Parody from Oregon -- The flood of Trump-fearing American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in past weeks

NOTE- I didn't write this piece

This came from my cousin in Israel from a contact of his in Oregon.

The flood of Trump-fearing American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in past weeks.  The visibly failing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is prompting an exodus of left-leaning Americans, who fear they'll soon be required to own guns, pray, pay taxes and live according to the U.S. Constitution.  Canadian border residents say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, climate change activists, and "green" energy proponents crossing their fields at night. 
 

"I went out to milk the cows the other morning, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in my barn." said southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.  "He was cold, exhausted, hungry, and begged me for a latte and some free-range chicken.  When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
 

In an effort to stop the flow of these illegal American aliens, Mr. Greenfield erected higher fences, but the north bound liberals scaled them.  He then installed loudspeakers that blared the Rush Limbaugh program across the fields, but they just stuck their fingers in their ears, and kept coming.
 

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals just south of the border, pack them into electric cars, and drive them across the border, where they are simply left to fend for themselves after the battery dies.  "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions." an Alberta border patrolman said.  "I found one carload of illegal American liberals without a single bottle of Perrier water or even any gemelli with shrimp and arugula.  All they had was a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet and some kale chips.  When liberals are caught, they are sent back across the border, often wailing that they fear persecution from Trump supporting normal Americans.
 

Rumors are rife about re-education camps being built across the USA where liberals would be forced to drink domestic beer, study the Constitution and find jobs that actually contribute to the economy.
 

In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways to cross the border.  Some have come disguised as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs.  After catching a half-dozen young vegans in blue-hair wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses, and quizzing these supposedly senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to ascertain if they really were alive in the 1950s.  "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age." a Canadian immigration official stated.
 

Canadian citizens have complained that the continuing massive influx of illegal American liberals has created an organic-broccoli shortage.  Plus, they are buying up all of the Barbara Streisand CDs, and are overloading the internet while downloading jazzercise apps to their cell phones. 

"I really feel sorry for these illegal American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them all." A Toronto resident said.  "After all, how many Black Lives Matter majors does one country need?”

How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy - Salon.com

Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, repeatedly warned in the primary that he would have a greater chance of defeating Trump. Poll after poll showed that he would have beaten Trump in the general election by wide margins. Instead, his candidacy was repressed — and now Clinton has lost to Trump.

Michael Fiorillo: How did they blow this election? Let us count the ways... A highly flawed and weak candidate, carried along by a complacent, self-serving, out-of-touch bunch of "meritocrats", and a media chorus...

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

Election Shock and Awe: Is The Clintonite/Obama, Neo-liberal “New Democrat” Party Dead? Has Our Democracy Died Too?

Schools report teachers and students in tears. Some will be holding counseling sessions this afternoon.

I believe that over the next 4 years the system will be so rigged the Democrats will never get back into power. I'm not sure there is a way to counter that for at least the next decade. Only catastrophic governance leading to chaos - but don't forget the brown shirts and paramilitary police, FBI and veterans who supported Trump - they will never turn over power now that they have it.

While neo-liberalism savaged the working class, no group felt its impact more than teachers under the assault of both parties. You’ll notice that basically the only area that Republicans didn’t attack Obama on was education. Our union – AFT/NYSUT/UFT aided and abetted this assault since it began in the mid-80s – led by the Clintons in Arkansas. The opt-out movement was in its own way similar to the Trump revolt – and note how our union and the DOE disparages and tries to suppress it. Many teachers, reacting to the hurried Hillary endorsement and the disparagement of the Bernie movement could not pull the trigger for Trump. Estimates are that 35% of the teachers were either out and out Trump supporters or could not pull the trigger for Hillary. Given the Trump/Republican ed agenda, which will be even a bigger disaster than ed deform, was sad.

I voted for Hillary because the alt was so bad. Those who couldn't in all conscience vote for Hillary should take a good like down the road over the next 4 years and tell my how your conscience feels.

Election Musings

Reality Based Educator:   They'll continue with the elite circle jerk and furiously blame "Bernie Bros" or Greens or "deplorables" instead of looking into the mirror and saying "Why have we embraced neo-liberalism, bringing about the de-industrialization of the country, the financialization of the economy and Trump to the White House?"

Newark teacher under assault, comment on my post declaring I was voting for Clinton (No Third Party Vote for Me)....   I did it. I voted third party. I had never done it before. I couldn't vote for Clinton because I could not sanction another four years of neo-liberal promotion of endless wars, unflinching charter school support and Wall Street coziness. I could not vote for Trump because I am a woman and I would prefer not to end up in a concentration camp. Sorry Norm! I did not have it in me to pull the lever for HRC.....

This was affirmation that Trump could win, which I have been telling people for the past 2 weeks. Even Trump supporters like my brother-in-law was more skeptical than I was. Some estimates are that 35% of teachers broke with their unions to either vote Trump or third party. I voted for Hillary and felt a left movement from Bernie and Warren could move her.

I've heard this sentiment directly from many teachers, most of them women and Bernie supporters. Some were voting for Trump, most 3rd party. My wife and I had lunch last week with 2 old friends, both retired UFTers -- both seemed to be going Trump.  That was certainly an early warning sign. Once again, our union leaders put their money on the wrong horse in the primary where they never gave Bernie a chance - and they are also doing the same in supporting de Blasio who will face an even greater wall of Trumpists in his next election.

The arrogance and slavish support for the Democratic party no matter how much they shit on educators and the mocking of Bernie supporters is coming home to roost.

