser, and has done a 180 by coming out against the charter. As for Mr. Chester, he said on Thursday that:

I recognize that the controversy surrounding [the charter school], whether grounded in truth or not, has created a negative perception of our process.

Oh, he does admit that there may be lessons to be learned in this episode. Tinpot bureaucrat dictators are always happy to learn lessons...when they get caught.

If Chester still has a job on January 31st, Paul Reville should be gone on February 1st.

If Paul Reville and Mitchell Chester both have jobs on February 28th, we can ask if Deval Patrick should continue in his.

Deval-bama turns into Monty Hall

2010-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

With some Priceline thrown in.

I've explained elsewhere and in-depth my concern about President Obama's power grab on education. He's chosen to continue (and amplify) President Bush's attempt to accrue power to the presidency on education by trying to re-write policy with federal money that forms a tiny portion of education budgets.

Well, it's more nakedly ambitious than I expected. It's more like "Let's Make a Deal!" If a town promises to enter a certain program, they'll get an estimated amount of money (hopefully with more accuracy than the vanished funds once promised under No Child Left Behind), then be locked into an unrevealed set of requirements. See, Deval Patrick is loyally flogging public education districts around the state to sign up for Obama's "Race to the Top" program, wherein towns across the country compete to earn their tax money by most closely appealing to Obama's ideas about what public education should be. Well, Patrick's education department has announced that towns hoping to snare some of this bribe money must send an application to Boston within two weeks. In about a month, Obama will reveal the requirements of the program, and shortly thereafter Governor Patrick will reveal what towns have to do now that they've been chosen for the program.

This is worse than "Let's Make a Deal!". On the game show, you would win something, even if it were 50 pounds of cabbage. On Monty Deval-bama's program, you could win a bill and nothing more. It's kind of like Priceline, actually -- bid for something you're told is valuable, and hope that after you've sent in something of value you won't get shafted.

Deval is expecting Massachusetts towns to lock themselves into a program that promises an undetermined amount of funds in return for an unannounced set of requirements. For instance, a town could receive $100,000 in exchange for the requirement that it hold longer school days -- a move with uncertain research results that would likely cost that district more than $100,000 to implement. If the people of the town, represented through their duly elected school committee, don't want that it's too bad for them. If Obama decides that he wants 200-day school years, regardless of what the people of the various towns want, regardless that such a move won't cover the dollars he's shoveling out of his treasury, too bad. Of course, the hope is that if Deval waves money around in front of the taxpayers of various towns and cities with his right hand, they won't see what Deval is taking away with his right. Anyone who objects is interfering with education progress and sticking the townspeople with the bill.

In the end, though, Race to the Top ends with the town getting screwed, Deval getting a put on the back for pushing this through and Obama getting to push an agenda he can't get through Congress or the local School Committee.

It's Monty Hall meets Priceline. It ain't progressive education policy.

Uselessness

2010-01-03T12:38:00.000-08:00

I'll admit that my blogging pace was trailed off over the holidays. When "real life" returns in a couple of days, the usual pace should return. But as for now, two stories about political uselessness is Massachusetts.

Nate Silver finds that Stephen Lynch is the least valuable Democrat in the northeast. In his words:

On the other end of the spectrum are a handful of Democrats who have negative scores. They vote with their party less often than a generic congressman from their district would, even without guaranteeing that the generic congressman is a Democrat. In other words, these are people who potentially deserve a primary challenge -- on average, dumping them would leave the Democrats better off, even if there's some chance that they'd be replaced by a Republican.

According to Silver's fancy-pants statistical analysis, Lynch ranks at 247th most valuable Democrat in the House (out of 258). The second-worst offender from the northeast? Massachusetts congressman Stephen Neal.

The Massachusetts Inspector General finds that "the 2008/2009 charter school application and approval process administered by BESE and DESE ended in the granting of a charter to [the controversial Gloucester Charter] GCACS in violation of the provisions of law, regulation, and procedure." This was a complete clustermug mismanaged by Paul Reville in service of Governor Patrick's poll numbers...with absolutely no foreseeable consequences to his career. Hopefully Reville will deny the charter, but his disregard and ignorance of government means that I will wait until it actually happens.

Must-read: Pointy the Pointsettia

2009-12-22T16:31:00.000-08:00

The man closed the door to the truck. Soon, the truck was moving again. Pointy imagined being carried into an office where all the people would smile and say, "What a beautiful poinsettia! How pretty it is, with its big red and green leaves! Merry Christmas!"

While Pointy was imagining this, the truck stopped in front of another building. The back door to the truck was opened, and suddenly Pointy was in the man’s hands, being carried outside.

"This is it," thought Pointy, "I’m about to make many people happy! I can’t wait to see their smiles, and hear them say ‘Merry Christmas!’"

The man brought Pointy up some stairs and then through a glass door. There was a woman at a desk just inside the door. Pointy tried to make his big, red leaves stand up as straight and proud as possible. As he did so, he heard the woman say:

"What the hell is that?..."

Read the whole delightful tale, and forward to everyone. Make sure SulDog gets credit.

Then, listen to "The Littlest Christmas Tree", and your Christmas vegetation media consumption quota will have been filled.

Another Happy Rebirth

2009-12-21T16:20:00.000-08:00

If you're reading this post, our world has survived yet another Winter Solstice. You may say "piffle, of course" perhaps, of "the winter sol-what?" Well, in what would have once been seen as a near miracle, the sun was struggled to rebirth, unaided by large numbers of people letting their own blood, sacrificing animals, executing intricate dances, sacrificing other people, tying the sun to a rock by means of invisible rope, or simply casting old materials on the ground (as have been done in the past). Untroubled for our lacking devotion, the sun returns Unconquered.

It still awes me to look back on the thousands of generations of humankind, huddled around fire, devising any mad scheme to keep the embers of the dying sun burning. I can picture the lines of concern on the face of the shaman, debating that morning if the horizon was lightening...did the rites work this time? A woman straining to feel if the morning breeze was beginning to stir, watching the bare branches for telltale movement. The solemnity and unity worldwide* of this day, the unbearable concern of not knowing. Followed by a wondrous affirmation that death had not won total victory, that indeed life would not falter, the Earth would not sleep, and things would go as before. A Happy Solstice to all, however you celebrate it.

*Okay, I imagine people in the southern hemisphere felt quite the opposite on the winter solstice. You get my point.

The overwrought Hawkeye

2009-12-19T14:01:00.000-08:00

This post isn't about Obama, who's governing no better or worse than Hillary Clinton would have. It's not about David Plouffe, either. It's about Iowa.

My current read is The Audacity to Win, the campaign trail memoir by David Plouffe, manager of Barack Obama's winning presidential campaign. My interest in this book is threefold: simple curiosity for an insider's view of this novel campaign, piqued interest on the basis of Jerome Armstrong's posts over at MyDD, and the knowledge that the author is today directing the re-election campaign of Deval Patrick.

As with many victory lap memoirs, there are a few interesting but ultimately unshocking tidbits mixed in with loving recounting of victories and rationalizaton of mistakes. There is a three-page extended excuse about Obama's (correct) decision to back out of public financing for his campaign. Why not admit that Obama's promise to follow the regime was made when the money wasn't there, and now that it was, the federal campaign would hamper it? Bill Richardson is ignored save for a cheap shot about his weight, John Edwards ignored aside from the revelation that Obama's people pushed the expensive haircut story. Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are the only Democrats for whom David Plouffe demonstrates anything resembling respect. John McCain receives more praise (I haven't gotten to the part about Sarah Palin yet).

However, the most overwhelming aspect of the book is the careful, loving, almost obsessive attention given by Barack Obama and his campaign to Iowa. This obsession is reflected in an exhaustive and exhausting recounting of the Iowa adventures and strategy, which outweighs attention given to Super Tuesday. I am unaware of any electoral system in the world that places such a pivotal role on such an idiosyncratic, unrepresentative, and small population that Iowa enjoys in the American system. The culmination of this courting period is the caucus process, an exercise that is self-limiting and violates the fundamental democratic principle of the secret ballot. After the primary process faded, the spitefully undemocratic nature and overall enormous suckitude of caucuses and baffling centrality of Iowa were forgotten.

Reading this book has reminded me. It reminded me that individual, smaller counties in Iowa were the subject of more discussion, candidate time, infrastructure, focus, and planning in the primary campaign than the entire state of Massachusetts was. Linn County, Iowa was a more important audience for the Obama campaign that was California, in all probability. The crafting of message, and quite arguably policy, balanced on the point of Iowa. (Parallel statements could be made about the Edwards and Hillary Clinton campaigns, as well.)

Sadly, the entitlement of this state will go unchallenged, as the Democratic Rules Committee is seeking to further enshrine the inexplicable privilege of Iowa in their upcoming recommendations. As a time when this reform process would be as apolitical as it would ever get, inertia has apparently taken over, untroubled by the lack of leadership that has been the hallmark of Tim Kaine's tenure as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Four or eight years from now, we're going to witness this all over again, as millions of dollars and hours are spent on every nook and cranny of the Hawkeye State, while Massachusetts receives about as much primary attention as Manitoba.

A year ago

2009-12-18T16:05:00.000-08:00

It was about a year ago that I bought the Melissa Etheridge Christmas album, "A New thought for Christmas". I enjoy exploring more recent Christmas music, and I've liked Etheridge for years now. There are many good tracks on the album, but one of the most powerful was definitely "Christmas in America", which contains these lines:

The girls are down at Ruby's
trying to find some Christmas cheer
There's not much to do but drink too much
When every day is unclear

So here I am on Christmas Eve
This silent holy night
And I reach up to the stars for you
and I pray that you're all right

Hey mister, send my baby home
This December, don't wanna be all alone
It's Christmas in America, I need you in my arms
Far away from harm
Mister, send my baby home

I bought this album in late November, when the glow of Obama's victory was still fresh. I'd listen to this song, thinking next year, it will be different! President Obama, well into the flow of his presidency, will have pulled us out of these thankless occupations -- occupations with too little investment to result in nation-building, yet too much to avoid real damage. Obama is going to end the madness. I got to the point where I would heartily sing along, replacing the word "mis-ter" with a rather bunched up "Oba-ma, send my baby home." Because I knew he'd do that for all those with a part of their soul wearing a uniform in Asia.

But no, how wrong I was. Obama is going to double down on the madness, thinking that we can pacify Afghanistan in a way the Russian and British couldn't if we just send more people and money there. Thirty thousand more kids, trained to kill, instead forced to act as community organizers/cops/civil corps in an alien culture. The same crap that we got with Bush -- the same mission creep, the same vague goals, the same implausible exit strategy. It's been batted around to death for a couple weeks now, but in the end this is exactly the move I would have expected McCain, or Bush himself, to make.

Last year in 2008, I'd listen to "Christmas in America", eyes watering, thinking that in 2009 that song would be losing relevance. Instead, it will be every bit as meaningful in 2009...and 2010...and 2011...and...

What a train wreck...

2009-12-16T15:49:00.000-08:00

"They can’t mess with our religion," Mr. Johnson told The Boston Globe. "They owe us a small lump sum for this."

This statement encapsulates the current brouhaha in Taunton. In sum:

[A student's] father, Charles Johnson, stirred up controversy when he told reporters of various newspapers this week that his son was suspended for drawing a picture of the crucifixion as part of a class project to draw a picture about the holidays.

... District officials say the boy told his teacher that it was himself on the cross, not Jesus. The drawing was not part of a school project. The boy was not suspended from school, but rather given a psychological evaluation out of concern that the picture was a cry for help. The picture circulated by the media is not the same one that prompted teachers to report the boy.

The town’s mayor called for [the superintendent] to apologize to the boy and his family. But he has since decided to back the school’s decisions.

The Christian Science Monitor, there. Area columnists such as this dingbat, this fool, and that moron are trying to feel outraged, not even mentioning the lack of factual clarity in this situation. It's reminiscent of the Gates Arrest affair, where we had a he-said/he-said disagreement about basic facts that occluded any chance of seeing what really happened. Some people remain determined not to learn their lesson, but would rather implicate one side based on no real knowledge whatsoever. Thus the media stampedes to finger-pointing, oblivious of their own obliviousness.

I find it suspicious that a teacher could, or would, single-handedly order a psychological evaluation of a child. I find it odd that the aggrieved party starts demanding monetary compensation from Minute One. I find it curious that the mayor changed positions quickly, even at the cost of opening himself up. I find it disturbing that some people just love the idea of being persecuted. I wouldn't be the faintest bit surprised to learn that this father has what the media likes to call a "colorful history". You don't convert that fast from victimization to extortion without lots of practice.

Now, the school did make a mistake in presuming that this young child knew the true nature of a cross. Apparently, he had recently visited a large, religious seasonal lighting display, where I'm sure Jesus on the cross was visible. However, a young mind may not realize that the cross was an instrument of torture, pain, and execution...he may well think that's just "where Jesus is", just as Santa is in a sleigh. The connection adults create between a cross and pain is not necessarily in the mind of a child, where the cross is mainly a symbol of some ideas he is told to believe. Without clarifying that issue (which the school apparently failed to do), there resulted a rush to judgment. As usual the purported victim, the child, is quickly becoming rather ignored.

The same sort of rush to judgment that is happening now in the media. In their eagerness to drive the bandwagon, they haven't checked for its integrity. I would suggest cooling down, waiting for the facts or even reconciling oneself to the idea that the facts may never be known, instead of a starting a new Christmas Persecution.

Not that that's going to happen.

What's next for Khazei?

2009-12-10T09:41:00.000-08:00

Well, Tuesday came and went, surprising nobody who could read a poll. With a strong start, Coakley never looked back, had a tightly controlled campaign and cruised to the win for the Democratic Senate nomination by almost 20 points over a strong field. Although I supported Capuano, I've no doubt that Coakley would make an excellent Senator -- heck, it wasn't too long ago that I wanted her to run for governor.

Capuano will remain in the House, where he'll continue to be an unapologetic voice for liberalism, shouting into the wind of Republicans, and at times Democrats. It's kind of a win-win.

Pagliuca can just go back to doing whatever the idle rich do. Hopefully Rondo's jumper keeps improving.

I'm most interested in Alan Khazei's future. I won't hide that I found him rather under-qualified for the Senate job. At the same time, he did show a willingness to go through the painful campaign process, and eventually tamed his instinct to look down upon everyone else. He has many supporters, and with some more campaign seasoning, I think Khazei could have a great impact on the political life of this state. Although one has to take it with a grain of salt a week after the election, Khazei seems open to the idea, recently saying:

Would I rule out a future in politics? No. I was honored by it and I think I learned a lot.

Fortunately, opportunities abound. The attorney general is resigning to run for senate, DeNucci will not run for re-election as auditor, Tim Cahill will leave as treasurer to run for governor, and rumors abound that Bill Galvin is quitting his post as secretary in order to run for Attorney General. This is a real logjam-break in the Bay State, opening up four elected offices for the first time in years...

Of those four offices, I think Khazei would be a particularly good fit in the post of Secretary. "Big Citizenship" seemed to be about involvement with the community, and political engagement is a focus of that job. He's got the right, strong instincts to push for maximal involvement in the process, starting with voting and moving beyond. Khazei certainly doesn't strike me as a numbers guy, and doesn't have the legal experience for AG. (Plus, we already have a good candidate in Steve Grossman for the treasurer's post.) I strongly hope that upon reflection, Khazei announces a run for the slot of secretary, giving Bill Galvin a primary if necessary.

