Friday, March 13, 2020

Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic -Manjoo - NYT, Naomi Klein on Pandemic and Disaster Capitalism - And How Are We Going to Pay for Fighting the Virus - the question not being asked

The coronavirus might teach us all to value a robust safety net — but there’s a good chance we’ll forget the lesson, because this is America, and forgetting working people is just what we do... Manjoo, NYT
The only thing that makes sense if the program Bernie Sanders is offering on health care and I can guarantee the costs of this crisis will make anything put on the table by Bernie pale in comparison. I want all the Bernie bashers over the costs - I'm talking to you Biden - to come back with their tales between their legs.
“You can look at it as socialized medicine,” Representative Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, told HuffPost. “But in the face of an outbreak, a pandemic, what’s your options?” As I said, it’s almost funny: Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. But the laugh catches in your throat, because the only joke here is the sick one American society plays on workers every day....
The coronavirus might teach us all to value a robust safety net — but there’s a good chance we’ll forget the lesson, because this is America, and forgetting working people is just what we do.
Farhad Manjoo, NYT
The NYT seems to have a split personality - fundamentally opposing Bernie Sanders while putting up a variety of signals on medicare for all. Tuesday, March 10 an op ed by Scott Atlas, of course from the right wing Hoover Institution, read like an ad for the current enormously wasteful  health care industry. Some of the article is LOL funny. But not laughable is the Manjoo piece:
Much of the danger we face now grows out of America’s tattered social safety net — the biting cost and outright lack of health care and child care and elder care, the corporate war on paid leave, and the plagues of homelessness and hunger. As the virus gains a foothold on our shores, many Americans are only now waking up to the ways these flaws in the safety net cascade into one another.
Farhad Manjoo who I used to read all the time when he did Tech for the times, wrote a piece that is also sort of funny - from another direction - in Thursday's major editorial of the Times in the prime spot opposite the op eds. Serious stuff for the NYT.

Manjoo offers a sliver of optimism though he dashes it at the end:
There may be a silver lining here: What if the virus forces Americans and their elected representatives to recognize the strength of a collectivist ethos? The coronavirus, in fact, offers something like a preview of many of the threats we might face from the worst effects of climate change. Because the virus is coldly indiscriminate and nearly inescapable, it leaves us all, rich and poor, in the same boat: The only way any of us is truly protected is if the least among us is protected. So what if we used this illness as an excuse to really, permanently protect the least among us?.....
The coronavirus might teach us all to value a robust safety net — but there’s a good chance we’ll forget the lesson, because this is America, and forgetting working people is just what we do....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/coronavirus-socialism.html
You might also check out the more likely vision from Naomi Klein:

Coronavirus Is the Perfect Disaster for ‘Disaster Capitalism’



Naomi Klein explains how governments and the global elite will exploit a pandemic.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/5dmqyk/naomi-klein-interview-on-coronavirus-and-disaster-capitalism-shock-doctrine

Republicans Want Medicare for All, but Just for This One Disease

Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic.

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

The Fat Lady Sang for Bernie - and Perhaps the Dem Party

Some thoughts from the rational left. I turn it over to Michael:
Michael Fiorillo has left a new comment on your post "Panicked Bernie Supporters Plead With him
Unlike many Bernie supporters, I was never convinced he could defeat Trump, even if he could win the Democratic nomination (which the #McResistance TM would go to any lengths to deny him, even if meant reelecting Hair Furor, since that, not Trump's reelection, might shatter their golden rice bowls).

But while Sanders might have lost to Trump, Biden will be destroyed by him: the accelerating cognitive decline (which Ds are gaslighting the public about), the hypocrisy about his truly horrendous legislative record, the corruption of his brothers and son. Trump will go medieval on him, and it will work...

And if corona virus and the economic crisis it's causing do allow Biden to eke out a (highly doubtful) victory, then we will be virtually guaranteed Trump 2.0 in the near future. Unhinged liberals and the #McResistance TM have convinced themselves that Nobody Can Be Worse Than Trump, but they are again wrong, as always: a strong case can be made that we "lucked out" with Trump, who is undisciplined, largely incompetent (though still mis-underestimated by hysterical liberals), focused mainly on his own boodling, and is relatively non-ideological. When the Next Trump emerges - some people predict it will be Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri - he will be far more clever and competent, and evilly effective.

In that case, if/when Stephen Colbert tells another grossly homophobic "joke" (which was OK Because Trump, right?) about Trump 2.0 and Putin, the guys with ski masks and automatic weapons may actually rappel through the windows of CBS, which the McResistance TM has been falsely predicting for 4 years now.

If the Center/Left refuses to offer working people tangible improvements in their lives (which is precisely what a Biden nomination constitutes) then that void will be filled by the Right, no matter how dishonestly.


If there are any silver linings in the pandemic, it might be that it slays “small government” and the model of “globalization” that have been shoved down our throats over the past forty years...

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/03/coronavirus-reveals-the-cracks-in-globalization.html 

 

Monday, March 9, 2020

Panicked Bernie Supporters Plead With him to go on the attack - but why expect Bernie to change his stripes?

Popular democracy to Sanders is a relationship where everyone gets a chance to be heard. Even though the aide worried that Bernie wasn’t optimizing his use of time, he admired his dedication. “At the end of the day, he’s a good man,” the aide says. “He cares about poor people. How many people really care about the poor?” But as Bernie’s popularity and influence grew, it seemed all he wanted to do was scale up the regime of town meetings.... Matt Tiabbi, Rolling Stone
Let me state straight up I'm a Bernie supporter and will vote for him in the NY primary at the end of April. But I'm also a realist and get annoyed when I hear magical thinking from the Bernie crowd, especially the socialists who always seem to think the fall of capitalism is about to occur (there is a case to be made for that) and the socialist nirvana will follow (I don't see that case). So let's look at some reality and also consider the case of what if it's Biden vs Trump? I know some people on the left who actually would prefer Trump because he would hasten the fall of capitalism. They probably don't see themselves ending up in a detention camp for their political activity as laws are passed to not allow any demos or rallies and the Trump courts say OK to everything - including a third term.

