Here is a table of some Progressive Voter Recommendations. You can also click on links below the table to read about their reasoning.
Courage Campaign (includes other organizations’ recommendations as well)
Here is a table of some Progressive Voter Recommendations. You can also click on links below the table to read about their reasoning.
Courage Campaign (includes other organizations’ recommendations as well)
Here are California Proposition recommendations from the Friends Committee on California Legislation
This link below gives you the full newsletter with in-depth analysis of each
Brett Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court nominee regardless of what he may or may not have done as a teen.
First of all, his record is more of one of a political hack—someone who has spent much of his career involved in party politics on behalf of the Republican party, meaning he is not likely to be unbiased in political type cases—e.g. gerrymandering and voter registration—that are likely to come before the court.
Then has been Kavanaugh’s demeanor in the hearings. The hearings are a form of a job interview, and his attack on his employers—the people who vote to appoint him or not, show he does not have the demeanor to be a judge. A judge of the highest court in the nation needs to be able to not take a job interview personally and let his emotions control his actions. His actions in the hearings do not show that.
It is also hard to believe Kavanaugh’s testimony about what kind of person he was at that age, given what is known about him from others and the culture of the school’s he went to. His attack any for questioning him on such an unlikely story, again shows is lack of character.
He accused the Democratic party and Senators of creating a conspiracy against him. If someone goes into the court believing one party is conspiring against him, and states so publicly, he cannot then be seen as impartial.
And even if here was an attempt by one party to disqualify him, does he feel the same way regarding how the Republican party openly conspired against Obama’s nominee? The Republican’s did not even allow a hearing, and then changed the rules once they had power to allow a simple majority to select the Supreme Court judge when up until then it took 60 votes. I call that a conspiracy. A democracy is not the rule of the majority over the minority, but a working together of the whole for the good of all. The Republican’s did not even try to hide their partisan purpose behind those actions.
Any single one of these, and more, are reasons alone to disqualify Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court. Put together they make a travesty of our legal system and our Democracy.
I am probably preaching to the choir, but the claim of giving tax relief to the rich and corporations will help the middle class or poor is patently false, both logically and from past empirical evidence.
The claim is that the savings would be used to create jobs. Since those getting the tax breaks currently are making record profits or already have huge amount of money, if they wanted to invest it to create jobs they could do so now without further incentives, so giving them more is unlikely to change whether they use it that way or not. In fact, in the past they have used such profits to move jobs overseas, to buy up other companies in mergers, which reduces jobs, especially middle management jobs—those of the middle class. The rich, in such times as now, find safe places to invest their monies, such as real estate and expensive goods, neither of which create much employment. Their investment in real estate often in fact creates higher housing costs for the rest of the population.
Then there was the statement by the Administration that companies would use the tax break to automate, which would save them more money, which they could use to raise wages. Let us look at that statement and take it apart. If they did use it to automate, that would mean job losses not gains. And while they could use the money to raise wages, what incentive would they have to do so? Under capitalism, when they have more workers wanting the same jobs, they are more likely to lower wages when there is more competition for the same jobs, not raise wages.
The idea of reducing or eliminating capital gain taxes also goes against basic fairness. The idea that earnings from actual work that produces something is taxed more than income made from doing nothing, simply from the fact that one is rich, seems absurd. Should not unearned income –income made off of the work of others, be taxed higher than the earned income which is earned by ones sweat and toil? The earning income from investments rather than hard work again is mostly in the hands of the very rich, so any breaks there would again be heavily weighted in favor of the extremely wealthy.
There is also the plan to eliminate the estate tax (tax on estates at death). Currently only the very rich pay this, as it is only paid on amounts over $5,400,000 ($10,800,000 for couples). This tax saving would be enormous for the children of multi-millionaires and billionaires who did nothing at all to earn that money, except be born to the right parents.
When the poor or middle class have more money, they do spend it. The money they spend is likely to create more jobs since increased purchase of consumer goods means there is an incentive to produce more goods, which does create jobs.
If one really wanted to help the economy while not raising the debt one would be increasing taxes to those who have the money, the rich, who are richer than ever before in history, and large corporations, who are currently making record profits. Lowering taxes for the middle class and getting money to the poor will create jobs by putting it in the hands of those who need it and will spend it. Basic logic and past empirical evidence bears this out.
The Network for Public Education believes that public education is the pillar of our democracy. We believe in the common school envisioned by Horace Mann. A common school is a public institution, which nurtures and teaches all who live within its boundaries, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, sexual preference or learning ability. All may enroll–regardless of when they seek to enter the school or where they were educated before.
We believe that taxpayers bear the responsibility for funding those schools and that funding should be ample and equitable to address the needs of the served community. We also believe that taxpayers have the right to examine how schools use tax dollars to educate children.
Most importantly, we believe that such schools should be accountable to the community they serve, and that community residents have the right and responsibility to elect those who govern the school. Citizens also have the right to insist that schooling be done in a manner that best serves the needs of all children.