Maybe we Sanders supporters weren't as crazy as we were told. That's the brightest thought I can muster out of this. Maybe the AFT/ NEA super early endorsement wasn't such a great idea after all.... NYC Educator: http://nyceducator.com/2016/11/holy-fucking-shit.html

I hate Trump and the neo-liberal Democrats. I hate the GOP. The Democrats have mostly abandoned their constituency, which is people who are financially vulnerable, and that includes the middle class, whether you're "white" or not, whether you have education or not.

 . . . email from teacher

Of course our union leaders and the Democrats, instead of blaming themselves, will try to blame people who voted for Jill Stein. Perdido St. School blog touches on that:

Brexit Redux: http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2016/11/brexit-redux.html

Dem elites and Clinton shills are already taking aim at Sanders people or Greens, blaming Trump's victory on them. As usual with the elites and their functionaries, they miss the truth. And just so we can get the "The Greens did this!" bullshit out of the way: Clinton shills did a lot of mocking this year, first the Sanders people during the primary, then the Trump supporters during the general.
One thing Clinton and her shills never did - try and understand the real pain and terror many in this country feel over their economic futures. A lot of those people sent a big "Fuck You!" to the elites last night, though I think that will come back to bite them in the end.
A Republican president with a Republican Senate and a Republican House is going to do a lot of damage in the short term. Add in all the crazies Trump is sure to bring along - Rudy, Christie, maybe Palin - and it's even worse.
As for the Supreme Court, that strategy Obama pursued doesn't look so hot now either - the chance to transform the Supreme Court is now lost to Dems. Remember that union case that ended up 4-4 after Scalia died? You can bet another case like that one is going to rear sooner rather than later and those automatic dues the union elites lap up will go out the window with Clinton's electoral map to victory.
 

The "Fuck you!" sent last night, as with the one the British sent with Brexit, is going to be a costly one in the end. But I blame Dem elites for this mess - this loss is squarely on HRC and her neoliberal cohorts. This ought to be a wake-up call to Dem elites that neoliberalism must go and the party needs to embrace a true populist agenda.
But I'm under no illusions that Dem elites will learn the correct lessons from this.

This is the chance to remake the Democratic Party into a vision closer to Bernie's but we know that the AFT/UFT leadership will never go along with something too left or progressive. The one good thing about this election is that the Clintons are finally gone from the stage and our leaders will have to find another neo-liberal Democrat to tie itself too.

Cuomo, one of the happiest men in America today, for President in 2020 anyone? Randi and Mulgrew probably already endorsed him behind closed doors.

Heading to the Delegate Assembly today with a hard copy of ed notes to hand out. More later - if I'm not on the way to Canada.

Exit Poll Data From VICE

When I heard some of this in late afternoon, it felt ominous. Trump got 29% of Latino vote -- higher than Romney did.

Exit poll data

Vice

 Whites vs. nonwhite voters

• Whites made up 70 percent of voters
• 58 percent of all whites voted for Trump
• 21 percent of nonwhites voted for Trump

White men

• White men made up 34 percent of voters
• 63 percent of them voted Trump
• 31 percent voted Clinton

White women

• White women made up 37 percent of voters
• 53 percent of them voted Trump
• 43 percent voted Clinton

Young whites (ages 18-29)

• Young white people made up 12 percent of voters
• 48 percent of them voted Trump
• 43 percent voted Clinton
• In comparison, 9 percent of young blacks and 24 percent of young Latinos voted for Trump.

College-educated whites

• White college graduates made up 37 percent of voters
• 49 percent of them voted for Trump, while 45 percent voted for Clinton.
• 54 percent of college-educated white men voted Trump.
• 45 percent of college-educated white women chose Trump, while 51 percent chose Clinton. This is the only white demographic tracked by the exit poll that Trump didn’t win.

Non-college-educated whites

• Whites without a college degree made up 34 percent of voters
• 67 percent of them voted for Trump
• Of them, women voted 62 percent for Trump
• And men voted 72 percent for Trump

Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there | Thomas Frank | Opinion | The Guardian

Hillary was anointed by our union and the Democratic Party establishment pretty much the day after the 2012 election. Here is some commentary from Thomas Frank, who predicted a Trump win, at the G

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

Two to one Loss for Charter Lobby in Mass Charter School Expansion - $23 million down the drain

The woim is toining.

Massachusetts Ballot questions, 2 - Expand Charter Schools 

No

62.4%

1,626,237 votes

Yes

37.6%

981,658 votes

80% reporting

Boston Globe
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/08/charter/v34OA3vMI8dRABDsFc4JuM/story.html

Massachusetts voters appeared to reject a major expansion of charter schools Tuesday, brushing aside calls for greater school choice amid concerns about the overall health of public education.
With 50 percent of the vote counted, the opponents were leading 62 percent to 38 percent — a wide enough margin for both sides to acknowledge the outcome. The Associated Press called the race.
The vote, if it holds, would be a major victory for teachers unions and civil rights organizations, which argued that charters are diverting too much money and attention from traditional public schools that serve the overwhelming majority of students.
”We’re claiming victory,” said Steve Crawford, a spokesman for Save Our Public Schools, the opposition group, at an election night party at the Fairmont Copley Plaza in Boston. “It’s substantial, too.”

Voter rejection of Question 2 would be a significant setback for Governor Charlie Baker, who campaigned heavily for the referendum, saying it would provide a vital alternative for families trapped in struggling urban schools.

Voter rejection of Question 2 would be a significant setback for Governor Charlie Baker, who campaigned heavily for the referendum, saying it would provide a vital alternative for families trapped in struggling urban schools.