So I've finally been convinced - that the most important issue right now is not medicare for all, it's beating Trump. And a divided Dem Party makes that extremely unlikely. And I also don't love the attacks on Biden as being senile and mentally messed up. As one who also misses words and forgets things when distracted, I still see myself as competent --probably as competent to run this country as Trump is. So it's time to face facts. If Biden is the one I will most likely vote for him - unless he goes so far right I can't. Someone said to me Biden won't get anything done and I replied I don't care -- at the very least he would restore things on the environment, etc and probably move the needle on health care.

The key is the other elected officials and the left/progressive just don't have enough of them - yet. The infrastructure is still weak on the left, though growing - but not enough to have kept pace for Bernie growth. The movement will have to pass on to others with a different face - younger and not white.

The revulsion Trump inspires has become the dominant force and most democrats seem covinced that even a hampered Biden has a better chance to defeat Trump than Bernie. As many Dems seem repulsed by the label socialist as those who don't seem bothered by it. That's not enough.

I also want to toss in that if Bernie were the one to win the nomination and the election the reality is that he too would have trouble getting things done. The argument on the left that there would be a rising up to force the electeds to do the right thing is somewhat doubtful. We know that young people have a lot to do outside politics and they can get very busy fast.

I have some to think that Bernie's attacks on the Dem Party has created a serious backlash - not at the top but at the bottom. I see it from old colleagues on FB.

Go take a poll in your own schools -- where does Bernie stand vs Biden vs Trump. Take that pulse and pool it with other schools.

With Michigan seeming to be slipping away from Bernie, the pleas from the Matt Tiabbi, Chrystal Ball (Rising, The Hill), Michael Moore crowd are growing more intense for Bernie to slash and Bern Biden. They almost express outrage at Bernie for saying Biden is a friend and a nice guy and by doing that Bernie is killing his chances for making a comeback. Matt and his podcast partner Katy Halper seemed to think Bernie was satisfied to start and build a movement and doesn't want the nomination enough to do whatever it takes  and that if he doesn't go nuclear he is letting his supporters who have given him so much money down. I actually admire Bernie for being honorable even if it hurts his chances. It is that feature that has made him a different politician.

Let me say this again - if you can't win the black vote, especially the women, you can't win. Bernie seems to turn off the traditional black vote -- could be cultural - the way he comes off - or could religious people don't cotton to socialist ideas or to non-religious people, especially when they are not even Christian. I'm sure its complex and at some point we will know why. Would an AOC get the black vote? Probably do better but I'm not so sure.

My narrow experience has been in the UFT where a considerable number of black teachers (mostly a bit older) have  on the whole rejected the left-wing opposition groups who have remained mostly white over the decades.

To expect Bernie to go on the attack (like talk about Hunter or question Biden competence) is sort of funny coming from Bernie supporters who brag about Bernie sticking to his guns on so many issues. Taibbi described Bernie as not aggressive personally and a counter puncher -- he will respond if attacked but not go on the attack. Bernie genuinely seems to like Joe from what we hear and personal issues count and that is one of the reasons I like Bernie.

While we may see an increase in intensity from Bernie why expect him to be something he is not? And I also think Bernie needs to think practically. What if he doesn't get the nomination and slash and burn tactics create so many divisions in the Democratic Party, it doesn't recover for the challenge to Trump. Biden does not look like a great candidate and I always thought Bernie had a better chance to beat Trump. Given the outcomes of the past two weeks I'm not so sure. We have learned that you can't win without the black vote and despite Bernie people pointing to young black people favoring Bernie - well you saw the outcome -- massive rejection of Bernie in the black community. Also stories that suburban women are not for Bernie.

I've had some personal experiences with white women of a certain age who despise Trump so much they start spitting and sputtering when his name comes up. What surprised me was how much they dislike Bernie - there seems to be a gag reflex for them - Bernie seems to call up something visceral and they attribute all kinds of things to him -- aggressive, ego-driven, selfish -- no matter how much I try I can't dent them.

And then there are the older voters generally who reject Bernie by heavy amounts.

So to me things are looking pretty bleak. Michael Moore on his podcast made the bogus case that if the western states had reported first Terrible Tuesday would have been reported differently in the media while ignoring that many ballots in California and Colorado were mailed in before the Biden surge. There's too much stacked up against Bernie but I will root for him hard in Michigan.

If you want to hear some podcasts, look up Matt Taibbi with Katy Halper - Useful Idiots, Michael Moore - Rumble, and The Young Turks. If you want to understand the revolutionary left position in the Dem Party and Bernie I heard an excellent analysis on REVLEFT Radio blog on March 2. I learned a lot about why some Bernie or busters will sit out the election.