All that said... there have been many progressives who enter a high-profile primary, lose, and then disappear. It's frankly quite disappointing, especially given that it's a common dictum that one has to run twice in politics to run once. I hope Khazei doesn't join that list of progressives in Massachusetts who run in a glamorous primary, only to abandon the process (and their apparent commitment to it) after losing once. He seems like too sincere a guy to do that. If Khazei runs in 2010 my vote will be his to lose. If he doesn't, it will just confirm my less positive suspicions that kept my vote from him in the first place.

Western Iowa loves the Falcons, and other thoughts...

2009-12-05T17:42:00.000-08:00

At times when I'm really, really bored, I head over to Awful Announcing, a great blog on sports media, and stare at the broadcast maps, and ask pointless questions. These are maps that show which NFL games are broadcast by a particular network at a particular time...and they lead to strange thoughts. I'll borrow one to demonstrate:

RED: Washington Redskins @ Philadelphia Eagles (FOX, 1pm)
BLUE: Tampa Bay Bucs @ Atlanta Falcons (FOX, 1pm)
GREEN: Carolina Panthers @ NY Jets (FOX, 1pm)
YELLOW: Seattle Seahawks @ St. Louis Rams (FOX, 1pm)

Most of this makes sense...each team's metro area sees their game. There's a top-line match-up for most uninvolved media markets. This particular Sunday afternoon, it was Washington-Philadelphia.

But it's the weird little parts that confuse me. Why is a small chunk of New York prevented from seeing the Jets? Blackout rules can't really apply . Does Western Iowa really love the Falcons or Bucs that much, or is a local on one of the teams? Is there a knot of enthusiastic Panthers fans in Louisiana? Why can't Miami watch their division rivals, the Jets?

I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons for all these strange little oddities. I just have no idea what they are.

Globe staff has fun?

2009-12-03T15:59:00.001-08:00

I am given to understand that some of the greatest fun that can be had by newspaper staffers is the juxtaposition of different items for humor's sake. Unlike those in the rarified air of opinion-making, these folks carry out subtle digs for the benefit of alert readers.

Hence I wonder if it's a coincidence that we see this article in today's Globe:

It looks as if five questions will be on next year’s statewide ballot in Massachusetts...a third would lift the cap on the number of charter schools from its current 120.

About two inches away from that article comes this:

A Springfield charter school placed under investigation by state education officials after its test scores spiked dramatically is now being run by a convicted felon....Swan pleaded guilty in 2007 to a $900,000 bid-rigging scheme at the Southwest Community Health Center where he was director. He was sentenced to two years of probation, including a year of house arrest.

On the other hand, an expert in bid-fixing is completely at home in Paul Reville's world of education.

I could go much more in-depth about this on the utter lack of democratic control or accountability for charter schools, but I'm just not in that kind of mood today. But I can't stop wondering how aggressively charter schools sought signatures from students' families on their ballot question -- using school resources for such politicking is par for the course for these non-public institutions.

However, I would refer you to this piece about changing school start times, something I brought up earlier in my occasional series on cheap and easy ways to improve public education.

Mike Capuano: A Sure Bet, A Liberal Lion

2009-12-02T15:11:00.000-08:00

The primary of the decade shook out to an embarrassment of riches before us in Massachusetts: three unabashed liberals are running for the Senate. Attorney General Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei, and Congressman Mike Capuano are united in holding mature, articulated liberal policies and a record of public involvement. Democrats in many states would love to have any one of these as a serious candidate for a Senate seat. In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of knowing that two of them will continue to live out their values in creating policy as public officials, and the hope that the third will join them. This wonderful choice has led to indecision -- how to pick between so many great choices? Many well-informed voters still shift between these choices because they're so good.

I can only speak for myself. I'm the type of guy who, on "Let's Make A Deal", will take the luxury automobile on offer, rather than the off chance that there may be two luxury automobiles behind curtain number two. I like a sure bet. I'll gamble when I must, and I'll pick the most likely of two unsure bets. I was willing when I supported Ed O'Reilly over John Kerry. But this time, I don't have to gamble. I'll have a sure thing on the ballot next Tuesday. A lock.

If there is a sure bet in politics, it's that Mike Capuano will stand up for liberal, progressive values. Why is this a sure bet? Because he already has, even when such a stand stood to cost him. Capuano stood for civil liberties against a full-court bullying for the Patriot Act. A hysterical media and Beltway screamed that the Constitution had to be shredded and anyone who disagreed was not really American. Capuano stood for smart and successful public education against a full-court bullying for the No Child Left Behind Act. A President Bush desperate for a domestic policy achievement threw the kitchen sink at it and anyone who disagreed hated children. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for a wise foreign policy against a full-court bullying for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We were told to trust the president and anyone who disagreed loved terrorists. Capuano stood for our values.

Capuano was the rare leader who lifted the flame of liberalism when the media and the GOP wielded an extinguisher and most Democrats dove for the shadows. He stood for Democratic values when so few would. Capuano didn't do this at dinner parties or private conversations away from sight, but in the unblinking eye of the media. Over this campaign, Capuano hasn't had to explain what he woulda done...he merely has to point to what he did. He's a sure bet.

Capuano roared loud for the beliefs of Massachusetts progressives in the bleakest times. He still does. As did Ted Kennedy, Capuano is immovable for what is right, unbending on what is wise, and forthright -- too forthright for Lieberman delicates -- for the values we have as Democrats.

A liberal vote in the Senate? We have three decent choices. But another liberal lion in the Senate? Mike Capuano's a sure bet.

Capuano is a liberal lion. He has earned the lion's seat.

Boston Globe endorses Charter Schools, hope

2009-11-29T10:14:00.000-08:00

The Boston Globe today continued its practice of endorsing any Democrat running for charter schools. In 2006, they went for Deval Patrick in the primary, a man who never attended a public school in Massachusetts outside of photo ops. In 2008 it was Barack Obama, a man whose "Race to the Top" program seeks to avoid other branches of government, or respect of federalism, in its efforts to push the privatization of education. And today it was Alan "Who?" Khazei, who hopes to leverage this endorsement into a stunning jump into third place next Tuesday.

There are two significant commonalities to Deval, Obama, and Khazei: they speak in generic terms of hope and good intention, and they advocate the privatization and union-busting of education through the lever of charter schools. Of course, the insanely rich people running the Globe into the ground have their own problems with unions, and they know a fellow-traveler when they see one:

Khazei speaks admiringly of streetwise education reformers who, having seen challenging conditions in urban classrooms, dreamed up such innovations as charter schools and Teach for America.

Take it from this massive corporation -- those unions get in the way of "streetwise reforms" such as pay cuts, curtailing benefits, unilateral policy changes, and arbitrary firings. Heck, invading a country on no real provocation was a "streetwise foreign policy reform", too. The Globe's liberal use of magic words doesn't strengthen their argument. Then again, as I've noted before, the Globe's grasp of public education is alarmingly tenuous. When the editorial board writes about its "high hopes" for Khazei, I think it's clear what they're hoping for.

The War by Christmas

2009-11-28T12:27:00.000-08:00

It was an unnecessary war declared quite some time ago without a clear exit strategy, where the tide is running against conservative dreams, yet it is still cheered on by Fox News and their friends despite all evidence. Iraq? No, the War by Christmas.

That's not a typo, and it is something that needs clarification up front...we don't have a case of a recently declared "war on Christmas" in America that seeks to victimize delicate Christians, but rather a new phase in a centuries-long war declared and conducted by Christmas. The war was begun by Christmas, and I see no reason to ease up now that the aggressors are seeing the tide reverse. From now on, I will refer to this conflict by the historically accurate name "War by Christmas" and encourage you to do the same.

You likely know the full story. The most primitive of humans knew that life was warmer, better, more comfortable with more time with that bright thing in the sky. The two greatest miracles of their world were childbirth and the sun, so no small wonder that almost every culture assigned an Earth-mother and a Sun-god. However, on a yearly basis the sun seemed to be moving away, and weakening. Their god was dying. And every year, somehow, at the point of death, the Sun-god returned and grew again in strength.

We call it an astronomical event, the winter solstice. They turned it into a seminal religious feast. This near-dodge with the end of the world was a solemn annual moment, and inspired a wide range of rituals that would occur in late December. The Incans tied a celestial rope to the sun lest it stray too far away. The Kalash of Hindu Kush still offer dances and praise. Egyptians honored Aset. European pagans and their early Roman neighbors celebrated Saturnalia in late December. Most Romans marked the feast of Natalis Sol Invictus -- the Birth of Mithras, the Unconquered Sun -- on December 25th. Mithras became known to the Roman in the second century BC as a sun-god of Persian background who was born of a virgin mother, and would later die and resurrect in order to offer salvation to all. (Mithraism was as fundamental to the final shape of Christianity as Judaism. It is as accurate to say that Paul and Luke set out to spread Christianity to Mithraists as it is to say they were targeting Gentiles.)

Then the Christians came. Insofar as we can trust the Christian Bible with the label of "history", we are told that Jesus' birth occurred as "shepherds were outside, keeping watch over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:8). Shepherds only lived outside with their flocks while the sheep might be birthing -- something that only happened in springtime.

However, by the early 3rd century, the Christian church moved the feast of Jesus' birth lock, stock, and barrel to December 25th. A few days from the winter solstice and the exact day of the birth of Mithras. When exactly this occurred, we don't know, as the Catholic Church has a long history of keeping inadequate and questionable records on things like historical developments, treasury, and personnel shufflings. So when Emperor Constantine decided to use the Roman army to force Christianity on all, the die was cast. Christmas had declared war on all comers. Several centuries later, it is losing the war it began.

So don't give me this "War on Christmas" BS. About 1,700 years ago, Christmas declared a war in which it is experiencing a reverse. So Fox "News", the AFA, and the rest of you morons, stop complaining.

"He lurched from crisis to crisis"

2009-11-25T11:53:00.000-08:00

Sounds exactly like the type of guy you want to give a second chance to run your country:

Former Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme has been nominated to take office for a second time...His Flemish Christian Democrats, though decisive winners in the election, struggled to form a coalition for the first nine months...The government which finally took office in March 2008 lurched from crisis to crisis. It became bogged down in arguments over how to devolve more powers to Belgium's regions.

I'll call it even money that he's gone by Easter, and Belgium starts over. The place is really getting reminiscent of post-war Italy -- new governments on a yearly basis, the newest one headed by someone previously judged as unfit for office.

(Background on this)

Speaking of odd selections for high-profile jobs, Muammar Gaddafi has been tipped as a regional mediator in the wake of spectacular rioting over soccer...

Algeria qualified for the World Cup by beating Egypt 1-0 in the play-off held in Sudan on 18 November...but Egyptians were incensed by reports that 21 of their fans had been attacked as they left the stadium in Khartoum. At an earlier game between the two sides in Cairo, Algerian players were hurt by stone-throwing Egyptian fans and 32 supporters from both sides were injured in clashes when the match finished.

Happy thanksgiving (with recipe)

2009-11-25T07:47:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is one of the reasons November is my favorite month. The food, the family, the camraderie, the laughter...it's a wonderful holiday. An unspoiled warm moment in life, and I hope everyone has a good one.

For those in a last-second bind, below is one of my favorite recipes of all time:
Apple Pecan Stuffing

1/3 cup Butter, divided	1/8 tsp Ground sage
2/3 cup Diced onion	1/8 tsp Ground marjoram
2/3 cup Diced celery	1/8 tsp Ground thyme
3 cup Diced apples	1/2 tsp Dried parsley flakes
3 cup Day-old bread	1/2 cup Chopped pecans
1 tsp Salt	1/2 cup Water
1/2 tsp Black pepper

1. Melt 1/4 cup butter into skillet
2. Add onion and celery. Cook until tender.
3. Add to bread.
4. Melt remaining butter in skillet.
5. Stir in apples.
6. Cook until golden.
7. Add apples to bread mixture.
8. Mix in salt, pepper, sage, marjoram, thyme, parsley, and pecans.
9. Add water and mix thoroughly.

Makes enough for a ten pound turkey.

Kerry pushes feds to provide lethal "medicine"

2009-11-24T17:01:00.000-08:00

Picked up in many places this month (and today on Daily Kos) is the surprising and decidedly un-liberal maneuver John Kerry is doing relative to the health care reform proposal. Members of the Boston-based Church of Christ, Scientist refuse medical care in favor of prayer, a practice that is described in the Washington Post:

Prue Lewis listens as they explain their symptoms... Then Lewis -- a thin, frail-looking woman from Columbia Heights -- simply says, "I'll go to work right away." She hangs up, organizes her thoughts and begins treating her clients' ailments the best way she knows how: She prays....Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.

Front and center in the effort to purloin public money for this religious practice is Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Approving this destructive practice in government health care is a ridiculous divergence from best practices. I gather that the public option would be funded by Americans who choose to enroll, thus dodging any real church and state separation concerns. Of much greater concern is that many Christian Scientists have been criminally charged for allowing family members to die of curable diseases this way (a couple was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts in 1993). The last thing we need is the federal government implicitly improving such a lethal practice.

I just can't understand why Kerry would want to promote a religious practice that has had the practical effect of killing innocents. Along with Orrin Hatch and the late Ted Kennedy, Kerry made sure this provision made it into the Senate version of the bill. Though the church is based in the Senator's (and my) state, his obligation is to all citizens of the Commonwealth, and the country. This isn't just the church-state question as UniversalHub flags it. Much worse is the idea of a pseudo-liberal Senator pushing the government to provide, promote, and support a practice that results in the deaths of innocents -- the exact opposite of what health care reform is supposed to do. And the opposite of the kind of clear thinking that John Kerry was elected to exercise.

Storm clouds on the horizon in Brussels...

2009-11-19T15:35:00.000-08:00

The European Union's mandarins completed the process of shoving through some forced integration in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, just ratified by all member states. One high-profile change is the creation of a post of "President of Europe" and its first officeholder will be current Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy. Which leaves an opening for the job of the most thankless and difficult head of government post in the developed world.

I have a fascination for Belgian politics which has been reflected on this blog. I wrote a briefer two years ago on Belgian politics, which were remarkable at the time for going an astounding 168 days between an election and the formation of a government. In capsule form, Belgium consists of two linguistic groups, one Flemish and one Francophone, that are not only separate nations, but have created a Belgian system of government that reserves almost all powers to those separate nations. Thus, finding a head of government who can satisfy both sides is near impossible. In 2007, Yves Laterme was tapped to be such a person, and despite an early wobble, lasted over a year until brought down by a banking scandal. His successor Herman von Rompuy endured through a relatively quiet period until this promotion.

While beaming with pride at their prime minister's promotion, some Belgians are already asking...what next? Prime Ministerial tenure is averaging a Bolivian 11 months recently, and decent candidates seem to be running short. The list is so thin that the most likely replacement is...Yves Leterme. The guy kicked out for pushing judges to rule in a certain direction on a major financial bankruptcy.

