It did not take long for the conservative apologists and Republicans to get on their soap boxes after the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday in Tucson. While many expressed outrage at the shootings of Giffords and 19 other people -- what else could they do -- they also unleashed a torrent of comments denying that their over-the-top rhetoric may have contributed to the attack.
Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.
By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.
“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.
Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.
When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.
Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.
For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?
More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?
The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Friday, December 24, 2010
Not So Lame Duck
After the results of the mid-term elections had been recorded, the 111th Congress seemed poised for a stalemate. Republicans were swaggering about, drunk on election results that saw them gain six seats in the Senate and control of the House of Representatives. Democrats, on the other hand, were licking their wounds; reeling from what President Barack Obama called a shellacking, and pointing fingers at each other.
Now that the 111th Congress has ended, one might wonder if, in some demented way, the rise of the Republicans will prove good for America. Power concentrated in the hands of a few is deadly. When those powerful few are intoxicated with arrogance and their own sense of self-importance it can be devastating. We need only look at the results of the 1994 mid-term elections when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House of Representatives then quickly acted with utter disregard for what was in the best interest of the country. Arrogance led Gingrich and company to assume that they could do as they wished, including shutting down the Federal Government. It backfired on them.
It appeared that the Democrats, after they took control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the 111th Congress, had not learned any lessons from the Gingrich years. Party leaders acted with impunity, ignoring the seeds of discontent being sowed throughout the country. Democrats argued among themselves, seeking not to lead, but rather to dictate through extremes. As a liberal, I am more than elated that we have a national health-care plan. I am also overjoyed with many of the other legislative initiatives enacted in the last two years. Yet I am also disappointed that others were not completed – a revamping and strengthening of No Child Left Behind, for example – and that some of those initiatives that I cherish were set in motion through arrogance and a disregard for debate.
Democratic control of the 111th Congress reminded me of a conversation I had with a white postal worker in New York City after the 1993 election of Rudolph Giuliani as mayor.
"It's our time," the white postal worker proclaimed. "Now we're in control."
His statement carried the threat of revenge, a sense that it was time for white New York to lash back at the liberal agenda New York City had experienced. Enough with that liberal agenda and its leader, David N. Dinkins, the city's first black mayor, the postal worker argued as we continued to talk. White men had regained their rightful place in New York and they were ready to serve up retribution, he appeared to be saying. In his voice, and in the actions of many, there was a sense of entitlement and self-importance, a sense that now he and his put upon friends could finally put the city's minority population back in its place.
The comments that followed the 2010 mid-term elections carried the same threat. After two years of refusing to work with the current administration in an effort to win back Congress and make Obama a one term president, Republicans swore to continue their march, blocking all legislative action until they got what they wanted – a continuation of the tax cut for the wealthy. They did, indeed, receive what they sought. But at what price?
After the initial bellowing and grandstanding, several Republicans finally stood up and did the right things. The results were not totally to my liking, just as I am sure they were not to yours. But for the first time in many years, Washington seemed to at least be moving toward solutions to the problems that plague us as a nation.
Of course, this is not to absolve the far right of the Republican Party. They were obstructionists for the last two years, and they will seek to be obstructionists for the next two. Nor is it meant to coddle the far left of the Democratic Party, for many of them acted with the same arrogance as Gingrich's GOP majority.
At least, for a few days, we can bask in the sense of accomplishment that permeated Washington for the last few weeks. In doing so, we cannot forget that the afterglow of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress was created by cross-aisle communication. And with a new year approaching, we should pray that leveler heads will prevail and more legislators will have the gumption to stand up, reach out to their counterparts and say, "Let's fix what we has been broken for too long."
Now that the 111th Congress has ended, one might wonder if, in some demented way, the rise of the Republicans will prove good for America. Power concentrated in the hands of a few is deadly. When those powerful few are intoxicated with arrogance and their own sense of self-importance it can be devastating. We need only look at the results of the 1994 mid-term elections when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House of Representatives then quickly acted with utter disregard for what was in the best interest of the country. Arrogance led Gingrich and company to assume that they could do as they wished, including shutting down the Federal Government. It backfired on them.
It appeared that the Democrats, after they took control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the 111th Congress, had not learned any lessons from the Gingrich years. Party leaders acted with impunity, ignoring the seeds of discontent being sowed throughout the country. Democrats argued among themselves, seeking not to lead, but rather to dictate through extremes. As a liberal, I am more than elated that we have a national health-care plan. I am also overjoyed with many of the other legislative initiatives enacted in the last two years. Yet I am also disappointed that others were not completed – a revamping and strengthening of No Child Left Behind, for example – and that some of those initiatives that I cherish were set in motion through arrogance and a disregard for debate.