Here is the Taibbi piece in Rolling Stone:

To Rebound and Win, Bernie Sanders Needs to Leave His Comfort Zone

Current and former staffers say Sanders has run a great campaign — except when it comes to taking on Democrats like Joe Biden by name. Can he fix that?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bernie-sanders-attack-joe-biden-democratic-primary-963934/

Friday, March 6, 2020

Warren wanted to reform everything except the Democratic Party itself - NYT

While Mr. Sanders offered them red meat, the other candidates were trying to sell an Impossible Burger.
Mr. Sanders’s most loyal followers are as much part of a counterculture as they are members of a political campaign. Rather than asking the best and brightest to lead the way beyond left and right, they have come up with a novel fusion of populism and socialism that marries a critique of the inequalities generated by capitalism with a rejection of technocratic nudging and meritocratic striving.
.....the Sanders campaign has its fair share of Ivy-trained policy specialists. But to its millennial base, the difference between their tribe and the rest of the party is obvious at first sight. It’s what separates Ms. Ocasio-Cortez from Katie Porter, Jacobin from Vox and Democratic Socialists of America from the Democratic Renaissance Project. They can’t stand MSNBC; their attitude toward Russia, Ukraine and impeachment tended toward indifference; and don’t get them started on “The West Wing.” 
 The problem for Mr. Sanders is that this group is still a distinct minority among Democrats, and the populist revolution that was supposed to sweep new voters to the polls has failed to arrive. But Democratic leaders shouldn’t celebrate for long. Mr. Sanders remains a formidable opponent, and President Trump will be waiting in the fall. The Democratic establishment has put all its chips on Mr. Biden, and the costs will be high if the gamble doesn’t pay off... NYT -
This is an excellent analysis and confirms some of my thinking that while the left has grown it is far from reaching a critical mass necessary and that explains the recent turn of affairs in the primary. But if Biden loses to Trump, Shenk points out something I've been thinking:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will turn 35, the minimum age required to serve as president, on Oct. 13, 2024.
2024 - AOC and Pete battle for the soul of the dem party and don't be shocked if the same scenario plays out but next time the face of the left won't be an old Jewish guy from Brooklyn.

Opinion | Elizabeth Warren Was the Wrong Kind of Radical

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/opinion/elizabeth-warren-drops-out.html

She wanted to reform everything except the Democratic Party itself.

Mr. Shenk is a co-editor of Dissent.
Remember when Elizabeth Warren was going to save the Democratic Party?

Back in 2016, it looked as if she had been engineered in a lab to broker a truce between the Democratic establishment and a resurgent left. Instead, she has spent the last year caught in the crossfire between the two camps. It’s a bloody tale with important lessons for would-be peacemakers in the Democratic civil war.

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Super Tuesday Dem Primary Takeaway #1

Who really won Super Tuesday? Not Joe Biden. But those old three forces of American history — the ones which led directly to American collapse. Patriarchy, supremacy, and capitalism.... This was the day America rejected what was probably it’s last and best chance at social democracy.... voters rejected even the most lightweight kind of social democracy possible, which is what Bernie offered.
.....umair haque
--The Day America Rejected Social Democracy and Chose More Collapse
Bernie's not even a real socialist but calls himself one. An interesting, if dismal appraisal of Super Tuesday. I'm working on my own appraisal but the landscape keeps changing ever hour. My socialist friends have eternal optimism, especially Marxists who are sure capitalism will collapse and be replaced by nirvana socialism. So far history says the opposite - but we have time - until the floods followed by us becoming Venus.

I listened to all sides yesterday - the gleeful MSNBC and the sober analysis from still hopeful Bernie sites. Biden people think Trump will kill Bernie and Bernie people (including me) think Trump will kill Biden. I would rather Biden lose to Trump than Bernie because a Bernie loss to Trump would really kill the move to progressivize the Dem Party, so there's a silver cloud in a sense. I disagree with Haque in this sense -- if Biden loses to Trump the left is still alive and building. If Biden were to win he would be so ineffective, the left would still rise. If Bernie were to win he would be undercut by both parties who want to brand him a failure and might be Jimmy Carterized. So my political instinct is that the best case scenario is for Bernie not to win the nomination but come close and show the progressive movement is alive and willing to fight for a takeover of the Dem party - though I'm already seeing signs of left abandonment and talk of third party. Maybe there's some hope with the Democratic Socialists.

Umair Haque lines up with my view - that as capitalism fails we are more likely to get fascism than socialism. Here is one of his conclusions:
Poverty, in other words, causes fascism. Keynes made that great discover a full century ago. Poverty as in deprivation of the basics, which is what Americans suffer. Who else has to ration insulin and education and operations because there’s never enough money to afford what you need? What the?

Electing — or even running — a Biden won’t break the vicious cycle of poverty and fascism that’s at the heart of American collapse. It will only fuel it. Because a Biden, like any good neoliberal, doesn’t think people deserve basic things as human rights, whether healthcare or retirement. You are only worth what you earn. Nobody has any intrinsic or inherent worth. Exploitation becomes the only social law or norm or value left in operation. Bang — American collapse.

Yet that is exactly why a demagogue can come along and makes people — who feel worthless, little, betrayed, angry — feel good and valued again. Biden is the status quo — but in a deep way. In the battle between a failed neoliberalism and an ascendant authoritarianism — how can the former win? It’s a failed neoliberalism that sowed the seeds of authoritarianism, by dehumanizing and violating and abusing people, to the point that they sought to do all that right back to even more vulnerable people. That is how fascism is born, and why “it” happened here in America all over again.
I'll come back to this and focus some attention on the process of endorsement in our own union (UFT/AFT) where Mulgrew went Biden and Randi at the last minute went Warren for show while we know they preferred Biden all along. The idea being floated that Warren might drop out and support Bernie seems ridiculous to me because I see Warren as closer in some ways to Biden -- stories of her being offered VP by both candidates are floating around but I see Klobuchar as being rewarded for her endorsement by Biden but more likely Harris or Stacie for Biden. I see a Nina Turner type for Bernie.