We'll close with an original piece by new European President Herman van Rompuy, famed for his haiku:
Hair blows in the wind
After years there is still wind
Sadly no more hair

Interesting People: Eric Gairy

2009-11-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

It's been nearly a year since I devoted an entry into my annals of "interesting people", a series focused on persons who stood out during their moment of history, but have largely been forgotten. Shame on me. Today's subject, Sir Eric Gairy. Sir Gairy was a firm and enthusiastic backer of the notion that extraterrestrials were conducting repeated visits to Earth, and that he should do everything in his power to spread this news and make the aliens welcome.

What differentiated Sir Gairy from your typical believer was that "everything in his power" was actually quite a lot, considering that Gairy was a head of government at the time. Oh, and there's an interesting bit about a beauty pageant in here, too.

Gairy was a schoolteacher and labor leader in the British colony of Grenada, calling a general strike to successfully pressure the United Kingdom for independence. But as with so many leaders against colonialism, Gairy's worthiness as a revolutionary strongly outpaced his worthiness as a head of government. Gairy became Prime Minister in 1967, and in true tinpot dictator fashion quickly built his own private army (the Mongoose Gang) within three years. Protesters were attacked, arrested, and killed. He received "advice" from Augusto Pinochet on surpressing his population, while the Grenadan opposition linked up with Fidel Castro. Two years later, he fled to the United States. Gairy would return to Grenada after the American invasion, but would lead a largely unremarkable life until his death. But it was the end of his rule that stands out...

I think it is accepted that these things do exist. I think we now want to know the nature, the origin and the intent of these saucers. Some people think they have come to do good. Some think they have come to dominate human beings.

--Prime Minister Eric Gairy's address to the United Nations

Gairy wasn't speaking academically, it seems. He believed that he'd seen UFOs twice in three years. Amid efforts to build suitable landing facilities for these extraterrestrials in his home country, Gairy spearheaded an effort to bring this urgent concern to the governments of the world. His precarious grasp of reality likely wasn't helped by conversing with a receptive audience in American president Jimmy Carter, who reported having seen a UFO himself. A natural consequence of an amiable chat between these two would be United Nations meetings on this topic. That meeting was chaired by Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, a man who was, er, willing to believe in extra-terrestrials himself. Several heads of government gathered in New York City to seriously grapple with the question of alien visits to Earth. In a minor way, Gairy's fascination with UFOs would be his undoing -- it was en route to this UFO summit with Waldheim that Gairy learned that he'd been disposed as leader of Grenada.

Before he left, though, Gairy got a nice perk of leadership: he was a judge during the 1970 Miss World pageant. And lo and behold, Miss Grenada walked away with the title. Some cynical commentators were suspicious of the coincidence, particularly as Miss Sweden had won first-place votes from four of the nine judges. Such math is hard to beat, but if one rates a contestant at the very end of the scale consistently, one suspects it can only help.

The world has a long history of kelptocrats. But UFO-believing dictators who liekly played a role in fixing a beauty pageant? That...that is something special.

Something you won't see in the Globe...

2009-11-15T11:21:00.000-08:00

It turns out that when you get layers of bureaucrats out of the way, and you get out from underneath the privatizers and sloganeers in the Governor's Office, you can get some good education done. Though still a work in progress, a Boston school actually run by teachers is proving to be successful, according to one skeptical parent.

As a pilot school, the BTU school is still part of Boston Public Schools, but it has more freedom when it comes to curriculum and budget matters. Among the biggest differences between the Union school (as I saw it referred to in school literature) and standard BPS schools:

Instead of principals, they have co-lead teachers. These teachers will probably teach about one period a day and spent the rest of their time on administrative tasks.
All students have Spanish three times a week.
Students also have music every day.
Science and social studies are integrated into the curriculum, rather than having special teachers assigned to those subjects. History lessons start at the K1 level. I feel like social studies and science often get left behind in this age of testing.
Although school had only been in session for nine weeks, there were many student projects hanging in the hallways.
Several classes have already been on field trips to the arboretum and Spectacle Island.

I'll admit to concern over the new practice of having teachers moonlight in science or social studies, as if those subjects require less specialized knowledge and training than math, ELA, or music. I've witnessed this in action a few times, and it never works out well for the students.

Pilot schools are the way to go...frankly, one thing our public education system needs is more diversity, moving away from the academic pipeline model...many more pilots, vocational, aggie, and especially magnet schools. This is a good first step.

Of course, you'll never see anything positive about teachers or public education in the Globe, which came out powerfully in favor of two unfunded mandates from schools. If these mandates pass and schools prove unable to do more with less, I'm sure the Globe will reiterate how evil all unions are.

Two years

2009-11-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

Almost 500 posts later, it's been two years.

Thanks for the reads everybody.

Wanted: Outsider for State Auditor

2009-11-14T11:31:00.001-08:00

Fed up with the Democrats running Beacon Hill? Want to keep Democratic values alive while working for the citizens and not the hacks?

Do you really mean it?

If so, you're in luck. Let's face it, Massachusetts has not been hurting for office-seekers who proclaim that a small cabal of Democrats ("hacks") is running the government in the wrong direction. Some of these folks are Republicans running against Democrats (and into a brick wall), but many others are Democrats running in a primary against other Democrats. Sadly, we've seen many such good Democrats run for a high-profile position in a primary, just to lose and exit elected politics. It's hard to start at the top in any field, and our state would be better off if some of these candidates pivoted into a state legislature race for a second shot. Or even better, ran for state auditor.

Because several years after accepting the role of "highest-ranking warm body in state government", Joe DeNucci is retiring.

Call me crazy, but if the Big Dig is allowed to go as wrong as it did, whoever was State Auditor was not doing his job. Other than repeating the same 80s-era tv ad showing DeNucci at a desk the two weeks previous to every election, I'm not sure DeNucci had any real impact on the state. So this is a chance to break up that insider cabal on Beacon Hill.

A chance that several people in the past have claimed they're awaiting. In a one-party state such as Massachusetts, if there is any position that cries out for an "outsider" it's the auditor, but so far all I hear are the same old insider names. Often people I respect, but neck-deep in Beacon Hill dealings already. If there's one place where an "outsider Democrat" would be a plus, rather than code for "hoping to learn on the job", it's state auditor.

Frankly, I'd love to see the Democrats who have run against disappointing incumbents and insiders in previous campaigns (John Dunkelbarger, Alan Khazei, John Bonifaz, or Ed O'Reilly) take a shot at this race. It's not as glorious as going to Washington, DC, but if any of these gentlemen were serious about trying to bring change to the Democratic Party, they should take a close look at this race. This is a real chance to change how business is done in Massachusetts. Of course, the downside is that this is a race that's actually winnable, so the day may well come when the outsider has to back up their words with actions.

Let's see what these four were made of -- serious about changing politics for Bay Staters? Run for auditor.

On the lighter side...

2009-11-12T14:00:00.001-08:00

...there's been a lot of heavy stuff out there on the Senate race, health care, and education lately, so I need to ease off the gas.

So today's topic -- what do you see as the catchiest songs in the world? These are songs that burrow into your mind right before you turn off the car or mp3 player, and spool over and over again through your head. Some are pleasures, whereas others just will not go away. It's not just you and me, by the way...there's actual science behind this phenomenon and you can even get some university intervention.

I bring this up because I discovered a recent ditty Robbie Williams last week, a piece of fluff really, that won't go away. I have played it into the ground, and still it plays in my mind. It's called "Do You Mind?" and it's superficial and catchy as heck -- press the play button below if you dare...

There are others that just won't go away, love 'em or hate 'em. Here are some of the earworms to which I'm most vulnerable:

"You Belong with Me" by Taylor Swift (embarrassing, that one)
"Shoop" by Salt-n-Pepa
"Santa Claus is Coming to Town"
"Theme to 'Indiana Jones'"
"Sensualité" by Axelle Red
"Get Off My Cloud" by The Rolling Stones
"Hey Jude" by The Beatles
"All That Jazz"
"Raspberry Beret" by Prince
"Narhwals" by the Weebl

What about you?

A process, not a product

2009-11-12T07:08:00.000-08:00

Remember back in the dark days of the Bush presidency, when most progressives would have given anything to make a public health-care regime happen? Yeah, now that we're there, the tune has changed. With an initial bill -- not even near final bill status -- to read, people are hitting the brakes. People I admire (the indefatigable Deb Butler, and Martha Coakley) are finding this or that provision that is disagreeable in the bill, and declaring that the whole thing should be shot down. Perhaps we'll do better next time we try, which would probably be around 2027 or so...

Go ahead and knife the current effort if you want, but if this bill is killed don't expect anyone to try again for a while. Obama has expended gigantic amounts of political capital on this and needs to build some up. Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are some of the sharpest vote-counters since LBJ. The ombre of Ted Kennedy still hangs over Congress. In the wake of a failed attempt at reform, there'll be many more Republicans in Congress come 2011. Right now is the moment -- if we don't take it, it will not return probably for a generation.

Health care reform is a process, not a product. Canada passed its current health care regime into law in 1984, and they still tinker with it almost weekly. The CBC has mountains of reports of health care improvements, studies, and reports. Canada's system is a work in progress, and so would our system be. Don't doubt that in two years, before the health care system is actually implemented, that Stupak would be lasered out of the system by a smart bill weaving through a pro-choice Congress. Don't be surprised that in four years defects will appear in the system that will need shoring up.

It's a work in progress, if we get there. But first we need something to work on, and that "something" is this bill. Because righteous indignation ain't gonna take care of your cancer when you can't afford a doctor; this bill will.

Scot LeHigh tries other fields

2009-11-11T11:28:00.000-08:00

After reading Scot's evident confusion over the legislative process, where voting to push a bill on isn't the same as voting for the final bill, I wonder how things would go if LeHigh had to analyze other fields. This what Scot said about Capuano's vote:

Oh my. For Capuano’s sake, let’s hope the congressional health plan offers coverage for candidates who become so dizzy from turning political somersaults that they suffer self-inflicted injuries to the foot.

Of course, Capuano's position hasn't changed -- he's pushing for health care reform, even if that means changing the button he pushes on his voting thingy at different stages of the process. Something apparently too complex for LeHigh to understand.

So let's ask Scot about football:

Oh my. Belicheck keeps changing his mind about Tom Brady. In one drive alone, he flip-flopped three times! Brady threw the ball...then he didn't. Then he did again. How is any football fan to have confidence in Belicheck if Belicheck can't decide whether Tom Brady should throw the ball??

Scot on the stock market:

Oh my. My stockbroker sure seems to be dizzy. Just three months ago, he told me to buy a stock. A month ago he said to "hold" it. Now today he wants me to sell. I've learned a lot about my stockbroker this season...and it's not good.

Scot on medicine:

Oh my. My doctor sure is out to lunch. I went to see him yesterday and received a flu vaccine. Yesterday, the vaccine was a good thing. So I saw him this morning for another shot, and he said no! Aren't vaccines a good thing? That flip-flopper in a lab coat better not turn me down tomorrow...

Scot on being a pedestrian*

Oh my. The guy walking down Beacon Street in front of me is making me dizzy. For the last two blocks, when he's gotten to the curb, he's kept walking. Suddenly, on this key issue, this key block -- he stops! This idiot better get out of my way, because consistency is what counts no matter the situation, and I'm crossing the street right now no matter what this guy thinks...

*Granted, there's likely no better word to describe LeHigh's writing as pedestrian...

Thanks

2009-11-11T06:43:00.000-08:00

All gave some, some gave all. Happy Veterans' Day everyone, and gratitude to all who serve and have served...

Coakley on "kill the bill" side

2009-11-10T15:23:00.000-08:00

Martha Coakley does deserve credit, I suppose. Rather than run a play-it-safe campaign typical of a front-runners, I have to agree with Massachusetts Liberal that Coakley certainly embraced risk by saying she'd have voted against the health care reform bill. Her vote isn't against health care reform, but rather the Stupak Amendment that would prohibit funding of abortion as part of this system:

Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.

She explained her judgment that

Fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill.

The Stupak Amendment wouldn't end access to abortions, though it would probably narrow it. Abortion providers (such as Planned Parenthood facilities) could still offer the procedure in private practice under the Stupak-ed reform. Given that many Midwestern states count less than half a dozen abortion providers, that practice is already under threat. The end result would be fewer, and less accessible abortion providers.

Meanwhile, the bill which it amended would open access to health care to an unprecedented extent in American history. It would slide through a narrow, historic, window of political opportunity -- a Democratic President and Congress spending massive political capital to enact an idea that is standard practice in the industrialized world and was first proposed in this country in 1912. Millions of people would have the access to prevetitive and theraputic care they need.

Let's be clear about this -- a no vote on this health care package in the House would have killed health care reform for another generation. Bill Clinton didn't even get that far and it was 16 years before someone took a kick at the can. Voters who elected Democrats to make it happen would be disillusioned, and the next window of opportunity would likely be in the far future. Instead, Coakley would sacrifice it in the name of abortion access at the same vote when battle-hardened Democratic women such as Maxine Waters kept the push on. I suppose in Coakley's ideal world she could stand on these principles while hard-charging activists for women's rights fold in the name of progress.

I could almost understand Coakley's statement were this the final vote on the bill. But with health care reform still to go through the Senate and conference (where the Stupak Amendment is likely to die) it is a bit early to finish off the bill. Again, this is the furthest that a public health care regime has ever gotten, and I'm amazed that Coakley would be ready to kill it so far from the finish line. It's like giving up on a losing football game at halftime, and refusing to retake the field.

Update: Mike Capuano is showing his experience in Congress by refusing to announce how he'll vote on the final bill...possibly because the final bill doesn't exist yet. Capuano, unlike Coakley, did what he could and what he had to do in order to advance health care to the next -- not final -- stage. For this high-stakes high-wire act, promises are best made by those uninterested or powerless over the consequences. With Capuano, the fight for health care lives another day. With too many like Coakley, it would be dead.

PS: At the end of the day, I think it comes down to not just what is more important (better access to abortion, or any access to health care for millions) but what is more likely (a pro-choice Congress and president building abortion provision into the system post facto, or getting a second go at heath care this decade).

With sunglasses like these....

2009-11-10T13:23:00.001-08:00

CNN (of the NY Post-style website redesign) was having some fun at Mike Huckabee's expense...

That's the full, unedited caption. Irony abounds. In any case, Huckabee may be a huckster, but he ain't presidential. However, I still maintain that he may be related to Kevin ~~Kline~~ Spacey...

Easy Ed Reform II: Change the schedule

2009-11-09T13:45:00.000-08:00

Neurological research -- sometimes called "brain-based" learning -- by a phalanx of researchers than includes Lynne Lamberg (published in the AMA), Kyla Wahlstrom, and Nancy Kalish, no slouch on research herself, referencing successful cases in Minnesota and Kentucky among others all the say the same thing: high schools should start later.

So naturally most suburban schools start at or before 7:30am. Students arrive on less sleep than they require, unready to do what they have come to school to do.

Want to raise your district's test scores, and/or ensure your students learn more? Bump up your high school schedule by ninety minutes. That simple. You may have to re-schedule football practice, and adjust bus routes, but isn't learning the whole point of high school? There is the puzzle of start times for other schools, but as Dr. Mahowald notes, elementary students need less sleep, and simply flopping the starting times for secondary and elementary education can accomplish this task, to the benefit of all.