Democratic control of the 111th Congress reminded me of a conversation I had with a white postal worker in New York City after the 1993 election of Rudolph Giuliani as mayor.
"It's our time," the white postal worker proclaimed. "Now we're in control."
His statement carried the threat of revenge, a sense that it was time for white New York to lash back at the liberal agenda New York City had experienced. Enough with that liberal agenda and its leader, David N. Dinkins, the city's first black mayor, the postal worker argued as we continued to talk. White men had regained their rightful place in New York and they were ready to serve up retribution, he appeared to be saying. In his voice, and in the actions of many, there was a sense of entitlement and self-importance, a sense that now he and his put upon friends could finally put the city's minority population back in its place.
The comments that followed the 2010 mid-term elections carried the same threat. After two years of refusing to work with the current administration in an effort to win back Congress and make Obama a one term president, Republicans swore to continue their march, blocking all legislative action until they got what they wanted – a continuation of the tax cut for the wealthy. They did, indeed, receive what they sought. But at what price?
After the initial bellowing and grandstanding, several Republicans finally stood up and did the right things. The results were not totally to my liking, just as I am sure they were not to yours. But for the first time in many years, Washington seemed to at least be moving toward solutions to the problems that plague us as a nation.
Of course, this is not to absolve the far right of the Republican Party. They were obstructionists for the last two years, and they will seek to be obstructionists for the next two. Nor is it meant to coddle the far left of the Democratic Party, for many of them acted with the same arrogance as Gingrich's GOP majority.
At least, for a few days, we can bask in the sense of accomplishment that permeated Washington for the last few weeks. In doing so, we cannot forget that the afterglow of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress was created by cross-aisle communication. And with a new year approaching, we should pray that leveler heads will prevail and more legislators will have the gumption to stand up, reach out to their counterparts and say, "Let's fix what we has been broken for too long."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
An Open Letter to the Rev. Jesse Jackson
Dear Rev. Jesse Jackson:
I recently read in the Detroit News that you described urban farming in Detroit as a “cute, but foolish” idea. Instead of urban farming, you said, Detroit should add a battery plant. The city, you said, should obtain more industry because the Motor City should not become Moo-City. Also, you said, the city should allow urban squatting so people can take over vacant land and develop it. After all, you said, we are not urging farming in Baghdad.
Indeed.
Mr. Jackson, putting farms on uninhabited land is better than allowing weeds and garbage to grow from it. Growing food on urban farms could provide low-income residents with easier access to fresh produce and fruit. And if those farms use new technology, such as aeroponics, then a new green industry that uses less land and water could be developed. That can lead to new jobs producing not only food, but developing the technology used in such farming. There can even be an educational component to urban farming. Students could be exposed to other areas of agriculture, from creating plant hybrids to new food packaging methods to better storage facilities. Who knows, a Detroit high school student exposed to the possibilities of soy beans might decide to pursue a career that leads to finding other uses for soy. Simply, urban farming could be about more than just growing corn and selling it. It could be about developing technology so that food could be grown in the heart of Baghdad or even in drought stricken Ethiopia.
Adding a battery plant could further encumber the city to the auto industry, which has cyclical declines that often pull down the rest of the region’s economy. Part of the reason Detroit is in such financial trouble today is because of its dependency on the auto industry and the insulated nature of that industry. The city cannot abandon the auto industry, which is too much a part of its history and future, but Detroit must look to non auto-related ways to bring in revenue during an economic downturn. New farm technology could be developed and built in Detroit then shipped elsewhere.
In addition, urban areas have continuously been too dependent on manufacturing, particularly those enterprises that employ unskilled or low-skilled workers. We have seen manufacturing jobs dry up year after year, decade after decade, leaving most of urban America pot marked with abandoned factories and warehouses. Detroit doesn't need more of the same. The city is in desperate shape, so why not take a chance on something different? Why not break the mold and experiment with ideas that are not within the usual context of urban thinking? According to you, instead of using empty land for farming, the city should give it away to squatters for development. What a marvelous idea. Give away city land with the hope that someone will someday build on it. Such a plan could lead to land speculation and greater corruption in a city already reeling from corruption.