But the survey, like other polls this fall, showed that the “no” side had made substantial gains nonetheless — winning over more Democrats, independents, and women than they had in the spring.
Christine Fischer-Rothman, 51, a Jamaica Plain lactation consultant with a son at Boston Latin School, said she voted against charter expansion.

“I want to have the money poured into the Boston Public Schools and not out,” she said, adding that it is “not a solution” to shift funding to schools outside the traditional system that “just do independently what they want.”

Research shows that Massachusetts urban charters have made substantial gains with black and Latino students, in some cases out-performing schools in white, wealthy suburbs. That track record attracted heavy interest from national charter advocates, who saw the state as an important testing ground for the movement.
It also made race became a key battleground in the fight over Question 2.

Baker, in a television ad that ran at the close of the campaign, made a direct appeal to the conscience of white, suburban voters. “Massachusetts has many great public schools,” he said, sitting in his Swampscott living room. “And we took it for granted that our kids would go to great public schools. But some kids aren’t so lucky. Where they live, they don’t go to a great school and they have no choice.”

But opponents like Juan Cofield, president of the New England Area Council of the NAACP, warned that charters were creating a two-tiered system, draining money from the traditional public schools that serve the bulk of black and Latino students.
“As Brown vs. the Board of Education taught us,” he said at the “No on 2” campaign kickoff, invoking the landmark school desegregation case, “a dual school system is inherently unequal.”
The most important existing state cap on charter growth limits how much money charter schools can divert from individual school districts. In most districts, it’s 9 percent of “net school spending,” which includes many, but not all spending categories. In the lowest-performing districts, it’s 18 percent.

Cities like Boston that are bumping up against the cap would not be able to add many charter seats in the short run if Question 2 failed. But that would not spell the end of the movement. Over time, as Boston’s school budget naturally grows, there should be more money available to ship to charters — opening up an estimated 4,000 charter seats between 2018 and 2028, according to a city analysis.

Teachers Unite Meeting THIS SATURDAY (Learn about SLTs, Community Organizing & more)

Great work that Teachers Unite is doing a session on SLTs which are the fault lines of principal control and Farina wants to keep these meetings closed to the public while the UFT sits on the sideline allowing her to do what she wants. Leonie Haimson and others filed suit and won and Farina ignores it. Why? Michael Fiorillo hit the nail on the head -- they are hiding that the SLTs are totally controlled by the principals.

See ed notes articles on this issue:

• On SLTs: UFT/Unity Back Farina Over Rank and File ...
• Why Does DOE Fight Open Meetings? What is Farina Hiding?

Saturday, November 12, 2016 | 2 - 4 p.m.James Baldwin High School (351 West 18th St, New York, NY 10011 Room 313)

Members and anyone interested in learning about Teachers Unite's work is invited to join us this Saturday for our November monthly membership meeting: 

• School Leadership Teams: What are they and how can we work with them?
• Community Organizing: How do we define this and what does it look like?
• Teachers Unite's 2017 Direction: Given our history and the type of work needed to create social change within the education system, where do we hope to put our energy for this upcoming year?

Light snacks will be provided. Can't wait to see you there!

School Scope: No Third Party Vote for Me - Norm in The Wave

Submitted for publication Friday Nov. 11, which I may be reading from Canada. This article is fueled by my increasing annoyance with the often clueless far left, some of whom have suggested that a Trump Presidency would galvanize the left - one of the biggest laughs I had throughout the endless election season. The 2020 campaign starts on Nov. 9. There are about 30 top Republicans praying for a Trump loss so they can begin running.


-->

School Scope: No Third Party Vote for Me

By Norm Scott

Monday, Nov. 7, 2016

I’m writing this on election day eve. I wanted to get this done before I leave right after I vote tomorrow for my new residence in Canada – just in case. But I will be back on Wednesday if a certain candidate loses. You know what they say: if you want to avoid talking about a contentious election talk about sports or the weather. Nice day! And how about dem Cubs? I was rooting for Cleveland because lifelong Indians fan and WFAN caller “Bruce from Bayside”, a retired NYC teacher, died just a few weeks before the Series. I was getting sick of Cub Mania and if they went another 108 years without winning a World Series I wouldn’t have been unhappy.  As one of the few people who root for both Yanks and Mets, I’m looking forward to the Hot Stove League. OK, enough sports. As a despiser of Trump and skeptical of Clinton, I need to decide how I’m going to vote.

I’ve been a 3^rd party voter more than half the time in presidential elections:  1996, 2000, 2004 and 2012. Not this time. I hear the Greens calling for Jill Stein and I know many people in my leftist circles who are going Green. Does the Green Party deserve our vote?

the Times should change its motto from “All the News That’s Fit to Print” to “We Shill for Charter Schools" - Alan Singer

In an opinion essay on Sunday, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt continued the newspaper’s campaign “shilling“ for charter schools. Leonhardt, is certainly not an expert on public education. As a boy he attended the prestigious and expensive Horace Mann School in Riverdale, New York and then went to Yale. The article, which pretended to be a scientific report based on the latest data, was bad reporting and an embarrassment for both the author and the newspaper. Unfortunately, the Times, which is constantly shilling for charter schools, does not seem to care.... Alan Singer

Good piece taking Leonhardt apart --  HuffPo- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/shilling-for-charter-scho_b_12838762.html

Read as an adjunct to my post yesterday -

Astroturf Hedge Hogs Toss $$$$ into Massachusetts Charter School Expansion Ballot Issue

Astroturf Hedge Hogs Toss $$$$ into Massachusetts Charter School Expansion Ballot Issue - UPDATED