The Day America Rejected Social Democracy and Chose More Collapse

Some (Grim) Lessons From Super Tuesday


Mar 4 · 12 min read




That was quite a wild ride. Super Tuesday.

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

WE Caucus makes inroads in Philadelphia Teacher Union Election Against President Jordan but the AFT Machine Still Prevails with big majority

Longtime teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan will hold on to his leadership post after fending off a challenge from an increasingly vocal and consequential caucus within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers... Philadelphia Inquirer
The trend within teacher unions for more militant action bodes well for WE and caucuses like it. But in Philadelphia at least, it’s delayed by four years.... Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
March 3, 2020 - 4PM I'm watching a live feed on FB of Nancy Pelosi on the education bill with Randi standing next to her. Standing with them is newly elected Philly union president Jerry Jordan who just defeated the left WE caucus in the election last week. Hmmm. No Alex Caputo-Pearl who led a successful strike as president of the UTLA and was just elected VP after yielding to Cecily Myart-Cruz has been elected president of UTLA, the first biracial Black woman elected to lead the union in its 50-year history. UTLA, the 2nd largest union in the AFT after the UFT. Or Jessy Sharkey, president of the Chicago TU, the third largest local which was leaning Bernie but due to some Warren support did not endorse? (Randi endorsed Warren over the weekend- a political play since Mulgrew is running as a Biden delegate and we know they are on the same page. In other words, I see this as a shot at the left. (I wonder if WE pushed for an endorsement of Bernie as we saw MORE members under the guise of Labor for Bernie do in the UFT?)

I remember at the 2014 AFT convention in LA, a workshop was set up for Alex Caputo-Pearl and then Chicago union president Karen Lewis to discuss progressive unionism and Randi forced them to include Mulgrew and Jerry Jordan as part of the panel. I taped it but never published that very interesting debate. Alex and Karen were bulldozed by Randi.

Since I always look for conspiracy theories I see the Jordan presence as a slam at the left by Randi.

Anyway, here is some info on what happened in Philly where WE (Caucus of Working Educators) ran its 2nd campaign and doubled their vote from last time. I got to know WE people years ago when we hung out with them in LA before they were even a caucus and they were strong social justice people but with a real feel for the members. I liked a lot of them.

WE is affiliated with rising left wing opposition in the AFT through UCORE where elections were won in Baltimore recently - see my report: Why Can't MORE B more like BMORE? - Radical Teachers’ Movement Comes to Baltimore where I contrasted these rising movements with the failures of MORE in NYC. Look at the WE platform as described in the Inquirer story for an explanation.
The progressive group’s platform centered on empowering PFT members to have more of a say in the operation of their union, and on holding open contract negotiations with the district. It promised to fight for higher wages for paraprofessionals, better environmental conditions, and smaller class sizes. WE members have criticized the current PFT regime as too bureaucratic and slow to respond to members’ concerns, and not active enough on issues of social justice.
Last time WE focused on social justice - note the concentration on bread and butter. MORE fundamentally ignores the day to day issues UFT members face. MORE, by the way, ran a fundraiser for WE a few weeks ago. Look at the excellent WE web site: https://www.workingeducators.org/

And it is pretty interesting that WE, which was inspired by MORE in 2015 to form a caucus got almost 40% of the vote in its second run for office while MORE was destroyed in the 2019 UFT elections in its third run for office. [I have lots to say about why but will have to do that another time.] I believe if the undemocratic socialists hadn't blown up MORE we would have been able to push into the one third range by running a strong united front campaign. But that game is over for a long time.

Here is a fairly sympathetic article towards WE in the Inquirer and a more skeptical article by the right wing Mike Antonucci. I land somewhere between the two because Jerry Jordan is a weak union leader and Philly teachers have been slammed and he still got 62% of the vote. The turnout was tremendous - 60%, up from 44% in the last election in 2016, which accounts for the doubling of the WE vote from last time.
Compare that to the meager turnout in UFT elections - half that or less.

Still, 62% is not insignificant but we've always maintained that it is within striking range and if WE keeps organizing and doesn't make the same mistakes as MORE they may be serious contenders in 4 years. Or not, given the methods the UFT-like machines use to maintain control --- see above for Jerry Jordan appearance on the stage with Randi and Pelosi.

Philadelphia teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan fends off challengers, but progressives make gains


https://www.inquirer.com/education/pft-philadelphia-teachers-union-jerry-jordan-caucus-of-working-educators-we-election-leadership-20200226.html


Philadelphia teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan fends off challengers, but progressives make gains
Jonathan Wilson
Longtime teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan will hold on to his leadership post after fending off a challenge from an increasingly vocal and consequential caucus within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

Organizing by the Caucus of Working Educators fueled strong turnout in the election, whose results were announced Wednesday.
The results are especially weighty given the PFT’s outsized role in the city’s political landscape. The union plays a crucial oversight role in the Philadelphia School District’s unfolding asbestos crisis, and it is negotiating the first contract since the union won back the right to strike with the district returning to local control in 2018.
Jordan’s slate, known as the Collective Bargaining Team, appeared to win 62% of the vote, with the early tally 4,453 to 2,761. Split-ticket votes have not yet been counted, but the early results made clear that most of the union’s 13,000 members favored Jordan’s steady hand, track record, and collaborative working style.
Jordan, who has led the PFT since 2007 and has worked for the union full time since 1987, said he was “delighted” by the results, which came on his 71st birthday.

"Our nearly 13,000 members are passionate, dedicated, and engaged, and working with them daily is one of the great honors of my life,” Jordan said in a statement. “The campaign was spirited, and it allowed us the opportunity to organize around a vision for public education that resonated with our membership.”
Nearly 60% of the PFT’s 13,000 teachers, counselors, nurses, secretaries, and paraprofessional workers cast ballots, up from 46% in 2016, the first time WE opposed Jordan’s leadership.