If you believe so much in the development potential of Detroit then how about you and some of your rich friends – the ones that received Coca-Cola franchises after your protests several decades ago – build a bottling plant in the city or some other business. And if you decide to do so, Mr. Jackson, please do it on land purchased from the city, not obtained through squatting. People like you have been squatting over Detroit for far too long, dropping all the wrong things on the city.
I recently read in the Detroit News that you described urban farming in Detroit as a “cute, but foolish” idea. Instead of urban farming, you said, Detroit should add a battery plant. The city, you said, should obtain more industry because the Motor City should not become Moo-City. Also, you said, the city should allow urban squatting so people can take over vacant land and develop it. After all, you said, we are not urging farming in Baghdad.
Indeed.
Mr. Jackson, putting farms on uninhabited land is better than allowing weeds and garbage to grow from it. Growing food on urban farms could provide low-income residents with easier access to fresh produce and fruit. And if those farms use new technology, such as aeroponics, then a new green industry that uses less land and water could be developed. That can lead to new jobs producing not only food, but developing the technology used in such farming. There can even be an educational component to urban farming. Students could be exposed to other areas of agriculture, from creating plant hybrids to new food packaging methods to better storage facilities. Who knows, a Detroit high school student exposed to the possibilities of soy beans might decide to pursue a career that leads to finding other uses for soy. Simply, urban farming could be about more than just growing corn and selling it. It could be about developing technology so that food could be grown in the heart of Baghdad or even in drought stricken Ethiopia.
Adding a battery plant could further encumber the city to the auto industry, which has cyclical declines that often pull down the rest of the region’s economy. Part of the reason Detroit is in such financial trouble today is because of its dependency on the auto industry and the insulated nature of that industry. The city cannot abandon the auto industry, which is too much a part of its history and future, but Detroit must look to non auto-related ways to bring in revenue during an economic downturn. New farm technology could be developed and built in Detroit then shipped elsewhere.
In addition, urban areas have continuously been too dependent on manufacturing, particularly those enterprises that employ unskilled or low-skilled workers. We have seen manufacturing jobs dry up year after year, decade after decade, leaving most of urban America pot marked with abandoned factories and warehouses. Detroit doesn't need more of the same. The city is in desperate shape, so why not take a chance on something different? Why not break the mold and experiment with ideas that are not within the usual context of urban thinking? According to you, instead of using empty land for farming, the city should give it away to squatters for development. What a marvelous idea. Give away city land with the hope that someone will someday build on it. Such a plan could lead to land speculation and greater corruption in a city already reeling from corruption.
If you believe so much in the development potential of Detroit then how about you and some of your rich friends – the ones that received Coca-Cola franchises after your protests several decades ago – build a bottling plant in the city or some other business. And if you decide to do so, Mr. Jackson, please do it on land purchased from the city, not obtained through squatting. People like you have been squatting over Detroit for far too long, dropping all the wrong things on the city.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Time for Backbone and Vision
Are there any Democrats with backbone in this country, any willing to present a vision for America and then fight vigorously to realize it? In 2008 it seemed Barack Obama was such a Democrat, but since taking office he has appeared to have turned against his own vision as if it was a nightmare. Obama the presidential candidate painted a picture of an America where discourse would be common and people would seek to work for the better of society, refusing to give in to the pettiness of partisan politics and racial bigotry.
It hasn’t happened, and not simply because Republicans have fought as hard as hell to keep it from happening. It hasn’t occurred because Obama and his band of professional politicians have not had the gumption to make it happen. Yes, the GOP and its Tea Party minions have worked hard to distort the issues and distract the voters. They have taken attack politics and fear mongering to a new level. But too often the problems Democrats face have more to do with their ineptitude than with the opposition’s strengths. Democrats are too quick to step back from their convictions for fear of offending voters in the midterm elections. They are campaigning not to lose, rather than fighting to win.
For example, President Obama rightfully stood before a group of Muslims and non-Muslims in the White House and proclaimed that the people seeking to build an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have the right to do so. He cited the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The next day, after being criticized for being out of touch with what most Americans feel, the President stepped back, saying that while he said Muslims had a right to worship, he did not necessarily say they had the right to build in Lower Manhattan. The President should have stuck by his earlier statement. More important, he should have been more emphatic in his support when the subject came up again.