Irlande Plancher, 51, a Haitian immigrant in Hyde Park who sent three children to district schools and one to a charter, is voting no.
Ms. Plancher, a registered nurse, was glad her youngest child had the charter option. But with four charter schools in her area, she has seen two public schools close. She said she worried that adding more charters would further crimp the traditional schools.
“I think whatever we have is enough,” she said. “We cannot pick and choose which kids we educate and leave the rest out.”... NY Times, Trump-Clinton? Charter Schools Are the Big Issue on Massachusetts’ Ballot -- Nov. 6, 2016

The hedge hogs have tossed $23 million (so far) into the campaign, forcing the forces of good to come up with a little more than half that - a perfect example of misreporting was Mike Antonucci's report listing only the mostly $13 million in union money, Unions Account for 99.4% of Contributions to Keep Massachusetts Charter Cap but ignoring the massive $22 million coming from mostly outside orgs. I usually respect Mike's work even though coming from the right, but not this time.

Diane Ravitch summarizes the latest Mass. poll, which is worth taking a look at - scroll to page 11.  Diane Ravitch's blog
Latest Poll on Question 2 in Massachusettshttp://www1.wne.edu/news/2016/11/z-polling_tables_FINAL_11_04_16.pdf

Diane reports:

Question 2 is losing in every demographic category except older Republicans.

Whites and blacks oppose Question 2 by similar proportions.

Younger voters (ages 18-39) overwhelmingly oppose it, by 71-21.

If the trends hold, this will be a massive and humiliating defeat for the corporate reformers, who have spent more on this election (at least $22 million) than on any education referendum anywhere. They won't miss the $22 million, but they will have sustained a major setback in their plans for privatization.

Let's hope the polls hold up.

NY Times' Dave Leonhardt backed Question 2:  Schools That Work.  I read somewhere a piece that took him to task but can't remember where -- let me know if you find it so I can update.****

*****Response from Pete Farrugio:

You mention the NY Times’ op-ed writer in this piece on Massachusetts’ pro-charter Question 2, apropos of his pro-charter column in Sunday’s paper

http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2016/11/astroturf-hedge-hogs-toss-into.html

(You have a link to his op-ed in the piece)

You ask for a reference to when somebody took him to task. I found this article about his faux-economist credentials and his consistent support for the right wing austerity hawks. Although it’s not specifically about education, it does reveal him to be another camouflaged neoliberal, like the creeps in Dems for Education Reform (DFER)
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/01/david-leonhardt-uses-new-york-times-spread-pete-petersons-debt-hysteria.html

The timing of his Boston referenced op-ed just before election day is an example of the NYT’s pro-DFER bias (usually spearheaded by Brent Staples)

As you say, Jersey Jazzman is the only one with a good criticism of Boston charters available online just now

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2016/11/thoughts-on-question-2-and-charter.html

The point in Leonhardt’s propaganda piece that gets me most annoyed is his contention that the MIT study on Boston charters “proves” that the successful charters (test scores) don’t cream for more competent students, they take everybody. Minorities, English Learners, special ed, etc. We’ve seen this claim so many times in defense of charters around the US, and it’s bullcrap. Jersey Jazzman can’t seem to find the data on this because it’s restricted to insiders; BUT,  he does make the bigger point that the struggle to get kids admitted in a lottery situation is a de facto selection mechanism for students with highly involved parents, a BIG motivational factor

Hope this helps

Mass Gov Chalie Baker supports charter expansion and came to the Manhattan Institute here in NYC a few weeks ago to push his agenda. Leonie and crew were outside to protest:

I protested with AQE and the Hedge Clippers folks, outside an event at the Harvard Club, where Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker was speaking about the referendum to raise the cap on charter schools in his state called Question 2.

This effort has been funded with millions of dollars in "dark money," and we were there to make them feel uncomfortable.  Jeremiah Kittredge of Families for Excellent Schools walked into the building while we were chanting, "Governor Baker epic fail! Our public schools are not for sale!"  FES has poured at least $13.5 million into this election -- without disclosing its donors, although one can assume the money comes mostly from the usual suspects -- Walton family members and NYC hedge fund operators.

After the meeting, Baker was scheduled to meet with Bloomberg, trolling for even more bucks -- after Bloomberg had already given $240,000 to the effort.  Meanwhile, all over the country, from California to New York, Washington to Georgia, billionaires are trying to buy  school board races, judgeship elections, referendums, and control of the NY State Senate - all with the same nationwide goal of privatizing public schools, and wresting them from democratic control. 

Boston Mayor Martin Walsh, a charter supporter, has taken a stand against in one of the best pieces I've seen: Vote ‘no’ on Question 2.

While the charter lobby has tried to manipulate the black community, there has been pushback:

While the Urban League and many black educators support the ballot measure, the N.A.A.C.P. opposes it and has called for a moratorium on charters, saying they worsen segregation. Black Lives Matter in Cambridge has also come out against the measure.

Finally, Bernie takes a stand on charters:

Bernie Sanders claims charters let Wall Street ‘hijack’ education -- .......Boston Globe.

And  Jersey Jazzman 

• Thoughts On Question 2 and Charter School Expansion

• More About Attrition Rates in Boston Charter Schools

 And more

Other money comes from wealthy individuals from out-of-state. Arkansas' Alice Walton, who runs a family foundation funded by the proceeds from Wal-Mart, donated $710,000, while her brother Jim Walton gave $1.1 million. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg contributed $490,000....
A lot of the money comes from individuals in the financial industry, generally working in Boston. The investigative news outlet International Business Times reported that financial executives who manage money for Massachusetts state pension funds contributed $778,000 to groups backing Question 2.
There are also outside education reform groups who have contributed huge sums of money to the campaign. Most notably, the New York-based Families for Excellent Schools gave $15.6 million.
Groups like Families for Excellent Schools are nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors.
"This is a truly unprecedented financial push by the charter school industry and their billionaire backers to buy our election with untraceable money whose source we will never know," said Juan Cofield, president of the New England Area Conference of the NAACP and chairman of the No on Question 2 campaign, in a statement.