The Caucus of Working Educators, whose slate was topped by Kathleen Melville, a teacher at the Workshop School, a high school in West Philadelphia, made a stronger showing than it did in 2016, the last time it challenged Jordan’s leadership.

The progressive group’s platform centered on empowering PFT members to have more of a say in the operation of their union, and on holding open contract negotiations with the district. It promised to fight for higher wages for paraprofessionals, better environmental conditions, and smaller class sizes. WE members have criticized the current PFT regime as too bureaucratic and slow to respond to members’ concerns, and not active enough on issues of social justice.
WE, part of a wave of young people turning to organized labor as a way to make change, comes out of a tradition of the rank-and-file educators who have taken over unions in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. These are cities where union leaders have taken their members on massive, high-profile strikes — with significant public support — that reminded the country that unions are still a force to be reckoned with.
The Caucus of Working Educators’ campaign is part of a trend of rank-and-file challenges to the union establishment, as legacy unions have languished around the country. Union members — from journalists to UPS package handlers to truck drivers — have challenged veteran leadership, which they accuse of being too complacent and too cozy with management to fight for workers.
Melville, 37, congratulated Jordan and his team and said in a statement that WE looked forward “to continuing to push for a more engaged and empowered PFT membership together.”
The caucus’ stronger showing, she said, made it plain that “Working Educators’ vision has resonated with thousands of educators across the city."
Jordan, in an interview, said WE’s campaign “was a very serious challenge," but said that its platform “was very similar to the platform my caucus had” — focused on working conditions and meaningful wage increases.
WE members’ views will certainly have a place during negotiations, said Jordan, adding that so far only a few bargaining sessions have been held. The PFT president expects that the pace of talks will now accelerate.
So far, Jordan said, the talks have been “very professional.”
Now the Antonucci take:

Incumbent Holds Off Opposition in Philadelphia Union Election

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2020/02/27/incumbent-holds-off-opposition-in-philadelphia-union-election/

On the heels of this story about a long-time incumbent union president being challenged by some members of his rank-and-file comes the election for officers of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.
Jerry Jordan has been president of PFT since 2007, but he faced strongly organized opposition from Kathleen Melville and her Caucus of Working Educators (WE).
WE wants to reverse PFT’s decline. It claims that membership has shrunk by 40%, from 21,000 to 13,000.
Turnout was high for a union election, with more than half of eligible members casting ballots. The final results have not yet been certified, but Jordan emerged as the clear winner, with somewhere between 60-66% of the vote.
The outcome was bittersweet for WE, which more than doubled its vote totals from four years ago and emerged as a force to be reckoned with. However, even as the caucus improved turnout, it couldn’t cobble together something closer to a majority.
WE is similar to other opposition caucuses throughout American Federation of Teachers affiliates in that it wants a more muscular approach to collective bargaining and a social justice focus. The caucus has received credit for demanding open contract negotiations, instead of the closed-door bargaining between district and union officers that is standard practice throughout the U.S.
But a closer look reveals that WE’s call for openness extends only to more members of the PFT. The caucus wants one member from each school to be present at the table, not the public.
The trend within teacher unions for more militant action bodes well for WE and caucuses like it. But in Philadelphia at least, it’s delayed by four years.
Mike's last comment is ridiculous. What does he mean that the public should be at the table? Unions are not public agencies. Let the city bring in the public if it wants.

On Democracy: The Case for Consensus - and my experience in UFT opposition groups

With today being Super Tuesday and supposedly democratic let me make a few points about consensus and caucuses and also talk about my experiences in caucuses (not the same thing) inside the UFT and my differing experiences with democracy in those groups. (Yes I can say everything I learned about democracy I learned in the UFT and in ICE and MORE.)

One of the big gripes I had in the transition from the consensus ICE Caucus to the strict voting of MORE Caucus was how much more democratic and satisfying emotionally the ICE experience was compared to MORE where there was all sorts of manipulation of democracy, including agenda items, how much time was allotted, who was chairing meetings, etc. All designed to assure the people running the group could keep control. And when a time came that they felt they were losing that control they just blew it all up and purged the potential opposition.

I always tried to raise the issue of how some of us viewed democracy and was mocked by some for doing so.  Strict majority rule is oppressive and that was why when we established by-laws in MORE we put in provisions for super majorities to protect the interests of a minority. More ideal to me would have been attempts to find consensus like we did in ICE-UFT and in the previous group I belonged to in the 70s. On very rare occasions we On the ideologue left consensus is a no-no.

A big advantage of consensus is that everyone has to give something in order for the group to function. But when you have hard-edged ideologues in the group consensus will never happen. In ICE we were extreme in the sense that we would spend as much time talking things out as was necessary and we came up with some excellent understanding of issues - there wasn't one ICE meeting where I didn't learn something or get some insight. At MORE meetings I learned very little other than how some factions operated to control the group - actually a very valuable lesson. The argument against consensus was that we had too many people which was not really that true -- it was more about suppressing voices that might raise disagreement. In the early days of ICE we also had large groups and managed some consensus - even when people from groups like the open communist group, Progressive Labor were in the room and clearly disagreed with some policies they were given the chance to present their case and seemed fine if they didn't get their way and didn't veto - a key to consensus is viewing the health of the group as being more important at times than your own views.

Anyway, to get to the point - Today's NYT science section has an article (below) about how certain social animals make group decisions and it's fascinating - they use consensus - even bees. Thus I come to the conclusion that consensus is a natural state and I imagine back in the per-civilization days that was how small bands of humans made decisions.