Instead, his vacillation has led to such people as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight in Nevada, to attack the building of the Lower Manhattan mosque. “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” The New York Times quoted Jim Manley, a top adviser to Reid, as saying on Monday. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
Reid and other Democrats reacted because Republican House and Senate candidates have challenged them on what is a singularly local issue. What is built in Lower Manhattan is a New York City, not a state or Federal issue. If Republicans and Democrats want to debate whether mosque should be built in the United States then let’s bring in the battles in Tennessee and California, where Muslims are facing opposition though they are not trying to build near “hallowed” ground. The battle is not about hallowed ground. It is about stirring up anti-Islamic fervor.
“Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans,” said Elliott Maynard, a Republican running for Congress in Virginia. “Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?”
Newt Gingrich was no better. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Gingrich said on Monday. “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
The Democrats have accused the Republicans of exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks, telling voters that the GOP is more concerned about the symbolism of a mosque in Lower Manhattan that it is about the people injured at ground zero. Several weeks ago, many of the same Republicans who are standing up for the memory of those injured or killed in the Trade Center attacks opposed a new medical program that would have helped emergency workers and others who were exposed to hazardous materials at ground zero.
Yet, that Democratic message isn’t strong enough. The message that needs to be sent to voters during this off-season election cycle is that the Republicans, if they win the House or Senate, will seek to attack everything – from freedom of religion to who should elect U.S. Senators to who should receive U.S. citizenship. And that would create an even more frightening nightmare than anything from our outside enemies.
It hasn’t happened, and not simply because Republicans have fought as hard as hell to keep it from happening. It hasn’t occurred because Obama and his band of professional politicians have not had the gumption to make it happen. Yes, the GOP and its Tea Party minions have worked hard to distort the issues and distract the voters. They have taken attack politics and fear mongering to a new level. But too often the problems Democrats face have more to do with their ineptitude than with the opposition’s strengths. Democrats are too quick to step back from their convictions for fear of offending voters in the midterm elections. They are campaigning not to lose, rather than fighting to win.
For example, President Obama rightfully stood before a group of Muslims and non-Muslims in the White House and proclaimed that the people seeking to build an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have the right to do so. He cited the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The next day, after being criticized for being out of touch with what most Americans feel, the President stepped back, saying that while he said Muslims had a right to worship, he did not necessarily say they had the right to build in Lower Manhattan. The President should have stuck by his earlier statement. More important, he should have been more emphatic in his support when the subject came up again.
Instead, his vacillation has led to such people as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight in Nevada, to attack the building of the Lower Manhattan mosque. “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” The New York Times quoted Jim Manley, a top adviser to Reid, as saying on Monday. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
Reid and other Democrats reacted because Republican House and Senate candidates have challenged them on what is a singularly local issue. What is built in Lower Manhattan is a New York City, not a state or Federal issue. If Republicans and Democrats want to debate whether mosque should be built in the United States then let’s bring in the battles in Tennessee and California, where Muslims are facing opposition though they are not trying to build near “hallowed” ground. The battle is not about hallowed ground. It is about stirring up anti-Islamic fervor.
“Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans,” said Elliott Maynard, a Republican running for Congress in Virginia. “Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?”
Newt Gingrich was no better. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Gingrich said on Monday. “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
The Democrats have accused the Republicans of exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks, telling voters that the GOP is more concerned about the symbolism of a mosque in Lower Manhattan that it is about the people injured at ground zero. Several weeks ago, many of the same Republicans who are standing up for the memory of those injured or killed in the Trade Center attacks opposed a new medical program that would have helped emergency workers and others who were exposed to hazardous materials at ground zero.
Yet, that Democratic message isn’t strong enough. The message that needs to be sent to voters during this off-season election cycle is that the Republicans, if they win the House or Senate, will seek to attack everything – from freedom of religion to who should elect U.S. Senators to who should receive U.S. citizenship. And that would create an even more frightening nightmare than anything from our outside enemies.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Restocking the Market
Reading and watching the news lately has brought two things to mind. One is a saying in education: For every step forward that a student takes, he takes two steps back once he is removed from the moment. The other is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Abrams v United States, 1919) in which he set the stage for what later became known as the "marketplace of ideas," a belief that truth or good policies always win out over lies or bad policies.
In November 2008 we took a major step forward, electing the first black President of the United States. This historic moment turned the world's eyes toward America in a positive way. The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president seemed to announce that the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers set down more than two centuries ago had finally come true. America, it seemed, had fulfilled her promise.