By definition, a charter school is not a public school Charter schools are formed when a private organization contracts with a government authorizer to open and run a school. Charters are managed by private boards, often with no connection to the community they serve. The boards of many leading charter chains are populated by billionaires who often live far away from the schools they govern.
Through lotteries, recruitment and restrictive entrance policies, charters do not serve all children. The public cannot review income and expenditures in detail. Many are for profit entities or non-profits that farm out management to for-profit corporations that operate behind a wall of secrecy. This results in scandal, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds. The news is replete with stories of self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and theft occurring in charter schools .
We have learned during the 25 years in which charters have been in existence that the overall academic performance of students in charter schools is no better, and often worse, than the performance of students in public schools. And yet charter schools are seen as the remedy when public schools are closed based on unfair letter-based grading schemes.
By means of school closures and failed takeover practices like the Achievement School District, disadvantaged communities lose their public schools to charter schools. Not only do such communities lose the school, but they also lose their voice in school governance.
There is little that is innovative or new that charter schools offer. Because of their “freedom” from regulations, allegedly to promote innovation, scandals involving the finances and governance of charter schools occur on a weekly basis. Charter schools can and have closed at will, leaving families stranded. Profiteers with no educational expertise have seized the opportunity to open charter schools and use those schools for self-enrichment. States with weak charter laws encourage nepotism, profiteering by politicians, and worse.
For all of the reasons above and more, the Network for Public Education regard charter schools as a failed experiment that our organization cannot support. If the strength of charter schools is the freedom to innovate, then that same freedom can be offered to public schools by the district of the state.
At the same time, we recognize that many families have come to depend on charter schools and that many charter school teachers are dedicated professionals who serve their students well. It is also true that some charter schools are successful. We do not, therefore, call for the immediate closure of all charter schools, but rather we advocate for their eventual absorption into the public school system. We look forward to the day when charter schools are governed not by private boards, but by those elected by the community, at the district, city or county level.
Until that time, we support all legislation and regulation that will make charters better learning environments for students and more accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. Such legislation would include the following:
· An immediate moratorium on the creation of new charter schools, including no replication or expansion of existing charter schools
· The transformation of for-profit charters to non-profit charters
· The transformation of for-profit management organizations to non-profit management organizations
· All due process rights for charter students that are afforded public school students, in all matters of discipline
· Required certification of all school teaching and administrative staff
· Complete transparency in all expenditures and income
· Requirements that student bodies reflect the demographics of the served community
· Open meetings of the board of directors, posted at least 2 weeks prior on the charter’s website
· Annual audits available to the public
· Requirements to following bidding laws and regulations
· Requirements that all properties owned by the charter school become the property of the local public school if the charter closes
· Requirements that all charter facilities meet building codes
· Requirements that charters offer free or reduced priced lunch programs for students
· Full compensation from the state for all expenditures incurred when a student leaves the public school to attend a charter
· Authorization, oversight and renewal of charters transferred to the local district in which they are located
· A rejection of all ALEC legislation regarding charter schools that advocates for less transparency, less accountability, and the removal of requirements for teacher certification.
Until charter schools become true public schools, the Network for Public Education will continue to consider them to be private schools that take public funding.
One often reads debates on whether organic produce is better for one’s health than produce grown with the use of herbicides and pesticides. The same is debated in regards to whether there are detrimental effects of eating foods that have been genetically engineered.
From what I have read, the evidence is that there are probably minor advantages vitamin and health-wise in organic produce, and particularly in micro-nutrients. While some pesticides and herbicides wash off, other may be ingested. And how much pesticides stay in or on the produce can depend on the crop as well as other factors. However, given all the multiple factors it is hard to really do a carefully controlled study with real human being under real conditions.
Regarding GMO foods, just too little is yet known to be able to make an informed judgment as to if there is any direct health risk form eating such foods. So, on that score we are really guinea pigs in a world-wide experiment.
Regarding the lab studies on the harm of pesticides and herbicides to people, those are almost useless since they are so far removed from how they actually get used in real life conditions—such as they are usually used in multiple combinations, and those synergistic effects are not tested.
Yet, really such issues miss the main problem with the use of pesticides and herbicides. The reason I eat organic and non-GMO foods has little to do with whether it directly effects my health. It is the effect on the environment that concerns me most. On that score, it is abundantly clear that the use of pesticides, herbicides and the use of genetically engineered crops damage our ecosystem.
These pesticides and herbicides end up in the soil. Then they work their way down into out aquifers and water system, into run off that ends up in stream, rivers, lakes and oceans. The worms and bugs end up ingesting them, then the birds that eat them. The same with the fish and other water microorganisms. These then all work their way up the food chain, collecting in higher dosages, affecting the entire food chain.
The use of these artificial chemicals also ends up depleting the soil, leading to loss of quality topsoil. None of that is really debatable.
Now, about GMOs. What is not generally known is what is the main engineered modification that agribusiness is using. The biggest crops that are genetically engineered are corn and soy, and a huge proportion of the world crop is now GMO. The main purpose of the modification is to make these crops more resistant to herbicides and pesticides. It has little to do with making “better” corn or soy.