Now I know that consensus is tough in large societies but I also believe that voting is in many ways undemocratic because 49% can be suppressed.  Proportional representation would solve some of that - something you will never see inside the undemocratic world of the UFT which has been organized from its very beginning along some of the same ideologue ways we've seen in other groups. Like we know full well that Randi will decide on which candidate to support and will then try to hape things to make it look democratic - and not succeed. (More on this point in a follow-up).

The caucus system which has been so vilified is an attempt to have a version of consensus - oh horrors, the political game the media wants played doesn't get done so let's toss out democracy.

How Animals Vote - The New York Times

Sneezing Dogs, Dancing Bees: How Animals Vote

The 2020 election is off to a complicated start. Maybe we can draw some comparative political lessons from the animal kingdom.

Are humans the only animals that caucus? As the early 2020 presidential election season suggests, there are probably more natural and efficient ways to make a group choice. But we’re certainly not the only animals on Earth that vote. We’re not even the only primates that primary.
Any animal living in a group needs to make decisions as a group, too. Even when they don’t agree with their companions, animals rely on one another for protection or help finding food. So they have to find ways to reach consensus about what the group should do next, or where it should live. While they may not conduct continent-spanning electoral contests like this coming Super Tuesday, species ranging from primates all the way to insects have methods for finding agreement that are surprisingly democratic.

Saturday, February 29, 2020

Fred Smith - What our tests don't measure





via tworiversblog.com
via boredpanda.org
via izismile.com
brilliant-kids-test-answers-7

A Day at City Council hearings on class size: It was so overcrowded, scores of parents and advocates turned away

Leonie Haimson doesn't allow a broken ankle to keep her away
I attended the hearing Friday from 11 AM until it ended almost at 4. Leonie reports below in full on the day. I was supposed to go on a class trip with to the NY Historical Society but the teacher got sick and I decided to head down to the hearing. Gloria Brandman was already there but still in the hallway - she didn't get to speak until after 3 PM. I think current and ex-teachers have real world stories to tell from the long-range career perspective.  

Leonie reported: When Chair Treyger asked her what number she would give to the importance of class size from one to ten, she refused to say. It was clear after questioning that the Quality Reviews that DOE officials carry out and that are supposed to highlight for principals what changes are needed in their schools never mention class size. I'd love to see Goldmark in a class.


A bunch of us were out in the hall for an hour because the room was filled to the brim. We missed the misleading and open lies told by DOE officials who defended their policies. One of them, Deputy Chancellor Karin Goldmark was quoted in the Chalkbeat article which claimed she had been a teacher. I wonder for how long she taught - and she makes around 220k a year.

The great Mark Treyger, the Ed committee chair, handled all these hours of testimony with grace and dignity, in addition to chiming in so many comments relating to his own teaching experiences. Former teacher and ed chair Danny Dromme was also present for part of the hearing, but through the afternoon the room thinned out considerably. Having political people who were teachers for more than 10 minutes is important.


I was not intending to speak but there to support Leonie, but as the hearing was ending she suggested I take the final slot to speak. With nothing prepared I still figured that I had enough experience with the class size issue to fill 3 minutes of time. There were about 5 people in the room to hear it. I barely remember what I said but Leonie did tweet out some of it -- maybe I'll look it up and put up some of my points later.
court officer explaining to crowd outside hearing





Leonie reports:

Today, from 10 AM to 3:45 PM, the City Council Education Committee held hearings on class size at City Hall.  So many people showed up to testify that it was standing room only in the Committee hearing room.  It was so overcrowded that City Hall guards did not allow many of the parents and advocates to  had planned to testify enter the room, and many left before they had a chance to speak.   



First, Chair of the Education Committee Mark Treyger, a former teacher himself, opened the hearings by saying that “Unfortunately, efforts to reduce class size in New York City public schools haven’t gotten very far despite all the passion & hard work of parents, advocates, teachers & students - including many here today.”  Indeed class sizes have risen substantially since NY state’s highest court said that class sizes in NYC schools were too large to provide students with their constitutional right to an adequate education.



Chair Treyger questioned Karin Goldmark , Deputy Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education, and Lorraine Grillo, President of the School Construction Authority, asking if they prioritized reducing class size as a goal.  Goldmark was non-committal, saying  that though the DOE realized the research shows that smaller classes do lead to better student outcomes, there is a lack of resources and NYC schools have many needs. When Chair Treyger asked her what number she would give to the importance of class size from one to ten, she refused to say. She also said she didn’t know if the DOE had ever tried to analyze the results to see if smaller classes were correlated with student success, and she did not know if Edustat or any of the other data systems that the DOE currently uses or plans to use in the future even capture class size as a critical factor. It was clear after questioning that the Quality Reviews that DOE officials carry out and that are supposed to highlight for principals what changes are needed in their schools never mention class size.



Then scores of parents, former teachers, students, advocates, education leaders, professors, school service providers and representatives from community based organizations testified from their own experience how NYC students are deprived of a quality education and a better chance to learn because of class sizes out of control.  Many urged the City Council to ensure that at least $100 million is allocated for class size reduction in next year’s budget, as the first step towards providing an equitable education for the city’s students..  All children benefit from smaller classes, the research shows, but especially those children from low-income families, students of color, English Language Learners, and students with special needs, which together make up the majority of NYC public school students.