But as we head into the midterm elections this year, we are slipping backward, falling behind even where we were some 21 months ago. The Tea Party has risen from the muck of the political arena, giving face, voice and comfort to so much that is wrong with America. Racist pandering and fear mongering has again replaced ideas and truth. We are seeing the nightmarish side of democracy, where fairness is trumped by political expediency.
Just look at several incidents across the country. Ron Ramsey, the Republican lieutenant governor trying to be governor of Tennessee, recently told an audience that Islam may be a cult. According to Ramsey, he wonders whether Islam "is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it."
In Gainesville, FL, the Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, has announced that the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks will be “International Burn a Koran Day.” The church’s pastor, Terry Jones, who is also the author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," said, “We feel, as Christians, one of our jobs is to warn,” according to an article by The Religion News Service. Jones added that the goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert, the news service reported.
Jones and his church are not alone. Ramsey's quote came on the same day as a protest against the building of a mosque outside the town of Murfreesboro, TN. A similar battle rages in New York City where Muslims hope to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, not that far from the former World Trade Center site.
It doesn't stop there. Conservative operatives disguised as journalist distributed misinformation about Shirley Sherrod, a black USDA official, in hopes of discrediting the NAACP and embarrassing the White House. The Tea Party in Iowa likened Obama to Hitler, while some of its followers have engaged in racially-motivated personal attacks on political leaders.
Amazingly, the hate mongers cite religion and the Founding Fathers when making their arguments. The idea that Christians, who protest over anything that they see as an attack on their religion, would even discuss burning the holy book of another religion is beyond the pale. Yet, it is what we have become -- a people blinded by hatred and poisoned by venom.
Each day we take another step back while the marketplace is flooded with tainted products. We can only hope that Holmes was right -- truth and good policies will eventually win out.
In November 2008 we took a major step forward, electing the first black President of the United States. This historic moment turned the world's eyes toward America in a positive way. The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president seemed to announce that the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers set down more than two centuries ago had finally come true. America, it seemed, had fulfilled her promise.
But as we head into the midterm elections this year, we are slipping backward, falling behind even where we were some 21 months ago. The Tea Party has risen from the muck of the political arena, giving face, voice and comfort to so much that is wrong with America. Racist pandering and fear mongering has again replaced ideas and truth. We are seeing the nightmarish side of democracy, where fairness is trumped by political expediency.
Just look at several incidents across the country. Ron Ramsey, the Republican lieutenant governor trying to be governor of Tennessee, recently told an audience that Islam may be a cult. According to Ramsey, he wonders whether Islam "is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it."
In Gainesville, FL, the Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, has announced that the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks will be “International Burn a Koran Day.” The church’s pastor, Terry Jones, who is also the author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," said, “We feel, as Christians, one of our jobs is to warn,” according to an article by The Religion News Service. Jones added that the goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert, the news service reported.
Jones and his church are not alone. Ramsey's quote came on the same day as a protest against the building of a mosque outside the town of Murfreesboro, TN. A similar battle rages in New York City where Muslims hope to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, not that far from the former World Trade Center site.
It doesn't stop there. Conservative operatives disguised as journalist distributed misinformation about Shirley Sherrod, a black USDA official, in hopes of discrediting the NAACP and embarrassing the White House. The Tea Party in Iowa likened Obama to Hitler, while some of its followers have engaged in racially-motivated personal attacks on political leaders.
Amazingly, the hate mongers cite religion and the Founding Fathers when making their arguments. The idea that Christians, who protest over anything that they see as an attack on their religion, would even discuss burning the holy book of another religion is beyond the pale. Yet, it is what we have become -- a people blinded by hatred and poisoned by venom.
Each day we take another step back while the marketplace is flooded with tainted products. We can only hope that Holmes was right -- truth and good policies will eventually win out.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Learning From Charter Schools
The debate continues to rage as if the answers are all in black or white. Yet, when it comes to the role of charter schools in the educational process, the answers are not simple. It is seldom that people can look at the issue without becoming polemic, either offering anti-union screeds or making it sound as if charter schools are the educational version of a Faustian bargain.
Tod Roberson's piece in the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-robberson_11edi.State.Edition1.bdf5ee.html) is an example of someone possibly giving charter schools more credence than deserved. In fact, Roberson’s opinion article is probably more interesting for what it does not say than for what it does say.
While charter schools have increased performance in some districts, they are not the panacea that advocates suggest. Nor are they the scourge that detractors portray. What Roberson lists as good charter school methods are simple "best practices" in pedagogy: Classroom management, discipline, incentives, group study, high standards and jigsawing.