Does Green Party Deserve Our Vote? Conservative Case for Clinton vs. Left Case for Stein

I left this comment at

gadflyonthewallblog

Voting Third Party is Not a Wasted Vote – Voting First Party Is

If the Green Party which has been around for a while actually did any real grassroots organizing and showed some promise of building roots as a 3rd party. But what has happened since Nader in 2000? No movement at all. So your argument is a pipe dream. Yes it will never end - 2020 we will face the same thing. But the Bernie movement offers something different. Can we build grassroots progressivism in the Democratic Party? Probably not. But unless there is a massive breakaway party from the Dems after this election voting Green (where is Jill Stein between elections?) is even more wasteful than voting for Hillary.

There are 2 pieces worth reading below and surprisingly Frum, the conservative makes more sense than Singer from the left's argument for 3rd party - which by the way, I've voted for in most presidential elections, including for Nader in 2000.

But not this time.

What message are we sending to vote 3rd party? What message did Ross Perot send with the largest 3rd party vote in a long time? Or Nader? Actually the Bush presidency has killed the 3rd party option.

It is not just about keeping Trump out of office but also about why should I back the Green Party and Jill Stein given their inability to have any impact over so many years? If they had shown they could make even a tiny dent I would help build them up -- but things start at the grassroots level - I will vote Green for any down party candidates.

Is the struggle right now an attempt to change the Democratic party - or organize inside for a split? 3rd parties just don't seem to get any traction.

But yes there is a Trump factor. And if David Frum can make a case for voting for Hillary despite enormous disagreements, people on the left can also make a similar case. Yes we don't trust her, etc. But we also have the remnant of the Bernie movement - if Obama had taken a strong left stand he wouldn't have been vilified any less than taking the center neo-liberal stand. As the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 elections are in the cards and the Republicans block everything, the Bernie people must press that only a progressive left agenda even if just from the bully pulpit, would have a chance of salvaging anything other than a disaster in the coming years. That this election is so close means that next time there is little chance Hillary would win with a slick right winger running. So maybe the goal is the make her a one term president if she wins and find a viable candidate next time.

Maybe it is time for the left/progressive to pile into their local Democratic Party machines and raise some hell.

Voting Third Party is Not a Wasted Vote – Voting First Party Is

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/voting-third-party-is-not-a-wasted-vote-voting-first-party-is/comment-page-1/#comment-5659

The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton

Why support a candidate who rejects your preferences and offends your opinions? Don’t do it for her—do it for the republic, and the Constitution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/

Exploring Post Nov. 8 Landscape and Threats: Trump Attracts Veterans and Some Former Obama Supportors

Can military vets who support Trump end up as a closet private army? Will be get a home-grown version of Germany's Brown shirts? Will vets and right wing extremists become a post-election para-military force? Police and FBI hate Hillary. We know in other countries the police forces often become the leaders of these type of forces.

That was my thought when I read a piece in today's Times:

Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump

This is a follow-up to my earlier post today on the impact of the defense budget on our economy and our lives - Massive Defense Spending or Why We Have Lousy Infrastructure Compared to Other Nations.

I neglected to include that what I mean by infrastructure includes social and safety net infrastructure which comes under attack by right and also came under attack by the Clinton centrist Democrats.
Looking backward, the era of building a safety net ended with Lyndon Johnson and was ruined by the Vietnam War.

Thinking post election: If Clinton gets in she continues the same tone-deaf aggressive American presence world-wide. Trump, though not coherent, does offer some possibility of the first change in policy since WWII - though of course I don't believe him. But others do - The vets make some important points - how Trump has touched on issues ignored by both parties. How they don't feel comfortable in the left anti-war movements which they may feel disparages their efforts and calls them war criminals. Trump, as I pointed out this morning, has been willing to blame George Bush and Republicans for the disaster in Iraq.

And then there is this piece in today's Times:

Some Who Saw Change in Obama Find It Now in Donald Trump

New York Times‎ - 

Mr. Trump has even attracted some black voters who were inspired by Mr. Obama's ... the headline: Some Voters Attracted to Obama's Call for Change Find It Now in Trump.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-voting.html

Do not disparage the type of appeals that work for Trump - and especially people on the left. Bernie touched on some of the same issues. If a coalition could be build outside both party structures we may be on to something, though the chances of that are almost nil -- but in today's world I'll take "almost nil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/donald-trump-veterans.html?_r=0

Where Have You Gone Franklin Roosevelt (and Bernie Sanders), Our Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You (all)

Ahhh, I remember those primary days when Bernie people were vilified and mocked for supporting a "can't win" candidate by Hillary people. That we are sweating it out so close to the election shows that Hillary's flaws were way worse than Bernie. I know, he would have come under severe attack but he knows how to handle and deflect such attacks by focusing on policy and pointing the way to a better future. All we get from Hillary are desperate attacks on Trump. In discussion with people on the election I can give better responses to questions than Hillary ever gives. Somone said to me last weekend, "Why doesn't she say that?" Duh!

Here is the column I submitted to the Wave this week though they were short on space so it may not go. We need a New Deal.