"Class size is one of the reasons I helped start the Campaign for Fiscal Equity back in 1993, seeing how overcrowded the schools in District 6 were during my time as president of the board," said State Senator Robert Jackson. "I understand some of DOE's resistance to hiring more teachers comes from fiscal concerns. That’s why I’m committed to fully funding the Foundation Aid formula at the state level. I’ve introduced a bill that adds a new bracket to increase income tax on New York’s highest earners, generating an estimated $4.5 billion in revenue. But the DOE has to commit to use that in adherence to the Contracts for Excellence," Senator Jackson added, which requires NYC to implement class size reduction.



Joshua Aronson, NYU Professor of Psychology and Education explained: "I have visited many schools in NYC and elsewhere in the nation. Manageable class sizes aren’t sufficient to fix our schools. But from my personal observations as well my analysis of the research, I believe small class sizes may be necessary to creating the a powerful school culture, especially in underserved populations, that students need to succeed. All children can become eager, curious learners, but only when their key physical and social needs are met.  This takes time, care, compassion— and most importantly—small class sizes. When a school offers small classes it can accomplish what others can only dream of. Reducing class size is expensive on the front end, but the benefits will soon outweigh the costs in my opinion, and in the opinion of nearly every teacher and principal I have ever met."
Tiffani Torres, a senior at Pace HS and a member of Teens Take Charge, said: “Having been in both small and large classes, I know first-hand the difference between both.  In smaller classes, I can ask questions without fear of distracting 30 other students, and can receive more one- on- one help from my teachers.”  She talked about how many students had dropped out of her calculus class because it was too large, and how many of those who remained were confused because of the lack of focused feedback and support from her teacher. Both she and Lorraie Forbes, another student, said that they would give  class size a ten for its importance for student learning and engagement.


Jacqueline Shannon, Associate Professor and the Department Chair of Early Childhood and Art Education at Brooklyn College, said: “In 2014, I helped write a letter to then-Chancellor Farina, warning her that increases in class size that had occurred since 2007 in NYC public schools, particularly in the early grades, threatened to undermine the gains one might otherwise expect from the expansion of preK.  Our letter was signed by over 70 professors of education, psychology, and sociology. Since then, the city has made very little progress in lowering class sizes.  The number of children in Kindergarten in classes of 25 or more has risen by 68%  since 2007, and the number of  1st through 3rd graders of thirty or more has increased by nearly 3000%.  While the Mayor should be thanked for expanding preK and now 3K, early childhood education does not end at age 5.  The city should now  focus on lowering class sizes in our public schools.”


Shino Tanikawa, the co-chair of the Education Council Consortium, which represents the parent-led Citywide and Community Education Councils in NYC, said, “It has been nearly twenty years since the landmark CFE decision, which mandated smaller classes for NYC schools.  Although the City submitted a class size reduction plan, it was abandoned by both the DOE and the NYS Education Department, and instead our schools experienced a sharp increase in class sizes across the city.  The Chancellor has been pushing for school integration but we must reduce class sizes for integration to succeed.  Class size reduction is an urgent need that cannot wait. “


I’ve worked in many schools and know from my own personal experience that class sizes should be smaller to give students a better chance at success,” said Evie Hantzopoulos, Executive Director of Global Kids and public school parent.  “Research proves that this simple strategy helps all students, and especially our most vulnerable ones, achieve the positive learning outcomes needed for the 21st Century.”   


State Senator Brad Hoylman, whose statement was read for him by a staffer, observed : “On average, NYC public school classrooms have 10-30% more students than elsewhere in the state. As the elected representative for thousands of families with young children, I know reducing class size is a primary concern. My constituents — and every child in New York — deserve the opportunity to succeed in school, and class size is an integral factor in determining student success. I’m proud to stand with my colleague Senator Jackson and Class Size Matters in support of reducing class size in New York.”



Tanesha Grant, a member of the Community Education Council in District 5 as well as AQE and CEJ, stated:  “Class size has grown tremendously since 2007 in our schools, which has a deep impact on the quality of education our children receive.  This impacts black and brown students the hardest. Our children are given hurdles to jump over to just to get an equitable  education. As a black mother of three and grandmother of an autistic grandson, I know class size matters. I see how it affects my children’s learning. The  data proves that class size MATTERS!”



Parent advocate Johanna Garcia and plaintiff in the class size lawsuit launched by nine NYC parents, Class Size Matters and AQE that was argued in the Appellate court last month said: "Class size matters. It’s a simple idea, and it’s one of the single most effective tools we have to improve the quality of the education our children receive. As a Black and Latina parent advocate, I understand the failures to reduce New York City class size to be a huge factor in educational racism because it has detrimental effects on a student body that is 85% Black and Brown and predominantly working-class. If we are serious about addressing that educational racism, we must get serious about class size in our schools. We have to be honest about the problems and clear-eyed about implementing the solutions going forward. Let's count our students fairly and hire more teachers in line with the law so our children  get the quality education they deserve."


Nearly half of all middle school students are in classes of 30 or more; and more than half of high school students are in classes thirty or more.  Jessica Siegel, a professor at Brooklyn College and a former teacher, recounted what one middle school teacher had told her about how she felt  being unable to give sufficient help to all her students: “My largest 8th grade class is a whopping 37 students. I teach two more classes, one with 32 and the last one with 28. Both include English Language Learners and students who require push in services for their Individualized Education Plans. I feel as though I’m being torn to shreds when I’m helping others, their eyes hungry and ready and yet there you are unable to reach them. It’s as if you have one life raft and must choose which child gets saved. It’s heart wrenching and demoralizing.”



Elsie McCabe Thompson, head of the Mission Society, one of the nation’s oldest social service organizations, testified that they see thousands of children in poverty. One third have diagnosed special needs; but most have suffered trauma. Smaller classes are important for ALL these children, she said, because as a teacher, “you cannot authentically have high expectations for kids that you do not know.”