(Note to Commonwealth magazine: feel free to follow my example of quoting the juried, published work of modern academic researchers to back up assertions. May come in handy next time somebody there is assigned to write a hit-piece on education and is reduced to pulling assertion out of thin air -- provided you can find any decent research to back up the attack du mois.)

Reville's Weak Tea

2009-11-08T10:39:00.001-08:00

Today in Gloucester, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (whose membership is explicitly denied to teachers) met to consider, or re-consider, a charter school application. This application had been found significantly in need of revision. The application was approved anyway, and not long after that an email from Secretary of Education Paul Reville came out saying in part:

Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we'll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I'd rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can't find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I'm not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester.

From Gloucester to Boston to all points in the Commonwealth, this email was read to indicate that Reville had pushed for this charter for the benefit of Deval Patrick's position re political opinion leaders. Unsurprisingly, this subject came up again at the Board meeting today, and this was Reville's explanation for his remarks:

He said the e-mail was “one piece of a lengthy conversation’’ that education officials had while discussing applications for charter schools proposed for Gloucester, Waltham and Worcester, his hometown...He added that the e-mail was part of the “process of deliberations. We all get advice from staff on a variety of issues.’’

I don't doubt all of this is true. I don't doubt that there was a long conversation which prompted this statement -- and I have trouble imagining that conversation to be about anything other than Governor Patrick's political fortunes. The opinion of the Boston Globe is at best orthogonal to choosing which policy outcomes will benefit students. No, this advice and conversation was political. And Reville says nothing at all to change that consideration -- he refuses to say what type of advice he was seeking to elicit this reaction, or what wider subject was under deliberation. Heck, a criminal could say that a recent bank robbery was part of his more general retirement plan...that doesn't make it acceptable.

Given a significant amount of time Reville had to prepare some sort of defense for these egregious actions, he offers something short of satisfying. While getting points for a reluctance to outright lie, Reville clearly cannot bother to find some way to make this statement at all appropriate to a Secretary of Education.

This tells me that A-Reville knows there is no good defense for what he did, and B-Deval Patrick doesn't care, and will keep him on regardless.

CW's latest steaming pile, Part Two

2009-11-07T13:05:00.000-08:00

Using a mix of obsolete data, self-refuting pull quotes, and unsupported assertions, Commonwealth is continuing to pound away with their latest assault on public education and decent writing. I've already taken apart the first half of this army of words in search of coherence, today I finish.

I'll be honest enough to say that the easy pickings were in the beginning. In the second half of his article, Michael Jonas takes the tack of building up a small organization whose conclusion match those of Commonwealth magazine in an attempt to pretend that some people with experience inside modern public education agree with their agenda. Of course, the description of this group is an artful mix of opinion, fact, and unanswered questions that creates an impression that doesn't stand up to reflection.

This group, Teach Plus, has an admirable goal -- trying to figure out what makes good teachers good and bad teachers bad, and apply those differences, called "best practices" in a wider forum. However, the details of the story is where it all goes awry...

Rather than examine scholarship or research for an effort, Mr. Jonas chooses to focus on a group named Teach Plus. Teach Plus is a small group of teachers hand-picked by its founder. This group, whose selection criteria is unknown beyond, is closed to any teachers with more than ten years' experience, duplicated an approach used pretty much nowhere else. The group met once a month for a year and a half, during which unnamed leaders and experts met with them, and then Teach Plus announced its recommendations.

I'm sure you won't be shocked of the decisions of this group closely match Commonwealth's priorities. Why else would so much ink be spent on building them up, while avoiding the fact that it sounds like nothing more than a self-declared reformer meeting with people she likes. Anyway, their plan is:

Identify effective teachers using rigorous evaluation criteria, which could include student achievement data among other factors. These teachers would be designated as members of an Excellence Corps. Based on a belief in the “tipping point” concept that a critical mass of effective teachers is needed to drive a change in the culture of a struggling school, the proposal calls for Excellence Corps teachers to make up no less than one-third of the teaching staff at a school.

Wow...there must be a lot excellence if you can gather than much in so many places. If one third of the future staffs of urban schools are "excellent", then we're either screwing over non-urban schools, or there is some serious grade inflation is going on (apparently bad from teachers, good for teachers. Mind you, several paragraphs ago we were instructed to be aghast at how positive teacher evaluations can be.)

This idea demonstrates the ignorance of calcified conservatism as embodied by CW. At this point, anybody who has put real time into education has seen repeated goals, drives, and initiatives stymied by administration. Not that I really blame them -- they are locked into required test scores, required scheduling parameters that lock students into test-taking classes, and budget restrictions that pare away any money that doesn't translate into MCAS scores. The regime is set up to take most good choices from administration, even if one-third of the staff supports such choices.

Changing the name given to the people whose ideas will be shot down by administration because of the current education regime isn't going to change that. So why recommend such a solution?

Well...

To recognize their demonstrated success with urban students, such teachers would receive a base salary increase of 10 percent — with other staff at the school eligible for bonuses if they meet individual improvement goals and the building meets schoolwide achievement goals that would be established.

Utterly predictable.

A "rigorous" but nebulous method of evaluation, linked to test scores, will grant some teachers higher salary. Probably the most hilarious part of this is the contention that all needs to be done is to cut pay for some teachers to find money to raise salaries for others.

Something conservatives never really get is that teachers don't much factor in money to choose where they teach. After a couple years, the costs to moving districts -- learning new policies, often a new curriculum, a new culture, new administration -- dwarf whatever monetary benefits there are. Teachers also teach for the satisfaction of watching students learn, and that exists independent of salary. A community that does not value education and sets up myriad barriers to good teaching can raise salaries 10, 20, 25%, and will still have trouble filling vacancies. A positive community and school culture is worth thousands of dollars to teachers, particularly the "right teachers" that conservatives think are out there for the taking. Furthermore, opportunities in the district for supplemental income such as summer/afterschool work is often based on specialize training that is only available by virtue of...working in those fields. Thus, there is a government (not union) directed emphasis on seniority that makes up for the monetary benefits of that 10% pay raise.

What this proposal does offer is a way to destroy educators' solidarity by creating two classes of teachers. Furthermore, setting them in frequent competition with one another is a great way to destroy a positive building culture -- if only one teacher in my department is going to get a 10% raise next year, I have every economic incentive to keep my best ideas to myself. Again, most teachers in my experience don't act as greedily as CW's writers have convinced themselves, but it's still a poisonous idea set to introduce.

I wonder if CW's authors are paid by the number of hits their articles generate.

I will give credit to CW for briefly offering a solution (though one bound for failure for reasons I just mentioned, one self-conflicted pull-quote from a single teacher notwithstanding) before going back to its usual whining. CW approvingly mentions the RI Secretary of Education who had declared his policy decisions to be "above the law" (I guess when he does it, it's not illegal).

We wrap up with praise for Arne Duncan's effort to override the Constitution through the spending power, and a careful editing out of George W Bush's role in driving No Child Left Behind. And that's it.

I'll be back later this week with more simple solutions to education concerns, but I thought it worthwhile to examine what happens when agenda-driven amateurs try to sound serious about education. And whatever it is that Mr. Jonas sought by writing such an evidently poor article, I hope he received it.

Where does your collection dollar go?

2009-11-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

If you are a Catholic living in Maine, the Most Hateful New England state, you may want to ask yourself where your collection money goes.

I went to a Catholic High School, and grew up with Roman Catholics all around me, so it's not a question I ask lightly. Catholic Charities is the largest non-government charity in the state. St Vincent de Paul does a lot of good work, and so do individual parishes. For that reason, I always thought that it made sense to throw some cash on the collection plate when attending a Catholic mass of some sort.

Well at least $378,000 went to defeat equality in Maine. Much of that came from out of state. NPR tags the price tag of hate at a half-million in cash from Catholics who were hoping to do good. Rather than take any of Jesus' words (you know, "when I was hungry, you fed me" "blessed are the poor" or "as ye would have done unto you, do unto them likewise"), these failures took an odd line from Leviticus, and all but ran over hungry families in their eagerness to blow money on television ads indemnifying gay Americans.

Your collection dollars went to television stations, to promote bigotry. That's where it went.

CW's latest steaming pile, Part One

2009-11-03T13:47:00.000-08:00

Someone at Commonwealth magazine is very unhappy, I think. Michael Jonas, or one of his assistants, apparently decided to sabotage their assignment by turning in a column whose main idea is entirely contradicted by its contents. In case the intent was unclear, it was so shoddily supported that the editors would be able to tell that this assignment was not wanted.

Well, the editors never caught on, and we're left with this steaming pile of words that purports to be about something...education-related...or education-like. Of course, Commonwealth has published a long string of ant-labor, anti-teacher, anti-public ed columns, articles, and editorials (the line within is as blurry there as at FoxNews) and has recently slipped so far from professionalism or basic courtesy that it's gained notice how desperate their attacks have become.

Let's take the first couple lines of the "featured" article...

[S]tudy after study has shown the strong connection between forces outside schools — parenting, family stability, socioeconomic background — and achievement levels. Students in wealthier communities almost invariably score higher on standardized tests than those from lower-income communities.

Anybody accustomed to reading quality non-fiction would recognize this opening to an article on the impact a child's entire world has on his/her learning. But then, you wouldn't know Commonwealth, where any opening, anecdotal, study-quoting, the weather report, is a segue for explaining why everything about public school sucks. Indeed, this quote that education is only thinly related to teacher intervention is a setup for an article about how vital teacher intervention is to education...and that current teacher intervention sucks. It's akin to opening an article on British cowardice in World War II with Churchill's stand to fight on the beaches, the landing grounds, in the fields, in the streets, etc...

Hoping that you didn't notice, Jonas quickly slides into pseudo-academic declarations "a growing body of research" this or "study after study" that...by which he means the two antiquated studies he'll mention later on.

Having thoroughly undercut himself, Jonas trots out Paul Reville, who paused in his effort to kneecap efforts to improve student scores on standardized tests in order to tell us that

Teachers are the linchpin of student success..."That seems to be stipulated common knowledge now. People accept that,” says Paul Reville, the Massachusetts secretary of education. The issue, he says, becomes, “What do you do about it?”

So something the article just told us is wrong is now right.. Sorry, it's not right, but rather is true...er, seems to be true...wait, seems to be stipulated common knowledge (can he tapdance any faster?). With this strong declaration that Paul Reville believes in wiggle room, Jonas re-directs our attention to Reville's "very loaded question". Wanna guess how the dice get loaded?

The answer is that most teachers suck and everyone knows that but only Jonas has the guts to tell you.

To get a sense of how bad things are, Jonas again performs a bit of sabotage by diving right into the research, and triumphantly presenting an actual academic study. One performed in 1966. That's right, Commonwealth is seeking inspiration from work completed before Woodstock. You see, if we're going to talk about teaching in urban areas, it only makes sense to begin with a study of 1960s Gary, Indiana, an urban area with exactly zero relevance to modern Massachusetts. You see, before the first Super Bowl, teacher colleges had as little academic foundation as this article, which means that modern public education sucks. (If you don't believe me, read the article yourself...seriously.)

The column then moves on to value-added studies, teasing out interesting data over several paragraphs, data that comes from studies which Jonas himself declares are of a type that have "plenty of grounds for caution", are subject to "the haphazard use of value-added assessments" where "the potential pitfalls are everywhere". I do appreciate the author's honesty that his methodology is transparent and inadequate...though I'm not sure why he insists on using it.

We are then told that too many teachers receive positive evaluations. There is no proof given that this is incorrect or inauthentic, but of course Commonwealth assures us that it is. Finally, to wind up the section, Commonwealth holds forth that student assessment may or may not be reflective of teacher quality and may or may not be a useful way to measure teacher performance.

You see, teachers should be evaluated the same way as doctors, who are judged by the number of patients who take the medication he prescribes. (Wait, they aren't? Don't tell Mr. Jonas!)

And then....

Huh?

Well, it is getting late. Halfway through. Yeah, only halfway.

You're right.

It turns out I won't be able to go through this article in one night. Heck, it took these people a couple months to write this dreck, so I may as well take a couple days to untangle it.

One good thing about Alan Khazei

2009-11-02T17:32:00.000-08:00

When his campaign founders, hopefully Alan Khazei's story will convince local Democrats that it takes more than hope, a slick website, and a smile to be elected. After the strong run of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama, it seemed that we were setting up for an avalanche of office-seekers with nothing but warmed-over Kennedy Inaugural rhetoric and an outstretched hand.

Then came Sam Yoon...and there he went. There goes Alan Khazei. And hopefully, there goes every smug ignoramus who is convinced that you don't "get it" because you ask for something more than that from your candidates. Hopefully, there goes every sly inside joke about "cynicism" -- what we used to call learning from experience -- because you think that some career politicians (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) are worthwhile.

The whole "Insiders bad, Outsiders good" template was created by incompetents for morons. Franklin Roosevelt was a consummate insider. The only way the Civil Rights Act passed was thanks to the consummate insider Lyndon Johnson. The last balanced budget in this country happened because Bill Clinton could count on insiders getting it to his desk without a single Republican vote. But incompetents like Mitt Romney couldn't offer anything but his inexperience, so the "outsider" thing was focus-groupped into the 21st century, turning this woeful default into a virtue. After all, the conservatives needed to find some way to get Ronald Reagan into office.

Listen, there are competent, skilled insiders in the Democratic Party, and moronic outsiders in the Democratic Party who should stay where they are. And guess what? Some insiders are bad, some outsiders are good -- it's a complicated world, and chasing the newest shiny thing isn't going to make politics simpler, it makes the chaser simpler. Most followers of politics new that, to the detriment of outsiders looking for a quick trip to the top.

Then came the Ascendency of Axelrod. The Reagan playbook was updated and freshened, and now it was Democrats who sought to neutralize the advantages of Democrats. They sought to simplify this complicated world, as the records of Hillary Clinton and Tom Reilly were unanswerable on the merits...so enters the Republican frame and changed the conversation. Since then, we've witnessed this scrabbling attempt at superiority on behalf of the Outsider Hollaback Boys. They drown out this state's massive dissatisfaction with Governor Patrick, rejection of Sam Yoon, and cellar-dwelling of Alan Khazei. They take pride in never learning that experience is just as good in a politician as in an auto mechanic, surgeon, architect, or cashier.

Sometimes, there's a reason why outsiders are where they are. And a reason why there they should stay.

Credit where due

2009-10-28T13:55:00.000-07:00

I'll give credit where it's due...one of the stupider aspects of the MCAS was modified today.

Up until now, schools have been ranked by comparing the test scores of this year's students with the test scores of last year's students. A school was judged on how the scores changed from year to year. Whether the change happened because of the quality of the school's teaching, or the intrinsic skills and gaps of the students being educated, never came up. Schools and districts were judged on their ability to get better scores from different students.

Naturally, people without their heads up their a-- have been pointing out from the beginning that it would be more accurate to measure the growth of a certain class of students, something often called "longitudinal study". Now, schools and districts are judged on their ability to get better scores from the same students. Today, about 16 years after the law that birthed the MCAS passed, it's starting to happen.

Of course, lest too much common sense break out at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education at once, this new method will merely "complement" the old (misleading) method and will be "rolled out" over a few years.