Where Have You Gone Franklin Roosevelt (and Bernie Sanders), Our Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You (all)
By Norm Scott

Nov. 1, 2016
I am writing this on a Tuesday, one week before the election but due to space limitations in the Nov. 4 edition of The Wave you may be reading this a week later. No matter who wins or loses our troubles are just beginning. As I head towards my 72nd birthday, it’s going to be touch and go as to whether the world as we know it comes to an end before I do.

But look on the bright side. Can it be worse today than it was in the years after the 1929 stock market crash on October 29 – Black Tuesday (ironically “Sandy Storm Day” 4 years ago)? Will Nov. 8 be know as “Black Tuesday II”? For half the nation it will.

Are we in that bad a shape considering the current 5% unemployment rate? Since so many conspiracy theorists don’t believe anything the gomint says, double that to 10%. In the years after 1929 we reached 30% unemployment and a catastrophic depression that lasted a decade until Hitler’s “Make Germany Great Again” campaign led to WWII in 1939, resulting in 60 million dead, roughly 3% of the world’s population. That’ll break the back of a depression. Hitler was also quite ingenious in cutting Germany’s unemployment rate. He began by ordering all women to stop working. Neat. Maybe with the war on women going on in political campaigns today we can revisit that and watch the economy boom.

In 1932, FDR was elected to the first of his 4 terms and due to the blame Republicans incurred for the depression – a whole lot of Democrats were swept into office with him, thus giving him years to work some Keynesian economics magic that put people to work (Civil Conservation Corps to deal with infrastructure) while also establishing a safety net (social security, support for unions) that is the basis of what we have today. FDR even tried to establish a health care system but as opposition from the Republican right grew he gave up. He was branded a communist when in fact he saved the nation for capitalism – New Deal regulated capitalism.

Bernie Sanders offered an expanded version of the New Deal and if he were out there as a choice today there would be entirely different discussions taking place. After the election, no matter who wins, the left must take Bernieism and reinvent FDR’s New Deal.

There is good news for supporters of one of the candidates. The Crusader, a prominent newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan, under the banner “Make America Great Again,” endorsed a candidate for president.

Norm blogs at ednotesonline.com

Massive Defense Spending or Why We Have Lousy Infrastructure Compared to Other Nations

The cost of running these military operations and the wars they support is extraordinary, around $900 billion per year, or 5 percent of US national income, when one adds the budgets of the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, homeland security, nuclear weapons programs in the Department of Energy, and veterans benefits. The $900 billion in annual spending is roughly one-quarter of all federal government outlays....The Fatal Expense of American Imperialism, Boston Globe

Another gem discovered by Michael Fiorillo.

As the Cold War was ending, the United States was beginning a new era of wars, this time in the Middle East. The United States would sweep away the Soviet-backed regimes in the Middle East and establish unrivalled US political dominance. Or at least that was the plan.

.  .  .

THE QUARTER CENTURY since 1991 has therefore been marked by a perpetual US war in the Middle East, one that has destabilized the region, massively diverted resources away from civilian needs toward the military, and helped to create mass budget deficits and the buildup of public debt.

Both Dems and Republicans have been in agreement on massive defense spending which few seem to disagree with.  Both parties just gave Israel $37 billion for the next 10 years. When my right wing cousin living in Jerusulem tells me how great it is there I reply it's partly on our backs since that is $37 billion they don't have to spend.

And we give at least a billion to Egypt and loads of money to many other countries. There is some irony in that Trump has drifted somewhat from both parties' program, though as expected, incoherently. Since Kennedy Democrats have feared being labeled soft on defense - he ran criticizing Eisenhower for letting defenses lapse - and then dragged us into Vietnam because he didn't want to seem soft on communism.

There is no way these numbers move under a Hillary admin. Under Trump, just chaos. Republicans will never let him touch this even if he wanted to. And he may well double down. Either way, bridges will be falling down.

The Fatal Expense of American Imperialism

Published on

Monday, October 31, 2016

by

The Boston Globe

by

Jeffrey D. Sachs

23 Comments

The scale of US military operations is remarkable. And deplorable.

The single most important issue in allocating national resources is war versus peace, or as macroeconomists put it, “guns versus butter.” The United States is getting this choice profoundly wrong, squandering vast sums and undermining national security. In economic and geopolitical terms, America suffers from what Yale historian Paul Kennedy calls “imperial overreach.” If our next president remains trapped in expensive Middle East wars, the budgetary costs alone could derail any hopes for solving our vast domestic problems.

The Hidden Cost of Race - Tne New Yorker

I've had this powerful article on hold for a few weeks. With all the catering to the white class Trump people, here is a piece that drills down on race and economics. If you have even a fleeting thought that the victim is to blame, examine your inner (or outer) racism.

The Widening Racial Wealth Divide

It would take black Americans two hundred and twenty-eight years to have as much wealth as white Americans have today.

By James Surowiecki

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-widening-racial-wealth-divide

“Race still determines too much,” Hillary Clinton said, in last week’s debate with Donald Trump. It “often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they’re treated in the criminal-justice system.” She could have added that it has a profound effect on how much money Americans have. Our racial wealth divide, as it’s often called, is enormous, and, fifty years after the civil-rights movement, the gap is growing.

Everyone knows that wealth is unequally distributed. The work of Thomas Piketty has made this a mainstream concern. But the magnitude of the gap between white and black Americans is on a different scale. According to a recent report from two progressive think tanks, CFED and the Institute for Policy Studies, white households own, on average, seven times as much wealth as African-American households (and six times as much as Latino ones). The Forbes 100 billionaires are collectively as rich as all black Americans combined. At current growth rates, it would take black Americans two hundred and twenty-eight years to have as much wealth as white Americans have today.