A statement was read on behalf of Diane Ravitch, eminent historian and education advocate: “The single most effective way to improve instruction is to reduce class size. The benefits of class size reduction are greatest for the neediest students. . If you are serious about helping children, reduce class size. If you are serious about helping teachers to be more effective, reduce class size. Reducing class size is more effective than test prep; it is more effective than hiring coaches and consultants. It is more effective than buying new hardware and software. It is more effective than any of the many other "reforms" that have been imposed by the federal or state government.  New York State's scores on national tests have been flat for twenty years. It is time for fresh thinking. Do what works! Reduce class sizes!”


For data on current class sizes in NYC schools and trends, as well as the research on class size, check out www.classsizematters.org

Friday, February 28, 2020

Is Bloomberg Buying the DNC? If So, What Does He Plan to Do With It?

From Naked Capitalism - and Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report

World behavior (and reader in better run emerging economies will no doubt say that that’s not a feature of their political landscape). But the US crossed that Rubicon with the intel-security state acting as if it has the authority to approve who sits in the White House. 
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny!

Paradise lost. One misstep is all it takes to take the proud down low.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud.
—With apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

This is a small point that leads to a larger one. Consider what Mike Bloomberg is building within the Democratic Party, within the DNC. According to the following analysis he’s turning the DNC into an anti-Sanders machine, a force loyal to himself, that will operate even after Sanders is nominated, even after Sanders is elected, if he so chooses.
With that he hopes to limit and control what Sanders and his rebellion can do. It’s the ultimate billionaire counter-rebellion — own the Party machine that the president normally controls, then use it against him.
Our source for this thought is Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report. Ford is one of the more vitriolic defenders of radical change in America, but in this analysis I don’t think he’s wrong, at least in making the case that Bloomberg is giving himself that option. But do decide for yourself.
Here’s his case:
Bloomberg Wants to Swallow the Democrats and Spit Out the Sandernistas
If, somehow, Bernie Sanders is allowed to win the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and other plutocrats will have created a Democratic Party machinery purpose-built to defy Sanders — as nominee, and even as president.
The details of his argument are here (emphasis added):
Bloomberg has already laid the groundwork to directly seize the party machinery, the old fashioned way: by buying it and stacking it with his own, paid operatives, with a war-against-the-left budget far bigger than the existing Democratic operation. Bloomberg’s participation in Wednesday’s debate, against all the rules, is proof-of-purchase.
In addition to the nearly million dollar down payment to the party in November that sealed the deal for the debate rules change, Bloomberg has already pledged to pay the full salaries of 500 political staffers for the Democratic National Committee all the way through the November election, no matter who wins the nomination. Essentially, Bloomberg will be running the election for the corporate wing of the party, even if Sanders is the nominee.
In an interview with PBS’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday night, senior Bloomberg advisor Timothy O’Brien made it clear that the DNC is in no condition to refuse being devoured by Bloomberg, even if they wanted to. O’brien predicted the Republicans will spend at least $900 million on the election, while the DNC has only about $8 million on hand. Even the oligarch’s underlings are telegraphing the takeover game plan.
Bloomberg is not so much running for president as making sure that the Democrats don’t go “rogue” anti-corporate to accommodate the Sandernistas. He is ensuring that the Democratic Party will be an even more hostile environment for anti-austerity politics than in the past – not in spite of the phenomenal success of the Sanders project, but because of it.
Ford has not much love for Bernie Sanders, as he finds Sanders (and his supporters) weak for sticking with the Democrats. Ford thinks Sanders should go “third party” in his opposition to the corrupt duopoly that owns our politics. That’s a point on which we can disagree without disagreeing that the duopoly is indeed corrupt, or that Bloomberg is setting himself up for post-electoral mischief.
Ford also thinks the Party will split in the face of this anti-Sanders resistance, especially if the counter-resistance continues after a President Sanders is inaugurated.
We’ll see about all that. Ford may be right in his estimate of Bloomberg’s intentions. He may also be right in Bloomberg’s ability to carry through if his intentions are indeed as Machiavellian as he says.
On the other hand, Sanders may gather to himself enough control of the DNC and other Party machinery that he does indeed transform it, and with it, slowly, the Party itself. That’s certainly been his game plan, and if he does indeed have a movement behind him — a really big one — I wouldn’t bet against him being right. I myself don’t see a way for a third party to succeed in the U.S. unless it’s a “virtual third party” — but more on that at another time.
The Larger Point
So this is our smaller point, that Mike Bloomberg may be positioning himself to “own” the DNC, and with it enough of the Democratic Party, so that he can himself rein in a President Sanders. Is that his goal? It certainly seems possible. “Mini-Mike” is certainly Machiavellian.
Which leads to the larger point: How much rebellion, within the DNC and elsewhere, with or without Bloomberg’s interference, will someone like President Sanders encounter and how long will it last? If it lasts throughout his presidency, that’s a horse of a different color — a much darker one.
In fact, the dark horse of today’s American politics is the entrenched, corrupt (and frankly, pathological) ĂĽber-rich and their death grip on all of our governing institutions, including the press. Will that death grip tighten as the Sanders movement grows? And will they continue to squeeze the throats of the working class, even as the victims find their own throats and tighten in response?
Would you bet, in other words, that the rich who rule us wouldn’t kill the country that feeds their wealth — wouldn’t spark such a confused and violent rebellion that even they would be forced at last to flee — won’t do all all this out of animus, pique and world-historical hubris?
That bet is even money all the way. They just might try it, just might be willing to strangle the body itself, the political body, just to see how far it they can get by doing it.
Whom the gods would destroy…