I'll finish by noting two things:
1. This move was finalized before Paul Reville came on board, so he gets limited credit for the obvious idea...though I suppose good for him that he didn't kill it;
2. It's pretty sad that any time common sense breaks out about the MCAS it gets a banner headline.

Return of the "angry" liberal Democrat

2009-10-27T14:05:00.000-07:00

Little to surprise one in last night's Senatorial debate. Would-be and could-be Senators Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley staked out similar policy ground and different approaches while chasing Democratic Bay Staters' votes. Coakley was clipped as is her wont, and Capuano was bombastic as is his.

A lot of commentary saw the debate as largely a draw, doing nothing to alter Coakley's comfortable lead. What did catch me unawares last night was the decision of many commentators to recycle a favorite epithet for an honest, liberal Democrat: "angry". Joan Vennochi used it in a phrase of punditry quintessence: "Why is Representative Michael Capuano so angry?" No proof offered, just a wild stab masquerading as an opinion. Politico joins in, labeling Capuano as a "borderline angry personality". With synchronicity, supporters of Coakley's rival rush in -- the blogosphere is littered with Coakley boosters who labeled Capuano as "angry".

After all, what is there to be angry about in the Senate? Afghanistan? Iraq? An economy that fails anybody who isn't a millionaire? The current strategy of dealing with education through ignorant platitudes and energy with...well, nothing? Joe "Filibuster" Lieberman?

This ridiculous name-calling bugged me for a few hours until it found its mate in memory -- the attacks on Howard Dean for being angry, by watery pundits and Kerry-lovers back in 2004. This 2003 Time article is a perfect representation of the media' pearl-clutching -- are Democrats ready for an angry nominee??!? Kerry jumped on his opportunity, salting his primary stump speech with the phrase "don't just send people a message...send them a President". Kerry doesn't indulge in anger...he's presidential according to everyone but the voters. I wrote back in 2004:

I'm tired of Democrats being 'concerned' about the economy being run by the rich for the rich. I'm tired of them being 'troubled' about the rape of our Constitution. I'm sick of them being 'bothered' by the needless killing fields in Iraq. I am tired of the leaders of my party being 'worried' about what's happening to our country. I am way past 'concerned' or 'troubled' -- I'm pissed and I'm glad to see that somebody running for president is pissed too.

Here we are, five years later. We're still in Iraq. Our economy is still being run by the rich, if not for the rich. Harry Reid had to be bullied by "angry" Democrats such as Chuck Schumer to put a public option in his health care bill. John Kerry isn't president. Howard Dean was right about pretty much everything.

Another thing that hasn't changed are these faint-hearted observers and name-callers. Take honest liberal values, and combine them with a well-built male. This progressive big guy (Dean was a high school wrestler) starts talking plainly about the state of our union, and the delicates whimper at their "anger". They prefer the dispassion coolness that handed Kerry a loss and handed Patrick a 34% re-elect (true, this works for Obama, but everything works for that guy...Coakley and Kerry are not Obama).

And frankly, what Capuano and Dean offer isn't even anger but righteous passion. Perhaps some sheltered folks find passion scary if it comes from a tall guy with broad shoulders, I don't know. Heaven knows how they'd react if the tall, broad-shouldered guy were African-American as well (no chance of getting their vote). There are plenty of good reasons to dislike a politician, but the fact that he's squarely built and cares about the country is not one of them at all. Sure, Dean and Capuano are unafraid of a fight...but that's only a problem if you plan on being on the other side.

And if you plan on standing opposite Mike Capuano on a regular basis, you shouldn't even be voting in a Democratic primary.

Hey, you know who doesn't show any real passion about injustice? Charlie Baker. Vote for him, maybe he's more your speed.

Cahill pulls a Boehner?

2009-10-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

The last thing Cahill needs is to sound like a clueless DC Republican...and that's exactly what happened yesterday.

Boehner is the sad little man who is the Republicans' "leader" in the House of Representatives in DC. Earlier, he remarked "I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option". This obvious hyperbole/lie promptly garnered responses from constituents, and even a poll indicating that Boehner indeed has many Americans in his own district who favor a public option.

Well, Tim Cahill sounded an awful lot like Boehner yesterday:

Cahill said he does not know of a single state employee who has been laid off.

To help out the Timster, I would ask a member of his campaign team to print out the following webpage: Regional and Area Offices Directory of the Office of Health and Human Services. Drive him to one of the addresses there listed, and ask around.

If Cahill wants to say that we haven't laid off sufficient state workers, well, I guess he's welcome to make that point. But to claim that none have been laid off, when it is so easy, convenient, and quick to disprove, is simply ridiculous. He isn't sounding pennywise on this one...he's just sounding foolish.

Boo Humbug!

2009-10-21T16:23:00.000-07:00

A great article from the AP about those of us who rightfully detest what Halloween has become:

Halloween haters aren't as easy to categorize as that odd old lady on the block who always pretends that she's not home on Oct. 31, or people who protest the day on religious grounds. The new Halloween Hater is young, loud and proud.

I too am proud to hate Halloween, detestable attempt at sanitized Bacchanalia. I was confused about how people so loved it throughout childhood, and migrated to antipathy throughout college and my young adulthood, whether spent in Canada, Ireland (where every Dublin family seemed to be setting off fireworks), or here in the US. I can't stand it, and never have. Not due to religious reasons certainly, or education in a Halloween-free home. I trick-or-treated once as a child (Swedish Chef), and couldn't stand it...especially when I quickly figured out there was a lot of candy in the offing in my warm, dry house as out "there". Consider the following about Halloween:

It is a commercialization of the wondrous Samhain, party stores stripping yet another great day (such as Sol Invictus or Lupercal) from its wide-eyed pagan meaning;
It has become an excuse for sad adults who can't accept that college is in the past, and get liquored up -- leading to a weekend with more drunk driving fatalities than New Year's;
It is so often gruesome -- somebody who has lost a loved one in the last few months has to endure seeing cemeteries and faux dead bodies everywhere. You can even buy a lifesize gallows;
It offers bizarrely risqué costume choices that send all the wrong messages to younger minds;
It pushes parents to paranoia about who's opening the door and/or what's in the candy, to the point where trick-or-treating is mall-based for many families.

People who know know that I love a good time, but this crass hybrid of Halloween and Hooters is a day best in the past...only twelve days until all this crap is behind us. I detest Halloween* as Ebenezer Scrooge detests Christmas. To paraphrase from the original:

If I could work my will every idiot who goes about with 'Happy Halloween' on his lips, should be boiled in his own melted candy corn, and buried with a witch's broomstick through his heart. He should!

*Except for "War of the Worlds". That was an awesome thing stunt that Wells pulled off.

Would be treasurer: gambling expansion "imminent"

2009-10-18T09:13:00.000-07:00

After the Senatorial race concludes, the next notable Democratic primaries figure to be for treasurer (Steve Grossman and Joe Connolly are in, possibly to be joined by others), and for attorney general should Martha Coakley win that Senatorial election.

It is on the question of treasurer that I'd like to dwell today, particularly Steve Grossman. Grossman was a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. He was also Howard Dean's campaign chair, meaning that the gentleman has many good friends.

What concerns me is a passage on Grossman's printed campaign literature. It's bad enough that he calls one section "gambling and local aid" as if the two have any link, but worse still he says:

It is crucial that the Treasurer be a part of the imminent expansion in gaming.

This tells me that Grossman -- a man I respect for many reasons as a pro-labor, pro-solution, pro-Dean Democrat -- not only wants more gambling in this state, but is treating it as a fait accompli. More gambling will happen and soon. It's imminent. I don't much like the idea of the state finding new ways to abscond with the money of Massachusetts citizens, and I really don't like how Grossman seems to think that any debate on the question is beside the point. Let's hope he changes his tune over the course of the campaign; pro-gambling, isn't as bad as anti-debate.

Massachusetts students number one -- again

2009-10-14T16:42:00.000-07:00

Ten hours ago, the 2009 mathematics results on the most prominent national standardized test -- the NAEP or "nation's report card" -- were released. And to no surprise of anyone who follows these things, Massachusetts is beating the rest of the country in math. At two levels. Again.

Of 50 state plus DC, Massachusetts is number one. Same status as in the results of 2005 and 2007, the last two rounds of this test. No state in the nation scores as well as the Bay State:

A higher percentage of students scored advanced at fourth grade math than any other state in the nation.
A higher combined percentage of students scored proficient or advanced in fourth grade math than any other state.
A higher percentage of students scored advanced at eighth grade math than any other state in the nation.
A higher combined percentage of students scored proficient or advanced in eighth grade math than any other state. This one wasn't even close -- second place was 8 percentage points behind.

Of course there's work to be done, clearly shown in those numbers. However, I don't think it's inappropriate to spend a couple hours recognizing a job well done. Now, in most states, the governor would take pride in this, and trumpet the good news. Probably send out a celebratory and congratulatory press release. Not Deval -- he's dutifully ignoring good news about public education in Massachusetts. Heck, he's probably glum at the news that his "public education system in crisis" sell just got smacked harder by reality and trying to find bad news to harp on in his next op-ed.

So I'll do the governor's job for him, and congratulate the students, families, communities, and education professionals of this state in once again leading the nation. Well done everyone.

Updated: The governor released a positive statement the day after the results were released from embargo. The video:

A (belated) last word on the awarding of the 2016 games

2009-10-13T16:46:00.000-07:00

I tried a round-by-round analysis to try to get a feel for how the games landed in Rio de Jainero for 2016. I opened it with the words "it seems to indicate that Rio had it in the bag from the beginning."

The folks at the Rio bid certainly felt so...and I think this says how little impact Obama could have had one way or the other. From the head of the Rio 2016 bid a few days ago:

"On September 28 ... we made a final list ... of the votes, and our strategy. The result that we have - it's on paper, we can show, final round; Rio 67, Madrid 33 and we missed two members."

The actual vote was Rio 66, Madrid 32.

When it is set in stone to this degree, I don't think Obama and Oprah really had a chance to change the vote.

PS: The 2016 Rio de Jainero games will feature rugby for the first time, and will bring back golf, which had been part of early Olympics. Baseball and softball remain locked out.

More flailing from the Globe on education

2009-10-13T13:23:00.000-07:00

I'm indebted to Mark Bail for pointing out another Boston Globe attempt to rationalize its hostility to labor organization in education. Unsurprisingly, what we have is an emotion commanding an army of words, all of which are marching around the page in search of an idea. The sole theme about the Globe's "coverage" of union organization in public education is that something is going wrong, and it must somehow be the unions' fault. Last summer the Globe talked about middle shcools. This year, it's pilot schools and/or Teach for America, depending on the paragraph you read. Here's an early line from the editorial:

But no collaborative spirit is evident in the union’s resistance to bringing the acclaimed Teach for America program to Boston or creating more pilot schools.

Anyone familiar with the modus operandi of the modern media probably is already noticing a favorite technique -- slip in a favorable adjective with no substantiation. Just who is "acclaiming" Teach for America is never specified. The person speaking so well of the program, our anonymous Globe writer, wants you to accept on face-value the greatness of a program that will make you a teacher in just five weeks of training! Never mind that an "accelerated" college-based program for college graduates comprises a full year of courses, with enough credits to get you halfway to a master's degree. TfA can do it in five weeks. Idealism is a necessary, but hardly sufficient quality of good teaching, and heaven forbid teaching professionals are less than eager to see their qualified colleagues turned out the door in favor of an Insta-Teacher.

The editorial isn't about Teach for America, of course, but rather about the handiest club of the day with which to beat labor, which for a couple paragraphs is Teach for America. Having gotten no mileage out of its first claim, the Globe turns to another, pilot schools. In fact, we quickly learn that this is op-ed isn't about Teach for America, but, um, pilot schools. Or something...

In 1994, the BTU and the Boston Public Schools agreed to establish pilot schools, flexible but still unionized schools that were meant to be the system’s response to independent, nonunionized, charter schools. When that reform bogged down because of union concerns about the number of unpaid hours teachers were putting in at pilots, the city granted the BTU concessions in a 2006 pact aimed at resolving that issue.Despite that, however, the BTU leadership unsubtly discouraged efforts to convert traditional schools to pilots.

So we are once again told to take on faith the Globe's opinion that the teacher's union was making things difficult for the city three years ago (this time about pilot schools), so we should be angry about labor rights today. It seems that this writer believed that two half-points would equal one supported claim. It does not.

Regardless, the writer pushes on. (This op-ed is worth reading, only to get an approximate sense of what an op-ed must look like early in the editing process). The Globe apparently feels that it has succeed in its mission of making its readers angry about...well I'm not sure what. But they should be angry, and the readers should be anti-labor and pro Thomas Menino and the school committee. After flailing around long enough to fill the empty space on the op-ed page, the writer goes for his/her coup de grâce:

So here’s a word of advice to the BTU. If you want to be treated like a partner in school-improvement efforts, you have to show that you’re a willing partner.

Considering that the Globe's corporate parent is trying to balance its poorly managed books on the back of its own union, it's no surprise that labor is a bad guy in its pages. However, the editorial staff of the Globe is ostensibly able to write a column that makes a central point and backs it up with evidence, and on that score this column fails. There is a theme -- unions bad! -- but no claim upon which to hang that theme, much less evidence to back up the claim.

And I'm sure that's the fault of the teacher's unions, too.

Capuano stronger on education

2009-10-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

I was thrilled to recently learn that Representative Capuano had voted against George W. Bush's attempt at education policy, the No Child Left Behind law back in 2001. Capuano became one of only 45 representatives to stand against this law. On the heels of becoming one of only 2 representatives to vote "present" on a motion to "Support Charter Schools Week" in 2001, Capuano really had his priorities straight back then.

His explanation last month for the 2001 vote is reported in the Globe:

Capuano and other critics say the metrics are unfair and unfunded.
"I voted against it, because there was no money in there for you guys to do the things we were telling you to do," he said, prompting enthusiastic applause.

I was impressed with Capuano's prescience, and was ready to firmly throw in with him. I was looking forward to reading his remarks in the Congressional Record about the law, only the find...nothing. While I am disappointed that he remained mute on the House floor during the debate, I cannot question Capuano's understanding of education on this bill, given his 2001 op-ed piece in the Globe which showed his understanding of the nature of this law:

The president promises substance and accountability. He proposes to measure a school's success through annual testing of all students, Grades 3 through 8, in math and reading. But what will his high-stakes tests really accomplish?

Such tests force schools to drill students in test-taking strategies and emphasize rote memorization. Less time is available to teach children to read, write, and calculate. Less time is available to teach them to think critically, to ask questions and seek answers. Is this the education we really want?

Reading further, you learn that the president would permit any student from a school that tests poorly to take $1,500 of Title I funding out of the failing school and transfer it to another school. ... This would accelerate the downward spiral and leave those who remain significantly worse off: 36 subsidized, 414 harmed.

...

What about the private schools that would receive Title I funds? Must they offer classes for special needs children? Can they demand religious conversion? Who will review their curriculum? We already know they won't be held accountable - the president's plan exempts private schools from his high-stakes testing.

And what about justice? Even if we exclude schools that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender, no private school accepts every applicant, and all can expel at will. So who remains in public schools? Children with disabilities, children with developmental problems, children from families where homework is not checked. The neediest and most troubled children - those who most need our help and cost the most to educate - will not disappear. Maybe President Bush should call his proposal "Leave some children behind."