Some of the reasons are clear: the unemployment rate among black Americans is roughly twice that of whites, and black people earn, on average, between twelve and twenty-two per cent less than white people with similar education and experience. But the wealth gap between black and white Americans is much bigger than the income gap, thanks to a toxic combination of institutionalized discrimination, persistent racism, and policies that amplify inequality. As Thomas Shapiro, a sociologist at Brandeis and the co-author of the seminal book “Black Wealth/White Wealth,” told me, “History and legacy created the racial gap. Policies have maintained it.” Together, they contribute to what he’s called “the hidden cost of being African-American.”

Start with history. Beginning in the New Deal and on into the postwar years, the federal government invested heavily to help ordinary Americans buy homes and go to school, via programs like the Federal Housing Administration and the G.I. Bill. That fuelled an economic boom and fostered the growth of a prosperous middle class. But black Americans received little of this assistance. 

Redlining by banks and by government agencies prevented black families from buying homes in white neighborhoods; in a thirty-year period, just two per cent of F.H.A. loans went to families of color. G.I. Bill benefits went disproportionately to white veterans. Black agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from Social Security until the fifties. As Dedrick Asante-Muhammad, the co-author of the CFED/I.P.S. report, told me, “Massive government investment helped create an American middle class. But it was a white American middle class.”

The effects of this history are still with us, because wealth, unlike income, accumulates and can be passed down from generation to generation. If you have less wealth to start with, you’ll likely spend any added income on bills or paying down debt rather than saving or investing it. A 2013 study co-authored by Shapiro found that for white families every dollar increase in income yields an increase of $5.19 in wealth; for black households the figure is just sixty-nine cents.

More important, discrimination, though no longer legal, is still pervasive. It holds down black incomes and has a huge impact on homeownership—which Shapiro identifies as “the largest driver of the racial wealth gap.” Only forty-one per cent of black Americans own their homes, compared with seventy-one per cent of whites, and black homeowners earn a much smaller return on their property. Because they are less likely to inherit money or get family help buying a home, they make smaller down payments and, on average, buy houses eight years later in life, leaving less time for the investment to appreciate. House prices in majority-black neighborhoods have also risen less than those in comparable majority-white ones. As Asante-Muhammad told me, “White people still do not generally want to live in a neighborhood that’s more than twenty to twenty-five per cent black.” That means fewer buyers, which holds house prices down. Shapiro has found that housing segregation costs black families tens of thousands of dollars in home equity.

Government policies also widen the gap. The most important of these are the mortgage-interest and other real-estate tax deductions, which save you more the bigger your mortgage and the higher your income-tax rate. They cost the government north of a hundred and thirty billion dollars a year, more than seventy per cent of which goes to the richest twenty per cent of Americans. Money that could fund affordable housing, income subsidies, and allowances for first-time homeowners instead just helps rich people pay for their houses.

Closing the racial wealth gap would require radical measures, like reparations, which few politicians will discuss. But what’s really dismal is that even reforms that could keep the gap from getting wider—ending the mortgage-interest deduction, challenging residential segregation—are politically toxic. The attention now being paid to the racial wealth divide is a sign that some things have changed. The absence of the topic from the political conversation shows that most things haven’t. ♦

School Scope: How Democrats and Republicans Lost the Working Class Leading to Trumpism

I had two pieces in The Wave this week.

Norm in The Wave
http://www.rockawave.com/node/235427?pk_campaign=Newsletter

-->

School Scope: How Democrats and Republicans Lost the Working Class Leading to Trumpism

By Norm Scott

A number of articles have been published on the Trump appeal to the white working class which used to be solidly Democratic and often pro-union. There is no way I can fully cover this issue in a short column but I want to touch on a few points and include links for those readers who want to delve deeper. Both parties bear responsibility which is why Trump supporters reject the traditional Republican Party which has been pro-free trade and anti-union. The Dems have been ostensibly pro-union but in reality have done little for unions since they came under attack in the first days of Ronald Regan in the early 1980s. (I’ll explore how the Dem betrayal, especially regarding their support of the union busting charter schools, undermined teacher unions in a future post.)

Let’s look at free trade. It was the left and some unions that rose up in November1999 to protest globalization, leading to 40,000 people protesting and riots in Seattle at the WTO conference. (Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests). China’s admission to the WTO at the end of 2001 (under the Bush administration) basically led to the wipe out of the American steel (and coal) industry since China could make steel much cheaper and efficiently (the American steel industry had not upgraded for decades). A lot of Trump support comes from the areas where people were affected. Cheap Chinese furniture also wiped out the entire North Carolina furniture industry along with others.

NAFTA, which was pushed hard by the Clintons and the Republicans, led to the movement of industry to Mexico with no penalty on the corporations. There are estimates that at least 3 million jobs were lost. On the other hand, free trade has allowed the American consumer to buy cheap at the cost of American jobs. So there is a yin-yang. Now this is not the first time that our industries have been savaged. Both my parents were garment workers and my father (a presser) was still doing some work into the early 1970s as that industry was on life-support. Some industries are gone due to technology (printing). With 80% of our jobs being service, Trump’s promise to bring back dead or dying manufacturing is a myth.  The coming threat is that service jobs are being savaged by robots and technology. The largest growth of jobs currently are low wage home health care workers. As I reach my dotage I expect to be taken care of by a home health care robot, a long-term threat to even these jobs.