The differences with charter and non-charter schools often have more to do with the flexibility that charters enjoy. For example, most charter schools get to pick students, as opposed to neighborhood schools in which no student in the area can be denied a seat. Charter schools often can send problem students packing for failure to comply with the rules of decorum. Most neighborhood schools cannot. Charter schools also do not have to adhere to the union contract, and some do not have to take the same standardized tests as neighborhood schools. While principals often micromanage even down to the "flow of the day" in neighborhood schools, charters often give teachers greater freedom to adjust instruction to fit student needs. Allowing teachers to adjust curriculum or instruction to fit student needs as opposed to a timetable is simply good educational practice. In addition, most public schools have gone through so many convoluted adjustments of the curriculum that it is hard for teachers to keep track. (The recent push by conservatives in Texas on the Social Studies curriculum is a good example.)
The problem is not necessarily the union, though many locals do not help in developing charter schools. Let us be frank: The role of the teachers union, like any other union, is to protect its members, not to promote the industry in which members work. Journalists often go to public unions for comment, but the fire, police, teacher and hospital unions are not there to improve those departments or agencies, but rather to keep the government from abusing members. (And unions have always withheld support from politicians who do not do labor’s biddings.) So why do we expect the teachers union to be any different than the United Auto Workers or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters?
In addition, people who often write about charter school successes fail to document charter school failures. Many charter schools have failed for the same reasons that neighborhood schools continue to struggle – poor management. There is often a lack of a concrete analysis or a detailed examination of charter school curriculums. In Roberson’s piece, for instance, it would have been nice if he had spent less time criticizing the union and more time explaining what he called "the general concept of a Harlem Children's Zone approach." Also, he could have explained in more detail what SLANT stands for and the reasons for it. (I believe it is from the KIPP schools and it is used to teach students how to listen.) Good teaching methods are not relegated to charter schools and are not a non-union versus union issue. In NYC, the teacher's union has started a charter school, though results are still out, and in Detroit teachers plan to open a principal-less school in September.
So if charter schools are not the do all and be all, then how do we improve the education system? For one, we must seek to remove as many politicians from the mix as possible. Whenever politicians are involved the emphasis is on everything but education. In Detroit where the school board is fighting an emergency financial manager for system control the last few months have been spent talking about a school board president who cannot write a coherent sentence. (That now former board president was also accused of fondling himself during meetings with the female superintendent.) In New York City some time ago, the animosity between one former schools chancellor and members of the board of education escalated to the point that the chancellor referred to a board member as a “political whore.” And in Texas, as I said earlier, conservatives voted to make the Social Studies curriculum kinder and gentler to conservative causes.
Once we remove the politicians then we must allow educators greater flexibility inside schools. That means that principals and other administrators cannot continue to micromanage each classroom. We must also recognize that while SLANT may work in KIPP, for example, it may not work in another school. But any school that believes a SLANT-like program can help students should be allowed to try. At the same time, if a school believes that the Teachers College writing program better suits students then that school should be allowed to add the program. And we must look at school start and end times. Recent studies have shown that teenagers perform better when schools start later, while elementary school students perform better when schools start earlier in the day. Yet changing school start and end times, as well as the length of the school year, would be met with immediate rejection from most adults who depend on the schools for childcare.
But the first thing we must do is tamp down the rhetoric and allow for pedagogical ideas to be floated, experimented with and discarded when unsuccessful. And we need to remember that the key to a good education is critical thinking and problem solving skills, not test taking.
Tod Roberson's piece in the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-robberson_11edi.State.Edition1.bdf5ee.html) is an example of someone possibly giving charter schools more credence than deserved. In fact, Roberson’s opinion article is probably more interesting for what it does not say than for what it does say.
While charter schools have increased performance in some districts, they are not the panacea that advocates suggest. Nor are they the scourge that detractors portray. What Roberson lists as good charter school methods are simple "best practices" in pedagogy: Classroom management, discipline, incentives, group study, high standards and jigsawing.