This is frankly an article that President Obama, Secretary Duncan, and Governor Patrick should be forced to read. Capuano understands not only the fiscally debilitating implications of the bill on schools, but the sheer injustice of private/charter/religious receiving a full helping of public education funding with very little of the attendant responsibilities. Let me be clear: I am not ready to see Rep. Capuano as a leader on education issues: he's been rather silent in Congress on education. It's a lot to take a person on faith based on very few votes. However, if the Senate finds itself needing a leader to emerge on this issue, I think and hope that Senators Begich and Capuano are the best hope for a smart policy.

I came into this race leaning toward Martha Coakley. However, her issues page remains silent on education, and a follow-up inquiry elicited this response:

In the next few weeks, the Attorney General's position on education will be posted on her website.

I can't help thinking that the primary election will be over "in the next few weeks". Right now, it looks as if she's ducking the issue. On education, Capuano is clearly emerging as the more progressive candidate on education. While I am still uneasy about what his attack mentality, and refusal to enter the race without permission from the Kennedy family say about his ideas of leadership, Capuano's grasp of education issues is heartening.

NCLB is about to blow up, as the stated goal of making every child magically proficient in reading and math by 2014 hits reality. The US Senate will be part of the reaction to reality, and on that vote I'd rather have a strong, knowledgeable Senator such as Michael Capuano than someone measuring the winds.

...and Mousavi, too

2009-10-11T13:16:00.001-07:00

I'm a sucky fake pundit because I often wait to sum up my thoughts on something, and by then the topic has passed me by. However, I do want to "round out" the whole thing on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, and why I believe it is undeserved. I started some thoughts at BMG, but this is a more systemic conclusion.

First of all, I'm in no way blaming any of this on Obama. While arguments abound on whether Obama should have refused this award, I can't fault how he handled this situation. I should also mention that I find it hilarious that the same conservatives who call the Nobel an example of Obama's unseeming friendship with Euro-elites are the same ones cheering the "loss" of the Olympics to Rio (Chicago never had them to lose)...at the hands of those same Euro-elites.

Secondly, while it is tempting to point out that this is "just an award", pragmatic concerns necessitate remembering that with this award comes cash to the total of some $1.2 million. Many people working toward peace are on shoestring budgets, harassed by an autocratic state. That money can build a lot of peace, if used right.

The key point is this -- anytime somebody wins a Nobel Peace Prize, lots of other nominees lose it. When arguing that Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize, it is insufficient to say that he meets the criteria...Obama should only have won the prize had he met those criteria better than anyone else. That's where the argument that "Obama deserved it" fails. The list of NPP nominees is secret, but for argument's sake let's take the example of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, leader of the nascent democracy movement of Iran (Greg Mortensen or Morgan Tsvangirai work just as well). Using the criteria bandied offered to rationalize Obama's victory, let's see how Obama and Mousavi stack up...

"Obama has brought hope to the world". Obama brings hope to the world by not being George W Bush. It is true that America's friends around the world are relieved at Bush's retirement, but that frankly would have happened regardless of who the 44th president was. His ideas would have died with President Hillary Clinton, and even to some extent with President John McCain. In that way, there is nothing inherent and unique in Barack Obama that merits this award. Same for variants of the idea that Obama is bringing peace because people around the world love him so. A lot of that love is for the fact that he isn't Bush, and as for the rest...Boris Yeltsin was well-loved around the world in his day as well.

As bad as Bush is, he never denied the Holocaust or threatened to incinerate another country. That is who Mousavi is trying to send into retirement. And Mousavi is doing this by taking his life in his hands, not merely running an election campaign. So in terms of "doing more to change the world for the better", I'd have to give Mousavi the edge.
"Obama has rallied the youth of his nation and brought energy to the process". Obama's campaign energized the youth of a country, bringing in 5 million new minority voters. Turnout was up 1.5% over the last election. (Not that this is a major impact on the world).

There are no reliable turnout figures for the 2009 election. However, Mousavi has managed to turn out about a million people in the largest protests in Iran in my lifetime. And unlike Obama's rallies, shooting was a real chance -- and a reality -- at Mousavi's rally. Obama's people voted, Mousavi's people risk their lives. Mousavi again gets the edge.
"This is about potential for peace, not what they've achieved" This is hardly worth talking about. I've never head of an Oscar given because the actor's next movie might be great, or a Lasker given because someday a doctor might turn out great research. History's dustbin is filled with people who arrived in office with energy and potential to change the whole game, only to fail to meet that mark -- everyone from Alexander Kerensky to Junichiro Koizumi. Tony Blair became Prime Minister under excitement as intense as Obama's. He was a breath of fresh air for Britain's lurching Conversative foreign policy, and a new hope for the peaceful construction of Europe. Perhaps if John Major had been as loony as Bush, Blair would have won the Peace Prize. (If he'd dispatched Margaret Thatcher, he'd have had an even better chance.) However, nobody had ever claimed Blair should have won the Nobel Prize for being elected.

As for potential for peace, Ahmadinejad has shared responsibility (the extent is unclear) for a nation that supports terrorism at least in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq. While I'm not going to paint Mousavi as a saint, his potential as president -- remember, we're told that potential matters, not accomplishment -- his potential as president to reverse Ahmadinejad's hateful policies can set more wrongs right than I would argue Obama. With President Mousavi comes not just hope for a more democratic Iran, but a more democratic Lebanon and Syria as well. A three-fer! Once again, Mousavi rises above.
"This award is a call to action" I'm glad that's how Obama accepted the award. It's the best he could have handled it. This call to action means to be involved in the community by helping people out, recycling, and trying to improve civil society. I presume Mousavi would like his supporters to do this, you know, after they overthrow an anti-democratic, medieval regime that is suppressing a proud people. Advantage Mousavi.

There's one last point. One of the most powerful messages of the Nobel Peace Prize is that the world recognized the value of this person, almost named as a "world treasure". And as with ecological or architectural treasures, the world has a vested interest in their well-being. The Dalai Lama and Aum Sung Suu Kyi of Burma are two people whose status as Nobel Laureates has kept them in the eye of the world. Despite Chinese harassment and Burmese intransigence, these two peacebuilders are known figures, not least of all for winning the Nobel Prize. Every autocratic regime has its brave lights fighting for the true peace of freedom (Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe, for example), but can't go the final step of hiding away Kyi in prison or in death because the Nobel Prize confers an almost mythical status to the laureate.

Such status is so essential for people, from Yitzhak Rabin to John Hume to Anwar Sadat who take the chance of angering their communities and rivals with the brave decision to go for peace. If Obama makes strong progress toward peace (something he hasn't much done in Iraq or Afghanistan yet), he will receive a wild-eyed rant from Glenn Beck. If Mousavi makes strong progress, he may well receive a bullet in the head.

A bell can't be unrung, and this prize can't be ungiven. I know some of Obama's most loyal followers think this award is richly deserved, as would be any award given the President. I can't say that Obama emphatically doesn't deserve this, but it is the Mousavis of this world who not only deserve this award, but can use it to do the most good, and produce the most peace.

Congratulations to Barack Obama. As for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, there's always next year -- provided he's still alive.

Senatorial silence on education

2009-10-09T12:02:00.000-07:00

I emailed the four Democratic senatorial campaigns the following question a week ago:

Federal law requires that all American public school students demonstrate "proficiency" (as measured by the individual states) in math and English by 2014. Standardized testing in 2008 placed less than 80% of public high school students at those levels in Massachusetts; many states scored much lower.

I would ask you if you believe that all students will reach this goal by 2014, and if not what changes to the law or education policy would you recommend in view of this requirement not being reached.

So far, all I get is utter silence. They want this issue to go away. Cowards.

It's Good to be Paul Reville

2009-10-08T14:25:00.000-07:00

Our Secretary of Education leads quite a charmed existence. With the noise of a mayoral and Senatorial election, there's the hope that the citizens of the Commonwealth could forget the fact that Paul Reville has sought to buy media favor for his boss on the back of public education. Remember, Paul Reville overrode repeated decisions by boards of education professionals, forcing a poorly planned charter school on Gloucester. The reason for his decision to move $2.1 million away from elected city officials to an unaccountable council? To make the Boston Globe like his boss more (seriously, that was stated reason in a leaked email). Oh, and to a please some bunch of people who publicize pro-charter pamphlets that masquerade as studies. Let's repeat the Mission Statement of Reville's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, according to the Secretary himself:

Show some sympathy in this group of charters or we'll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation.

Had this been the approach to a hospital or nursing home, he'd be gone. But since it's just a school, Reville can report his comfort with the decision and his future prospects:

In an interview with the News Service, Reville said the recent flap – news reports outlined an email he sent in February appearing to advocate for the approval of a Gloucester charter school for political reasons – would not compromise his ability to promote Gov. Deval Patrick’s education agenda.

Oh, and if you disagree with anything Reville does, you're declaring "war" on him:

We’ve got wars on whether it’s English language or charter schools ... I do think we’re in danger right now of considerably losing public respect through our internecine war here.

So, he's been apparently promised that his job is safe no matter what he does, but any disagreement equals "war". There's something about doctorates in education that seems to blow up egos. Well, this combination of safe harbor and delusion may have driven Reville's latest move which will only serve to handicap public education further -- a decision to essentially classify most standardized test questions.

The whole idea is that standardized tests inform people of a school's strengths and weaknesses. Using the data from the test, a school can improve on its weak points. So, Paul Reville chose the most efficient route to kneecapping public education -- he's withholding essential data from schools.

If your school's fourth graders performed significantly worse than most fourth-graders in the state, you're supposed to find out the reasons. Say your fourth-graders did poorly on "number sense" questions -- well, the idea of accountability is that you study these questions and the answers to fix the mistakes, or you pay the price.

Except now Reville, and his well-connected New Hampshire friends who make big money off this test, refuse to release almost all the test questions. If most sixth graders in your local school miss question #34 on the MCAS, schools probably won't be able to find out what the question was, or what the correct and incorrect answers are. Measured Progress, Incorporated knows, but they and Reville refuse to give local teachers the tools to correct this. So next year, when question #34 is repeated as question #37, Reville and company can use this as an argument that public schools can't do their job -- they whiffed on the same question repeatedly! Nevermind that teachers never learn what question this is, and have to trust Measured Progress, Inc. with education the way we trust Diebold with elections -- all this means is more charter schools are needed!

(I should mention in balance that this sudden decision was announced in the name of saving money. Apparently, this privatization model means that Massachusetts has to pay private incorporated entities a lot of money to write math problems.)

So, in between playing politics with charter schools, Reville is spearheading a drive to handicap silly teachers who are trying to...improve their teaching. You know, the whole stated goal behind the "Test Every Child" movement. Perhaps if he gets another job guarantee form Deval Patrick, Reville can skip the whole logistical mess of actually testing children, and just issue test scores and lists of failing schools.

Don't forget -- "education reform" means that teachers are accountable and the Secretary of Education is not.

Conservaporn, Liberal Satire

2009-10-07T16:25:00.000-07:00

First, go to this website about a mural of sorts assembled by a Bible-thumpin' conservative "artist". Scroll over it, and "explanations" appear in the righthand column. There's a lot that could be said about this, but I'll just say two things:

1. You really don't find too many people these days who publicly object to Brown v Board of Education, and
2. This liberal satire is funnier and more informative than I could be.

Enjoy.

Why is Alan running?

2009-10-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

A while ago on BlueMassGroup, a commentator frustrated by Khazei's silence on this issues asked "What does Alan Khazei believe?"

The only answer I could offer then, and offer now, is that Khazei believes that he should be senator, and that you should vote for him.

Aside from the idea of extending opportunities for public service, an idea well in the hands of President Obama and organizations such as Americorps, he's got nothing. Literally.

Khazei's website is silent on every single issue. It's loud on his biography, but that's about it.

Khazei seems to share Sam Yoon's thinking that all it takes to get elected in Massachusetts is enthusiastic talk "citizen-driven! grassroots! hope!" and a nice biography. However, they apparently both forgot that Deval and Obama shied away from extensive policy talk while campaigning, but that policy work was done, offered, and available by their campaigns. Obama didn't like to talk about health care details like Hillary Clinton did, but Obama did have a plan on his website.

I'm genuinely worried that Khazei may pick up a large amount of support to go with his $1 million war chest despite his refusal to meaningfully think about the economy, energy, education, health care, foreign relations, and other significant issues. I really hope the Massachusetts electorate is not that naive, especially given the gift of experience.

PS: His website isn't even set up to accept email...so unless you're a Facebook kind of voter, I guess Alan just doesn't want to hear from you.

Open Mike Attack Night

2009-10-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

As predicted at the outset of the race, Capuano is on the strident bus, going after Coakley rather than talking about his own ideas:

“She’s not a liberal. How do you figure that? Who said she was? Voters will think about philosophy and issues and whether someone can deliver on that philosophy and issues...A month ago it was a coronation."

Granted, the Globe just went for the juicy part of the interview, and the dynamics of the campaign are such that Cap simply must throw mud at Coakley if he's going to win. However, this isn't the kind of crap I'd want to see my Senator doing. Capuano seems to have a chip on his shoulder (I don't remember anyone saying this was a coronation) and frankly sounds more like somebody who isn't getting what he thinks he's entitled to more than anything else.

I'm still pretty undecided, but stuff like this makes me figure that Capuano has a good past, but a questionable future.

Vennochi on Anonymity: Preserving the Gatekeeper Role

2009-10-04T06:54:00.000-07:00

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, who occasionally gets things right, brandishes her Old Media bona fides in a column today. Over at BMG, regular poster "Ernie Boch, III" has been agitating for a boycott of Howie Carr's radio show. Now, Carr is a Jurassic mouthpiece, a spokesman for everyone left behind in an era of equality and fairness, and the city would be better off without him on radio. At some point, I'm not really sure why, "Ernie" took it upon himself to see if he could make that happen.

EBIII, as he is known, is getting a little traction on this. As with many bloggers, EBIII chooses to remain anonymous, which has created some headaches. Both Howie Carr and car dealer Ernie Boch, Junior are trying to find someone to spill EBIII's name, presumably to do to him what a lowlife Alaskan politician to an anonymous blogger last year. Carr feels under threat, and Boch, Jr. apparently is sick of dealing with stupid potential customers who don't get a joke. So setting out to violate a person's right to privacy seems fair to them, I guess. I don't think too many people need to take lessons on integrity from Howie Carr and a car dealer, and Joan doesn't help with her column. The key line:

But the issue is also the Internet’s ability to give cover to critics who don’t have to do what Carr does - own their opinions.

Bloggers take the cover of anonymity for good reason -- they don't have the protections that Carr and Vennochi do, but want to talk anyway. See, Carr (and Vennochi) get plenty of help in the quest to "own their opinions". They have jobs that require them to have and "own" opinions, and have contractual language that encourages and protects that exercise. They rake in good money in this quest, and their value often goes up if fired for a particularly bold opinion, at which point they get a new contract with a different media outlet. Unlike many bloggers, Howie & Joan get rewarded for crazy opinions, whereas many of us would get rewarded with a pink slip in our personal jobs. Vennochi even belongs to a union (the Boston Newspaper Guild) that runs to court regularly in case anyone thinks of firing Vennochi because she declared her opinion.