The failure of both parties is evident in both NAFTA and the WTO, both of which have their merits in lowering consumer costs and keeping inflation down, but in not taking good care of the massive number of workers affected by increasing the safety net. European workers have also been negatively affected but they have a much stronger safety net. Strong unions are a reason and since they have been weakened by Republican attacks and Democratic inaction, the safety net here is weak and left millions of people vulnerable. That was why Bernie Sanders, who offered coherent programs, was also so popular in areas where Trump is also strong.

Even though I find Donald Trump abhorrent, some of the points he raises are very valid and resonate with the non-deplorable segment of his supporters. We were at a family wedding this past weekend with some Trump supporters and did get to hear their reasoning, in one case due to how negatively they were affected by Obamacare, a very legitimate point. My relative recently reached 65 and is now on Medicare which he loves. My response was that even though a flawed plan – we agreed that the insurance companies basically wrote the bill in a way to maximize their profits – I did try to point out that if  the Republicans had tried to fix what was wrong instead of spending 6 years trying to kill Obamacare things might be working a little better. He pointed out that Obama was so desperate to get something passed he was willing to accept any piece of crap and is defending that piece of crap for his “legacy.” But I don’t really want to defend Obama care since I’m for a single payer system – Medicare for all – and Obama pretty much gave up that ghost from day 1 because the insurance companies would have lobbied that to death.

Now there is no little irony in that my relative loves single payer and I believe the entire nation would love single payer if it were gradually extended. (There are ways to pay for it and remember that every advanced Western nation has such a system – and rumors that people die under it because of long waits is belied by examining the death rates of these countries.) Remember, most people are insured by their employer, not Obama care. More irony is that early assaults on Hillary Clinton began when she was assigned the job under her husband of shepherding in a health care system in the early 90s and was savaged for urging that it be single payer. She has apparently learned her lesson and came off to the right of Bernie Sanders on this issue.

If interested in exploring some ideas raised, here are some links.

A left-leaning current NYC teacher and former West Point grad who served in Iraq writes:

Obama's (and Hillary's) Capital "P" Pragmatists --  http://provocationsblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/obamas-and-hillarys-capital-p.html?m=1.

IN THE HEART OF TRUMP COUNTRY

West Virginia used to vote solidly Democratic. Now it belongs to Trump. What happened?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/in-the-heart-of-trump-country

Trump: Tribune Of Poor White People | The American Conservative

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

Check out this hot book: J.D. Vance - 'Hillbilly Elegy,' a Tough Love Analysis of the Poor Who Back Trump and "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant about the southern white working class.

Norm blogs at ednotesonline.com

CB 14 Education Committee Meets

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2016-10-28/Community/CB_14_Education_Committee_Meets.html

 

By Norm Scott

Community Board 14’s Education Committee and School District 27’s Community Education Council (the successor to the pre-Bloomberg local school boards) have initiated a series of meetings aimed to attract parents from every Rockaway school where they get an opportunity to share issues of concern regarding their schools.

The joint committees will follow up with politicians and Department of Education officials as an advocate for the schools. One common theme that emerged is the school safety issue around the schools -- from broken sidewalks to unsafe traffic patterns. Some schools don’t have an after school program. Another has seen a major spike in children from Central America with little or no English in the home yet have not received the services needed to address this issue. Another issue that emerged was the question of how many homeless children from shelters attend Rockaway schools, as these children often need a high degree of services and schools with high numbers are under resourced. While the numbers of shelter children are not high, it was pointed out that there are a high number recently of shelter students who have moved into housing in Rockaway, a sign that schools with these children may need some extra support in assisting with the transition.

CB14, whose members are appointed by elected officials, addresses a wide variety of concerns related to Rockaway and education is often left on the margins. The activation of the education sub-committee in reaching out to CEC 27 should bring more focus on the schools.

On SLTs: UFT/Unity Back Farina Over Rank and File and Leonie

UFT bear in hibernation on SLTs

Theoretically, School Leadership Teams had the potential to curb the power of principals. In reality, SLTs enhance their power and the UFT in its zeal to back the Farina admin, after supporting a parent lawsuit under BloomKlein, have gone dormant on the issue.

In a recent post I asked: Why Does DOE Fight Open Meetings? What is Farina Hiding?

Also see Leonie Haimson's blog:

A busy day: Protesting billionaires pushing charter schools & then winning our lawsuit vs the DOE on School Leadership Team meetings

Michael Fiorillo had the answer:

The DOE fought this because it doesn't want the public to see that SLT meetings are a sham, a way for the Principal to work her/his will on the school, with the ostensible (but largely meaningless) participation of parents, students and teachers.

And James Eterno ties the UFT eternal support for whatever Carmen wants Carmen gets:

The UFT, in its recent "We don't publicly take on de Blasio-Farina-CSA" incarnation, did not join the parents in the 2014 lawsuit. However, the Union should now use its resources to teach parents and teachers on SLT's how to use their authority as part of the governance structure of schools.

Good luck with that.

James continued:

As for the city-DOE, they can appeal again but their chances of prevailing cannot be that great now that five judges have ruled against them. We'll let Leonie have the last word:

"The law is crystal clear that School Leadership Teams are public bodies, with an important governmental role to play. Parents and the public have a crucial stake in SLT decisions, when it comes to class size, the use of technology, or any other school-based policies. Both the Supreme Court and now the Appellate Court have ruled that these meetings must be open to the community at large. Any attmpt by the DOE or principals to ignore this decision, subvert it or appeal it to a higher court would be unwise, would further delay the public interest and would waste precious taxpayer funds that are far better used in improving our schools," concluded Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters.

I'm waiting for the day when Leonie has had enough of the UFT bullshit and slams them publicly.