The differences with charter and non-charter schools often have more to do with the flexibility that charters enjoy. For example, most charter schools get to pick students, as opposed to neighborhood schools in which no student in the area can be denied a seat. Charter schools often can send problem students packing for failure to comply with the rules of decorum. Most neighborhood schools cannot. Charter schools also do not have to adhere to the union contract, and some do not have to take the same standardized tests as neighborhood schools. While principals often micromanage even down to the "flow of the day" in neighborhood schools, charters often give teachers greater freedom to adjust instruction to fit student needs. Allowing teachers to adjust curriculum or instruction to fit student needs as opposed to a timetable is simply good educational practice. In addition, most public schools have gone through so many convoluted adjustments of the curriculum that it is hard for teachers to keep track. (The recent push by conservatives in Texas on the Social Studies curriculum is a good example.)
The problem is not necessarily the union, though many locals do not help in developing charter schools. Let us be frank: The role of the teachers union, like any other union, is to protect its members, not to promote the industry in which members work. Journalists often go to public unions for comment, but the fire, police, teacher and hospital unions are not there to improve those departments or agencies, but rather to keep the government from abusing members. (And unions have always withheld support from politicians who do not do labor’s biddings.) So why do we expect the teachers union to be any different than the United Auto Workers or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters?
In addition, people who often write about charter school successes fail to document charter school failures. Many charter schools have failed for the same reasons that neighborhood schools continue to struggle – poor management. There is often a lack of a concrete analysis or a detailed examination of charter school curriculums. In Roberson’s piece, for instance, it would have been nice if he had spent less time criticizing the union and more time explaining what he called "the general concept of a Harlem Children's Zone approach." Also, he could have explained in more detail what SLANT stands for and the reasons for it. (I believe it is from the KIPP schools and it is used to teach students how to listen.) Good teaching methods are not relegated to charter schools and are not a non-union versus union issue. In NYC, the teacher's union has started a charter school, though results are still out, and in Detroit teachers plan to open a principal-less school in September.
So if charter schools are not the do all and be all, then how do we improve the education system? For one, we must seek to remove as many politicians from the mix as possible. Whenever politicians are involved the emphasis is on everything but education. In Detroit where the school board is fighting an emergency financial manager for system control the last few months have been spent talking about a school board president who cannot write a coherent sentence. (That now former board president was also accused of fondling himself during meetings with the female superintendent.) In New York City some time ago, the animosity between one former schools chancellor and members of the board of education escalated to the point that the chancellor referred to a board member as a “political whore.” And in Texas, as I said earlier, conservatives voted to make the Social Studies curriculum kinder and gentler to conservative causes.
Once we remove the politicians then we must allow educators greater flexibility inside schools. That means that principals and other administrators cannot continue to micromanage each classroom. We must also recognize that while SLANT may work in KIPP, for example, it may not work in another school. But any school that believes a SLANT-like program can help students should be allowed to try. At the same time, if a school believes that the Teachers College writing program better suits students then that school should be allowed to add the program. And we must look at school start and end times. Recent studies have shown that teenagers perform better when schools start later, while elementary school students perform better when schools start earlier in the day. Yet changing school start and end times, as well as the length of the school year, would be met with immediate rejection from most adults who depend on the schools for childcare.
But the first thing we must do is tamp down the rhetoric and allow for pedagogical ideas to be floated, experimented with and discarded when unsuccessful. And we need to remember that the key to a good education is critical thinking and problem solving skills, not test taking.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Foolishness of Wooing
The featured performance in the center ring of this year's National Basketball Association three-ring, free-agent circus is done. We are now left with lesser performances in the other rings, large clowns squeezing into small cars for bigger money. LeBron James' decision Thursday to move from the shores of Lake Erie to the shores of Biscayne Bay brought an end to the most enticingly hyped free agent summer in recent history. Not since 2000 -- when Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady and Tim Duncan became unencumbered players -- has the off season stirred so much excitement and specualtion.
While Hill and McGrady (free agents again this year) joined the Orlando Magic in hopes of building an NBA dynasty, Duncan chose to return to San Antonio. Hill barely played in Orlando because of injuries, and McGrady was left to carry the team alone. A decade later, James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh decided to pull off what the class of 2000 could not. They have joined forces, hoping to find in each other what they couldn't find in lesser teammates.
Things should work out better in Miami. James, Wade and Bosh are healthy, three young stars seeking to be just average Joes. Team players. The question becomes when will they win their first championship together? Who will be the master of this three-headed animal? Unlike other situations in which high scoring, dominant players have joined forces, Miami's triumvirate has unselfish players. James and Bosh apparently had tired of carrying the load for their respective teams, of being leaders charged with making their teammates better. So they joined Wade's team in hopes that he will make them champions. Wade, the ring master, now has what he wanted -- a strong supporting cast. Pat Riley also has what he wanted. One must now wonder how long will it be before Riley leaves the front office and sends his coach, Erik Spoelstra, packing.