On the other side is EBIII, who doesn't have these protections built into his working and personal life, and may work in any of a dozen jobs that would result in his firing if it became known that he is using his First Amendment rights on his own time (just put "blogger fired" into Google if you require case studies).

Vennochi is calling out people who would dare to use the same rights as her, despite not enjoying the extensive protections she enjoys. This is equivalent to a big kid showing up for Pop Warner football all suited up, and complaining that everyone else on the field wants to wear pads as well. If Vennochi would like to get EBIII (or myself) membership into a union which will go to court for me so quickly on this issue, we could probably work something out. Until then, EBIII is smart to take advantage of the security extended to his personal and professional life that anonymity provides, a security used by an illustrious roster that includes Mark Felt and Ben Franklin.

I think what upsets so many traditional media outlets -- ones that used unnamed sources for anything from the President's policy priorities to the condition of Tom Brady's shoulder -- is that EBIII is choosing anonymity for himself. Media is used to the privileged position of granting anonymity to "worthy" sources with something to interest them, and refusing to those protections to those who don't "deserve" them. Anonymity provides bloggers with the chance to enter the conversation even when it involves personal risk. Nobody has to beg a reporter or have access to offer in return for that protection -- we just take it and keep on running.

And in case there was a threat that Vennochi would be taken seriously, she follows up with:

The blogosphere opened up the public conversation to new, thoughtful voices, but it should not provide a shield to hide biases and private agendas.

How many times, over and over again, have we dirty smelly bloggers been forced to root out the biases and private agendas of media sources and participants that the media is too lazy or stupid to find themselves? That's half of Media Matters' business, pointing out the sloppily hidden agendas of media outlets.

PS: The funny thing is that most of us dirty online commentators know the "real names" behind the majority of blogger handles, and the fact that these figures don't only demonstrates how far out of the loop they really are.

O-lympic O-bama

2009-09-29T13:56:00.000-07:00

Republicans are admonishing Obama for flying to Copenhagen in an effort bring the Olympic Games to Chicago. Nevermind that the decision to focus the US bid on Chicago was made in March 2007, well before Obama was president, or that there are few better motors for economic development and international respect than the Olympics, the Republicans are going to complain. Nevermind that the new Prime Minister of Japan will be representing Tokyo's bid as well, Republicans will complain. Of course, Republicans may be complaining because Obama is setting up to claim a diplomatic coup that he had little to do with.

As the first link notes, Mitt Romney confirms the importance of sending the head of state to lobby the IOC for the Olympics. There may be no vainer group of men and women than the International Olympic Committee, and being feted by our popular president may make the difference. All along, I've said that the 2016 Games are Chicago's to lose -- really, the 2016 Games are the United States' to lose.

This only counts for a few votes. Most votes are based on "taking your turn" -- as in 2004-Australia, 2008-Asia, 2012-London...2016-the Americas. There's all sorts of noise, but it's easy to see how it plays out. If London has 2012 (thanks to Tony Blair's personal lobbying), Madrid won't get 2016 no matter how good their bid is. Tokyo doesn't have enough Asians on the IOC to count on a natural support bloc, and the Japanese capital isn't getting the Olympics a year after Beijing had them. Rio de Jainero had sentiment on its side, and pushing to be the first South American games made them a threat. However, Rio can't escape their technically inferior bid, and recent revelations of dirty tricks have torpedoed their chances. And then there's the money. The route to a fat IOC budget is through Chicago 2016, and the IOC knows this.

Obama's team may be a lot of things, but they're not stupid. They know that Chicago has this in hand, and that linking Obama to winning the Olympic Games is only smart politics. When Chicago is named the host of the 2016 Olympic Games, Obama wants to be there. And there's nothing the Republicans can do about it.

I'd like to review education in the US Senate race..

2009-09-28T16:47:00.001-07:00

...but I can't. Of the five candidates for governor -- Coakley, Capuano, Khazei, Pagliuca, and Brown -- only the Hopele$$ Millionaire mentions education on his website as an issue. He says:

I believe that we have the resources and know-how to ensure that our education system lives up to Senator Kennedy’s dream. My mother was a teacher, and I have tremendous respect for her profession and the many terrific educators around the country that dedicate their lives to preparing our children for success. I intend to vigorously pursue education reform and make it a priority when elected to the United State Senate.

Simply, we need better schools. We have great educators and we have to explore options to grow that pool of talent, by providing teachers clearer goals and better resources. I believe in supporting creative solutions and sponsoring significant investment in educational reform. In Massachusetts, we are seeking a healthy mix of private, charter, and public schools. On the national level, the focus of educational reforms has to be on the students. I would vote for legislation that rewards performance and aptitude in teachers, not just the ability to “teach to a test.” I would approach the question of education reform with the same collaborative and goal-oriented mindset that I have always addressed challenges: seeking advice from labor leaders, educators, and, most importantly, parents and students.

I applaud Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s “Race to the Top” initiative and look forward to supporting similarly innovative solutions. Providing universal pre-kindergarten services is an important step toward closing the gap in opportunity that plagues our education system. Every child deserves a fair start; we owe it to the children of our nation to provide quality, universal education for every child, regardless of their parents’ income.

Translated:

I respect teachers...heck, I'm even related to one.

I'll ask for advice from people. I believe education is about the students, and I'll reward teachers for making education better. Charter schools are good.

Spending money on charter schools is good. Like every living Democrat, I support universal pre-kindergarten. Because education in important.

In case anyone needed further convincing that Pags isn't serious about this...

Free tip to politicians, athletes, etc...

2009-09-25T14:04:00.000-07:00

If you want people to think that you're humble, do not call yourself "humble" and do not say you've "been humbled" by anything. If you feel brought down to a proper place, it will be evident in your behavior. Throwing the word around paints you as hustling, not humbled.

Genuine indecision

2009-09-23T12:16:00.000-07:00

Si, it'll be Coakley vs. Capuano for the Senate (plus some millionaire and an aspiring Axelrod clone).

On the Axelrod metrics -- "leadership", "optimism", "judgment" and all those other feel-good subjective impressions that don't tell you a damn about how a candidate will actually govern -- I prefer Coakley. She has a better way of talking to people and listening. In rare and brief personal encounters, she always struck me as a thinker with an ability to look beyond the next re-election campaign. I imagine that she'd be effective in the insular Senate world. However, the only issue on her website is health care, so I have no idea how she'd act on education or foreign policy, my top two issues. I can't commit to anyone who keeps those kind of secrets.

On the other hand is Capuano, who does mention non-health care issues, but also ignores education. Capuano has been in Congress for ten years, and I can't think of anything he's done. Sure he gives good speeches on all the good things and often joins with other groups of people, but I haven't seen much from him in the way of leadership. Plus, his very first press conference as a candidate included a needless attack on Coakley. I realize he'll have to throw some slime to bring down her astronomical favorables, but being unable to wait a single day shows a lack of class.

I think Coakley would be a slightly more effective Senator, but I don't know what issues and positions she'd be effective moving. I want to support her, but have no reason to -- and reason to wonder if Capuano might be a better pick. So as of now I'm genuinely undecided. Anyone else in the same boat?

The cold fusion of charter studies

2009-09-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

Boston Foundation Boston Foundation BOSTON FOUNDATION!!! Ask any charter booster, amateur or professional (of which there are many, considering charters' hefty advertising budgets), for proof that charters have a significant impact on student outcomes, and they will tell you about the Boston Foundation study. The study takes me back to the names Pons and Fleischman -- the two eminently credentialed scientists who claimed to have discovered cold fusion 10 years ago -- whose brethren seem to have found a home at the Boston Foundation.

A couple things about this product. It isn't a study. True, its authors have many letters after their names who work with lots of numbers (similar to the cold fusion experiment). However, at base this is some data worked up by a nonacademic nonprofit at the behest of a very pro-charter Secretary of Education, himself responding to a pro-charter zealot of a governor, both eying charters as a means to re-election. Studies aren't usually published in pamphlet form fronted by a photo of a doe-eyed youngster, with credit given to the pamphlet designer before it is given to the authors. Studies are refereed.

Yes, its listed authors of this...exploration...do work at universities which I suppose is something. The idea, like the cold fusion study, started out with apparently good and smart intentions. The Boston Foundation did the smart thing by deciding to track outcomes only of students who applied to charter schools. The contention has long been that the act of researching and completing an application to a charter schools shows that the family is more dedicated to education. Thus, whether the students ends up in a charter or not, s/he is already enjoying an advantage over non-interested families. Previous studies were suspect, the story would go, because they compared unmotivated students in public schools with charter students who'd demonstrated motivation just by getting in.

Subsequently, the Boston Foundation methodology approach sought to level the playing field. All students in the study applied for a charter school, and the study's two groups were those who went on to the charter and those that did not. Motivation was roughly controlled, and the only variable was the type of education received. Apparently solid methodology.

The key point here -- the Boston Foundation made this change to neutralize an advantage that other studies gave to to charter schools. In a perfect research environment this study would be more pro-public school than its brethren because it neutralized a built-in advantage for charters in academic studies.

However, what happened is a result that was significantly more pro-charter than more rigorous and comprehensive studies.

Herein lies the puzzle. A change in how this "study" is conducted generated results outside the mainstream of scholarship. But that movement from scientific consensus took it in the opposite direction that the methodological change should have logically taken it.

In short: The Boston Foundation made a change that should have resulted in this; instead it resulted in that. This study should be less pro-charter than the mainstream, not more pro-charter. Regardless of results, this should have made the researchers, promoters, and allies pause. Unfortunately, it merely excited them more, just as Fleischman and Pons breathelssly announced their "discovery" of cold fusion without questioning how it could have occurred.

There are a host of possible explanations for this change:

We are so ignorant of how to study education that our grasp of methodology is completely wrong. The causal relationship between methodology and results is more complex then dreamed, and frankly the validity of all charter studies is in question.
The Boston Foundation stumbled upon a truth undiscovered by the body of scientific work (start here and here for rigorous study), which proves the only they have a valid understanding of how to study educational outcomes.
The Boston Foundation effort was so poorly cobbled together (due to incompetence and/or bias) that this charter study is invalid.

You'd think this methodological blow-up would make people stop and think. If a high school biology class did a lab that found that adding weight to an object increased its buoyancy, would the Globe be informed, or would the students be told to review their procedures?

If you're a high school biology student with a questionable result, you question it. If you're the Boston Foundation, you inform the media. Same if you're Pons and Fleischman. There's a lot in common -- both groups used questionable methods and rigor to get a surprising result that stands against scientific consensus and is irreplicable. They publicized it everywhere possible.

The difference, of course, is that there was no industry in place that is desperate to promote cold fusion as a received fact. Whereas today there are millions invested in convincing the government that privatizing education works in a way that privatizing agriculture, the military, transportation, and health care don't.

I will give credit to Deval Patrick, who in a conversation with me seemed rather unmoved by the Boston Foundation study. He may have noticed the rabbit already hiding in the magician's hat, and I hope people as similarly fanatical about charter promotion take his example. Because right now the only thing on offer from the Boston Foundation's "study" is educational cold fusion -- a risky purchase at best.

MassLib nails it on Menino

2009-09-19T18:12:00.000-07:00

Why even mention this muttering about the deleted emails at City Hall when Massachusetts Liberal does such a great job finding the proper context:

Let's start with what appears to be the center of the storm -- a city attorney who doesn't know the law. Richard Sinnott has already made the mistake of thinking that you don't need to save trivial e-mails....It all comes back around to the city attorney's office (and not the state attorney general, at least not yet.) It is the responsibility of Sinnott, not that of the "overworked" Dot Joyce, to comply with FOIA requests, not to mention court orders. And insure that there is adequate and appropriate staff to handle all the lawful requests...Still and all, I'm not ready to go out on a limb about the impact of this incompetence on either the results of next Tuesday's preliminary or the November final. There is a deep and abiding affection for Tom Menino and the administration's ability to plow the snow and pick up the trash.

But the e-mail nightmare certainly reflects what happens when someone hold office for as long as Menino has -- and starts to think l'etat, c'est moi.

I like Menino, but it is clear that he's gotten comfortable...too comfortable in "his" City Hall. However, that's a distance away from replacing him. Too comfortable and competent isn't the worst thing out there, and I'm not convinced that the other three have much to offer in the competence department.

Fire Paul Reville. Now.

2009-09-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

When the Governor and his associates waded into a local decision about charter schools in Gloucester, residents were properly outraged. From the mayor on down, local officials with the best understanding of the needs of Gloucester students had rejected the idea of opening a somewhat-public school in the city. Deval's desire to promote the privatization of education in the form of charters was in the ascendant, however, and Patrick demanded that local officials re-examine this charter application until they came up with the answer Deval wanted. An answer that will cost Gloucester $2.4 million in diverted school fees.

At first, I thought this routine merely the product of somebody who hadn't spent any real time in a public school for over 40 years, elected on a platform that pretty much ignored education. Politicians like that typically use charter schools in place of a real program on education because they remain quite frankly ignorant of the real issues. Turns out, I was being generous. An email from Deval's charter-loving secretary of education Paul Reville makes this clear:

This situation presents one of those painful dilemmas. In addition to being a no-win situation, it forces us into a political cul de sac where we could be permanently trapped. Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we'll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I'd rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can't find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I'm not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester. My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester.

From this we can see a few things:
1 - The "political cul de sac" receives far more attention than the actual good of the students at stake. Reville is clearly used to making educational decision for the good of his boss's poll numbers.
2 - They think the Boston Foundation is moderate.
3 - Promotion of private charters inherently represents "fighting for the kids".
4 - Charter decision are based upon who Reville is personally "inclined to push" for, not educational data.

To reiterate -- the City of Gloucester is losing $2.4 million because Deval Patrick's team is concerned about his ability to win re-election. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is moving $2.4 million of our tax dollars from the city of Gloucester to a semi-public concern in order to court the Boston Globe.

Deval Patrick has a Bush-like inability to back down from personnel mistakes without an incredible amount of pressure (see Marian Walsh and Jim Aloisi). Hopefully people will realize that his decision to turn the DESE into a lever for his sagging poll numbers is not acceptable. Firing Paul Reville would be a good first step.

It boggles the mind

2009-09-10T19:18:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush's former chief of staff is running to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate. If there is a political sentence that reads "dooooomed" more pithily than that, I don't know it.

This is a supposedly serious guy from a supposedly serious party pretending to make a sincere run for a seat, and it's beyond ridiculous.

It's like Karl Marx's publisher going for Chair of the Chamber of Commerce. It's Jerry Remy interviewing to manage the Yankees.

This is the most fantastically doomed campaign that I can think of...take a vengefully Democratic state, a seat linked to the Kennedy family based in that state, and plop in a guy chin-deep with the most pathetically incompetent Republican administration in living history. If Card does everything right, and the Democratic nominee plays "Old McDonald" on a juice harp throughout the entire debate, the nominee still wins.

I understand that Card is ambitious, but the friends-n-family advantage from growing up in Holbrooke can't equal the disadvantage of being a Dubya lackey in Massachusetts. He'd be better carpet-bagging in some loser state that won't admit how much Bush sucked.

What a loser.