Why are they doing this? It has to do with modern mono-cropping and profits. Under normal circumstances, insects and plants play an evolutionary dance. Insects eat the plants, but some plants are more resistant to the bugs than others, and those thrive while the others do not do as well. But some bugs in turn do fine with the new strain of the plant, and those bugs thrive while the others do not do as well. So, both bugs and plants continue to evolve in response to the changes in the other.
Now along comes the agro-chemical-business. They do not like changes in the crop. They want to have one uniform plant that they have bred to their specification. Also, a natural plant, or seed cannot be patented and owned. These large agro-chemical companies do not allow their plants and seeds to naturally evolve. They usually have sterile seed. Therefore each season the farmers have to buy new seed from these companies.
However, the bugs and weeds DO continue to evolve to overcome both natural pest resistance and manufactured pesticides and herbicides. Because of this, larger and larger doses of herbicides and pesticides are needed to have the same effect. But these larger doses also can be harmful to the plants themselves. Therefore, the plants are modified to be resistant to these larger doses of pesticides and herbicides.
The principle modification therefore of soy and corn is to allow higher and higher doses of pesticides and herbicides to be applied to our crops, poisoning our planet even more. The same companies that sell these GMO seeds to the farmers are also selling them the herbicides and pesticides, so they increase their profits on both ends with these practices.
Organic farming practices are generally designed to maintain the quality of the soil and respect our natural environmental ecology. Does it cost more? Only if you ignore the costs to the livability of our planet.
There are two basic principles that I think as a field, psychologists and learning theorist’s agree upon: The importance of relationships, and that we learn to be like those in whose company we grow up in (and want to be like).
In fact, a 32-year longitudinal study, with about 1000 participants, found that social connectedness was a better predictor of well-being than academic achievement. (http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30046123)
By learning I am not really referring to the remembrance of facts (though, even the remembering of facts depends upon the context of the above factors). There are studies that when they control for (which means do not take into account) all other factors find certain methodologies to be more effective than others—how many repetitions, the order presented, levels of mastery, and so forth. However, to me, what really a matters when we look at the big picture of schooling and learning, is what kind of people we become, what we care about, what is our attitudes toward others, toward learning, and toward the society we live in, and as importantly, how we view ourselves.
If we start with these, relationships and the company we keep as our basic principles of learning, then the design of our school, classroom, learning environment need to reflect that. In other words, do the designs of the above, hinder or support strong relationships and creating a context for students to be surrounded by the kinds of people that we hope they become?
One aspect of creating this environment is thinking about the time and space for all members of the learning community to get to know each other. One factor is class size ratios. With too large class sizes (or numbers of students a teacher has on their total class load), teachers cannot get to know their students (and their families) well. In California, with class sizes often around 30, (and for high school teachers, multiply that by 4, 5 or 6 as they teach multiple groups of students). I argue that such large classes make strong relationships difficult. Half that, or maybe two adults in the room (or both) would make it more realistic.
I also recommend that students stay with teachers for more than one year. From my personal experience teaching, both having times when I had my students for only one year, and others where I had them for two or even three years, I found I was able to develop much deeper relationships in the second year. It also allowed for a sense of trust of giving students time to grow. (There are also many other advantages to multi-graded classrooms and keeping students for multiple years, for that you can read this previous blog).
School size also matters. The relationship built are more than just within the classroom. The school itself needs to be a community, with all the members having relationships with each other. This matters in part because students do move from teachers to teacher. It also matters because students see what kinds of relationships the adults around them have. They learn as much from watching others as they do form their direct experiences. They learn what it means to be an adult by watching adultas The teachers, and staff of a school are the adults in a working, non-family role that they see most, and most intimately.
However, the curriculum also has an effect. If the teacher’s job is to either be in front lecturing, or monitoring students doing worksheets, neither of these behaviors are likely to foster meaningful relationships no matter what the class size. Curriculum that allows the participants to share their ideas, work together and be creative are more likely to foster relationships. Curriculum that allows the teacher to tailor the the learning to the child/ren, to what is happening in the moment, also fosters relationships, caring.
Besides what goes on in the classroom is the larger learning community. In the majority of school’s children are told their job is to do what the teacher says, who in turn does what that principal says, who in turn does what the school board says, who in turn does what the State mandates. This is the company children keep during probably the majority of their non-family time—the time that represents larger society, a place that they are required by society to be.
If we want students to learn to be people who understand how a democratic society works, and how people who can make decisions over their lives and society act, then the adult in the learning community need to be doing such things. That means the way the school itself runs should be a place where the adults make the important decisions over what goes on in that community—the schedule, the work environment, and how the teaching and learning is structured. If the adults in the schools are mainly following orders from above, then that is what children will learn. They may want to reject that social order, to rebel against it, but the will not be learning how to do so effectively. Or they may reject it by just wanting to be the one’s who are on top, but again not seeing an alternative to the top down model of governance.
In sum, if we want to have healthy well educated students who know what it means to be a citizen of a democratic society, then the schools they grow up in need to reflect such a world, and they need the ability to build meaningful relationships with the adults and each other in those schools. Those adults need to be able to act that students would want to be adults like them.