The Heat have already changed the roster on their Web site. So have the Cleveland Cavaliers. But questions still remain. Who will be paid the most in Miami -- Wade, James or Bosh? Will Udonis Haslem return and for how little? Cleveland, which lost the biggest prize of the summer, only has a few free agents. But can the team that couldn't win with James win without him? Will Shaquille O'Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas come back? Does Cleveland want them back?
Meanwhile, the New York Knicks and the other teams that chucked big contracts in an effort to grab James have left themselves with little with which to compete. Two years of basketball down the drain. At least the free-agency hype has ended, though it will now be replaced by idiocy.
Just look at Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, Toronto and the Knicks. Minnesota has offered Darko Milicic about $6 million a year. Milwaukee has promised roughly the same amount to Drew Gooden. Memphis offered Rudy Gay a maximum contract, and Atlanta did the same with Joe Johnson. Toronto gave Amir Johnson about $6 million a year. And the Knicks, who spent years getting out from under bad contracts, signed Amare Stoudemire to a 5-year, nearly $100 million deal.
Basketball power has shifted. New York, once the preeminent location, is a joke to many in the league. Los Angeles and Miami have the star power now. Hollywood East and Hollywood West. While many, most notably NBA commissioner David Stern, see this week's developments as good for NBA coffers and television ratings, teams in smaller markets have to wonder. Can Minnesota, Detroit, Memphis, Oaklahoma City or Portland counteract the glamour of LA and South Beach?
I doubt it. Luckily for most NBA teams, not every player wants to be a sidekick, to ride someone else's coattails. Some want to lead their own teams. Something James and Bosh couldn't or wouldn't do.
While Hill and McGrady (free agents again this year) joined the Orlando Magic in hopes of building an NBA dynasty, Duncan chose to return to San Antonio. Hill barely played in Orlando because of injuries, and McGrady was left to carry the team alone. A decade later, James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh decided to pull off what the class of 2000 could not. They have joined forces, hoping to find in each other what they couldn't find in lesser teammates.
Things should work out better in Miami. James, Wade and Bosh are healthy, three young stars seeking to be just average Joes. Team players. The question becomes when will they win their first championship together? Who will be the master of this three-headed animal? Unlike other situations in which high scoring, dominant players have joined forces, Miami's triumvirate has unselfish players. James and Bosh apparently had tired of carrying the load for their respective teams, of being leaders charged with making their teammates better. So they joined Wade's team in hopes that he will make them champions. Wade, the ring master, now has what he wanted -- a strong supporting cast. Pat Riley also has what he wanted. One must now wonder how long will it be before Riley leaves the front office and sends his coach, Erik Spoelstra, packing.
The Heat have already changed the roster on their Web site. So have the Cleveland Cavaliers. But questions still remain. Who will be paid the most in Miami -- Wade, James or Bosh? Will Udonis Haslem return and for how little? Cleveland, which lost the biggest prize of the summer, only has a few free agents. But can the team that couldn't win with James win without him? Will Shaquille O'Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas come back? Does Cleveland want them back?
Meanwhile, the New York Knicks and the other teams that chucked big contracts in an effort to grab James have left themselves with little with which to compete. Two years of basketball down the drain. At least the free-agency hype has ended, though it will now be replaced by idiocy.
Just look at Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, Toronto and the Knicks. Minnesota has offered Darko Milicic about $6 million a year. Milwaukee has promised roughly the same amount to Drew Gooden. Memphis offered Rudy Gay a maximum contract, and Atlanta did the same with Joe Johnson. Toronto gave Amir Johnson about $6 million a year. And the Knicks, who spent years getting out from under bad contracts, signed Amare Stoudemire to a 5-year, nearly $100 million deal.
Basketball power has shifted. New York, once the preeminent location, is a joke to many in the league. Los Angeles and Miami have the star power now. Hollywood East and Hollywood West. While many, most notably NBA commissioner David Stern, see this week's developments as good for NBA coffers and television ratings, teams in smaller markets have to wonder. Can Minnesota, Detroit, Memphis, Oaklahoma City or Portland counteract the glamour of LA and South Beach?
I doubt it. Luckily for most NBA teams, not every player wants to be a sidekick, to ride someone else's coattails. Some want to lead their own teams. Something James and Bosh couldn't or wouldn't do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)