Geez, Dad

2009-09-09T18:49:00.000-07:00

Less than 12 hours after Alan Wilson kicked off his campaign for South Carolina Attorney General, his Dad embarrassed himself by heckling the President in the Congressional Chamber. Shouting at the President in the midst of a Congressional speech probably won't play so hot in that part of the country, where bigotry is fine as long as it remain polite. This wasn't polite.

Now, the newly minted candidate will be choosing whether to throw his dad under the bus, or give a thumbs-up to this Neanderthal behavior. I know they don't much cotton to President Obama in the Palmetto State, but I don't imagine this is the first day on the campaign trail that Daddy's Boy had in mind. Couldn't happen to a nicer family (and it wouldn't either...)

Schilling: Baker loves the gays

2009-09-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

In his blog, Curt Schilling makes some remarks about his beliefs as part of his eventual decision not to run for office. I will give him credit that his ideas are more in line with a person trying to work out some conflicts and questions, and it's a nice change from the tight, poll-tested list of convictions most pols present. I'll give Schilling this -- he strikes me as more sincere in what he says he believes than most candidates.

But he does say something curious about Republican gubernatorial candidate/guy who won't pay for your prosthetic Charlie Baker:

Charlie Baker is running for Governor of Massachusetts. I am a huge supporter of Charlie. Charlie Baker is very much in favor of Gay marriage, I’m not. That doesn’t make me feel one ounce different about Charlie, because I understand there is no perfect candidate and no one exists but yourself, that’s going to align perfectly with your opinions and beliefs. This state needs good people above all else, and Charlie is that.

It's the "very much in favor of Gay marriage" that gets me. Not just in favor of equality, in favor of Gay marriage ("G"ay marriage? Baker wants sprinters to get married?). No, Baker is very much in favor of gay marriage. He doesn't just favor of equal rights in marriage, or colloquially accept the idea of gay marriage.

The way Schilling phrases it, he makes it sound as if there's nothing that gets ol' Charlie's motor running like two men going out and getting themselves married. A real guy-on-guy knot-tyin' enthusiast. To read Schilling, Baker cruises Unitarian chapels in Provincetown.

I doubt that's Baker's case. Rather, Baker can read poll numbers as well as anyone else, and realizes that clinging to an anti-equality stance in this state is a short path to loserdom. However, it certainly makes it seem that in Curt's mind, even a hint of tolerance makes you thrill at the idea of two men exchanging rings. It certainly makes it seem that the hardline conservatives in Massachusetts are not going to accept Baker's admission of equality quietly.

Which is perhaps a sign that it's a good thing Schilling won't come close to being our Senator, and that Baker isn't as close to the nomination as he likes to think he is.

It dawns on me...

2009-09-06T11:51:00.000-07:00

...if Martha Coakley wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, she should probably have some ideas on foreign policy, national security, and education on her website. It's been three days since her declaration, and nothing.

I want to support her for Senate. In Axelrodian terms, she has all the intangibles of charisma and attitude that I look for. However, I'm no "hope and change" sucker, and I need to see some attention and principles on the issues before I fall in love and fall in line.

The President's Speech...lesson ideas

2009-09-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

The Empty Right in Washington has chosen to ignore producing actual solutions on everything from the budget to health care, and is instead focusing on their latest fake outrage: the idea that a Democratic President (an African-American one, no less!) would tell students to stay in school. This is certainly more outrageous than President Bush, Sr., already campaigning for re-election, indoctrinating students to support his plan to ~~aimlessly tinker with~~ reform education by sitting them down in front of television screens back in 1991.

Of course, some of the richer conservatives have figured out that the sooner a child drops out of school, the less education s/he has, the more likely they are to vote Republican. So it's in their interest that students not stay in school; indeed some parents are using Obama's speech as a pretext for that effort to dumb down children enough to vote Republican when they are of age by keeping them away from that awful non-white man's plan to tell them not to drop out.

Now, this all surpasses ridiculous, but in an age where these people are not called for their foolishness by the powers that be, educators have to work around them. thus, I would borrow Bush's proclamation on the "controversy" over teaching evolution versus...something baldly unscientific...by "teaching the controversy".

Hopefully all public school teachers will seize this moment to expose students to the public dialogue concerning their education. Democrats in Utah ("a call by our nation’s highest elected official for our children to work hard and live up to their full potential is surely something all of us can agree on regardless of party affiliation") and Republicans in Florida ("President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children") have clearly laid out their cases...why not let students decide for themselves who is right? Or is that the kind of education that Republicans fidn so objectionable?

On a completely different note...

2009-08-29T14:21:00.001-07:00

I have nothing to say about Senator Kennedy that hasn't been said better by others. I'll miss him horribly. On a side note, I enjoyed the fact that Jack Williams broadcast the funeral of Senator Kennedy with appropriate gravity, including a clear effort to keep Jon Keller from sniveling up the coverage as much as Jack was able.

It's a reminder of the great state in which we live, and the quality of leaders we often obtain. Unlike, say, this State Senator in Nebraska who is currently considering to appeal a ruling in a ~~bizarre waste of taxpayer resources~~ odd crusade:

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.

The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God.

A Kennedy

2009-08-26T20:10:00.000-07:00

There aren't any words that will do the loss justice. I heard that Senator Kennedy had passed while on the road this morning, in Titusville, Florida. I was doing okay until watching the coverage at breakfast in the hotel, when they replayed his words from his speech at the 2008 DNC. Then I started blubbering shamelessly.

For Ted Kennedy, he showed that the promise of President John and Senator Robert weren't phantoms, but glimpses of greatness to come. He showed that in the fullness of life, a Kennedy has the strength to move mountains...mainly by inspiring so many others to push.

For the rest of us, the work begins anew.

Bact to school tips for parents, etc.

2009-08-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not dead. I moved this month, and setting up furniture has taken over much of my life...not to mention the fact that I'm currently relying on a sketchy wireless connection. Anyway, I thought this would be an appropriate time to recycle an old post, but one that may prove useful nevertheless...

---

Though the moment is still at least 2 weeks away, we're getting to the point where "back-to-school" is more than the latest merchandising season. Particularly "school-phobic" kids are going to worry about heading back already, and there is a blizzard of advice out there. I thought I'd offer some teacher's-view tips on preparing for what the Québécois breezingly label "la rentrée".

Gather information. The best weapon against fear is knowledge. Knowledge is either half (GI Joe) or most of (Sun Tzu) the battle, after all. As soon as a student learns who will be their upcoming teachers, get the scoop, and go deeper than the vague labels of "nice" or "mean," "easy" or "hard". You and your child can get a kid's-eye view: talk to neighbors, siblings, churchgoers, teammates, etc., about their discipline style. What rules are bendable, which are sacrosanct? What is something that is worth anticipating? Who cares about spelling, who doesn't? What is the hardest project? Keep in mind the parent or child telling you this information. "He cares too much about handwriting" can often be parent-ese for "he cares more than I do about handwriting".

If your child is entering a new building, take advantage of any type of open house/ committee meeting/ sporting event held in the new building. The chance to just walk the building will give the kid a leg up on everyone else. Where are the lockers, the gym, cafe, auditorium...bathrooms? If entering middle school, buy a combination padlock and practice solving it; lockers are the number one source of school fear for incoming middle schoolers.

Routine? What routine?. A lot of articles recommend getting students into a "school-day" bedtime/wake-up schedule about a week in advance. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. No matter what circadian strategies you employ, any decent kid and teacher is almost guaranteed to toss and turn the night before the first day. So you've robbed the last late nights of summer vacation in return for...another late night leading into poor sleep. Heck, everyone will be operating on little sleep that first day. Why not enjoy the last few nights of freedom since you're not going to sleep the night before, anyway?

Shop light. You know those lists of "school supplies" at the entrance to Staples, Office Max, etc.? Those aren't supplied by the district or the teacher...those are supplied by the companies hoping to sell you everything on the list. Teachers can get particular about needed supplies, so no sense in buying the "wrong" notebook. Also, I've seen parents work out organizational schemes with binders and folders, and thrust them on the child...only to be surprised that the scheme doesn't work. Organization has to be created by the person using it, and it may take 1 or 2 weeks of class before a student knows what works best for them.

However, I do recommend obtaining the following supplies:

Lots of pens/pencils. Hold at least half in reserve as others get lost during the year.
White-out and/or erasers. Trust me.
Colored pencils. You'd be surprised how often they come up, even in high school.
A roll of quarters. After school soda machine time.
Extra t-shirts. Those gym clothes aren't coming back anytime soon.
Poster board. Get it now, or the Sunday night before the Monday due date.
Extra printing cartridge. Same deal.

Bonus materials:
Mini staplers. No waiting for the class stapler to come around. As cheap as 25 cents per.
Scissors. Ditto.
Eyeglass repair kit, for the spectaclly-enabled.
Those Tide detergent pens and safety pins, for the fashion conscious.

By the way, locker organizers and decorations are often pushed very hard, but 90% of the locker space will already be reserved for other things, so don't go crazy on that.

Set goals and targets: Many children are ready to sink or swim on the first term, and that approach may work for them. Others, though, need some guidance in setting goals (long-term) and targets (short-term). For sophomores and younger, the more specific, the better. Telling him/her to "do your best" is hilariously useless. "Doing as well as you can" is the dream goal of a child and a politician: it's undefinable, arguable, and best judged by the subject who has a vital stake in that judgment's result.

More important than goals are targets. Saying "make the honor roll" is a distant goal, and the intermediate steps may be much more realizable. Concrete specifics...at least 1 test in September with a 90 or above. Staying after school for help at least twice in September. An 85 or higher on the summer project. Small concrete targets are steps on the staircase to a goal.

Make sure to emphasize that targets are not do-or-die. Hitting 4 of 5 targets makes for a good month. There is strong division on the subject of rewards linked to academic performance. I personally think cash rewards are deleterious in the long run; I prefer more intangible rewards, closely linked to real results. Straight A's and B's indicate that stuff is getting done; extend bedtime by 30 minutes. Allow school-night socializing, etc.

It wouldn't kill the parent/guardian to make some goals for him/herself as well. Check the homework every night. Note: this does not mean asking the child if s/he has had homework. Ask to see the planner where everything is supposed to be written down. Then ask to see the completed homework. Anything less than this leaves the child plenty of room to lie, and yes, s/he will lie to you.

Go into it with another family. Contact the family of your child's best friend and sound them out. If you can sync up approaches and/or incentives, that gives your child an in-school support system for good times and bad. Don't go for a cookie cutter approach between your children, but knowing that Mr&Mrs. Smith care as much as your parents doubles the motivation.

Relax. Nothing that happens in the first week of class will determine your child's success for that year. Finishing the week is often an accomplishment. Plan something for the first weekend, just to have something you can anticipate. As Dr. Spock so well said, "relax. You know more than you think you do."

Deval's town hall in Wareham

2009-07-30T10:42:00.000-07:00

Managed to make it to the governor's "town hall" meeting in Wareham. The schedule is on his official site and of course the state police are in evidence, and his campaign committee is collecting contact information at the events. I'm not sure what the funding model is. Regardless, the governor is organizing several such events around the state to, in his words, "answer questions and welcome advice".

The event was moved inside to the Middle School auditorium from the location of Memorial Park due to possible rain -- the fact that the announced rain venue of Town Hall wasn't used may have depressed turnout to about 160 persons. To be clear, I think this is more reflective of the community -- a faithful supporter of Republican lightweight state representative Susan Williams-Gifford -- than anything else. There were a few people devoted to Deval there in 2006 delegate clothing, but the majority seemed to be interested citizens. It was a mix of political operatives, would-be political operatives, local officials, local nutjobs, and a good smattering of private but active citizens.

The governor showed up only about 10 minutes late, which is sparkling for such an event. People with clipboards urged attendees to sign in, and circulated during the event to take down contact information for any unresolved questions. After a short set of remarks, the governor invited questions, with staff numbering attendees and delivering microphones to the citizens.

I was glad to see that the dominant topic of the town hall was education. A school committee member, a teacher in another town, and a university professor all asked about these topics (I had the chance to speak with the governor in my capacity as a teacher and union member before the event). The governor heard a lot about the end-arounds for which charters are infamous, such as skimming off the best student to raise their scores and leaving district public schools with a greater proportion of students who require the most resources to educate.

While admitting the inequities in charter education, Deval repeatedly sought to move quickly off of the current charter model onto the idea of his proposed "Readiness Schools", a new and different kind of charter. He emphasized the fact that teachers could "take over" a school in this format as one of three ways to turn a public school into a "Readiness school", though any group of citizens can form a "Readiness school" to act out their issues with the local school as well.

My personal take (more on this later) would be that if the governor would be willing to mandate in law that (charter schools + readiness schools =< X) to ensure that we aren't exacerbating and enhancing the charter dodge, but are instead replacing it with an accountable and equitable model, I could be interested.

The governor also answered questions on stimulus funds and bottlenecks ranging from simple to complex, as well as addressing patronage, agriculture and water pollution industries, and funding for towns with a seasonally variable population, such as Wareham.

The governor is a clever, quick-witted, and charming man, and that was on full display during the town hall. The crowd liked him because frankly he's a likable guy. His charm survived even the press of the "fathers' rights" advocates vocalizing their issue. They did get two of 10 questions, which were repeats of questions they've asked elsewhere (one questioner drove down from Roxbury), a good show. However, this quickly moved into shouting imprecations and questions from the crowd, and spontaneously standing up and delivering speeches while the governor was trying to talk. My feeling is that I would likely agree with their beliefs, but their passion/stridency may well drown out the strengths of their argument. Deval dealt with them well -- I rather suspect he's had lots of practice -- but the points the advocates were making quickly were overwhelmed by the rudeness with which they made them.

Taxes, gambling, and health care were not raised as subjects of concern by citizens at the forum.

The governor has been approachable as long as I've known him, and he certainly works well in small crowds. I can't say that I agree with him as often as I wish I could, but he comes across very well in this format -- no wonder he's using it so much. I can see why somebody would come away more supportive of the governor after an evening such as this.

That great Cabinet

2009-07-29T15:33:00.000-07:00

Isn't it great that Janet Napolitano is touring an Olympics Center while Kathleen Sebelius is ... saying things...on the health bill? I mean, they are contributing so much more right now to the nation as Cabinet secretaries than they would as two governors and probable Senators as of January 2011.

Sheesh.

Romney is to Bush as Weld to...

2009-07-29T09:15:00.001-07:00

Charlie Baker, perhaps aware of how unknown he is to people (63% have no opinion of him in the recent Globe poll), is out of the gate in an effort to define himself. This video below is his first foray...

The production values are horrid, I think we can all agree. The green screen is obvious, and the body language and speech pacing are horrible. These are the mistakes you make at a stage between memorizing the lines and final take -- no way this should be a final take.

This video is also a preview of what we'll be hearing for the next several months, and it's an echo of McCain's campaign. Like McCain, Baker can be expected to dodge any connection to the last Republican to hold this office (Romney in Baker's case, Bush in McCain's). We can also expect similar invocations of an idealized Republican leader in the past -- Baker will talk about Weld with all the adoration that McCain spoke of Reagan.

The 2010 election is going to be reduced to Obama's Understudy vs. Weld Redux. (Does that make Cahill our Ross Perot?)