December 31, 2015

OWS: "began in a particular place, sputtered and subsided, only to re-emerge elsewhere"

Not done yet by any means. Just re-emerging!

This is from way down in an article today in The Atlantic Monthly:

Why America Is Moving Left

When academics from the City University of New York went to Zuccotti Park to study the people who had taken it over, they found something striking: 40 percent of the Occupy activists had worked on the 2008 presidential campaign, mostly for Obama. Many of them had hoped that, as president, he would bring fundamental change. Now the collapse of that hope had led them to challenge Wall Street directly. “Disenchantment with Obama was a driver of the Occupy movement for many of the young people who participated,” noted the CUNY researchers. In his book on the movement, Occupy Nation, the Columbia University sociologist Todd Gitlin quotes Jeremy Varon, a close observer of Occupy who teaches at the New School for Social Research, as saying, “This is the Obama generation declaring their independence from his administration. We thought his voice was ours. Now we know we have to speak for ourselves.”

The article does a good job of describing the rise and fall and rise in another form of the Occupy Movement.

For a brief period, Occupy captured the nation’s attention. In December 2011, Gitlin notes, the movement had 143 chapters in California alone. Then it fizzled. But as the political scientist Frances Fox Piven has written, “The great protest movements of history … did not expand in the shape of a simple rising arc of popular defiance. Rather, they began in a particular place, sputtered and subsided, only to re-emerge elsewhere in perhaps a different form, influenced by local particularities of circumstance and culture.”

That’s what happened to Occupy. The movement may have burned out, but it injected economic inequality into the American political debate. (In the weeks following the takeover of Zuccotti Park, media references to the subject rose fivefold.) The same anger that sparked Occupy—directed not merely at Wall Street but at the Democratic Party elites who coddled it—fueled Bill de Blasio’s election and Elizabeth Warren’s rise to national prominence. And without Occupy, it’s impossible to understand why a curmudgeonly Democratic Socialist from Vermont is seriously challenging Hillary Clinton in the early primary states. The day Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, a group of Occupy veterans offered their endorsement. In the words of one former Occupy activist, Stan Williams, “People who are involved in Occupy are leading the biggest group for Bernie Sanders. Our fingers are all over this.”

I agree with some parts of this next paragraph, but strongly disagree with others.

I think many Democrats in general agree with the leftward movement, but the party's infrastructure is not on board at all. The leadership of the DNC is in full lockstep with the new policy think tank, The Third Way. They are not the majority of our party, but they are seemingly in complete charge for now.

Arguably more significant than the Sanders campaign itself is the way Democratic elites have responded to it. In the late 1980s and the ’90s, they would have savaged him. For the Democratic Leadership Council, which sought to make the party more business-friendly, an avowed Socialist would have been the perfect foil. Today, in a Democratic Party whose guiding ethos is “no enemies to the left,” Sanders has met with little ideological resistance. That’s true not only among intellectuals and activists but among many donors. Journalists often assume that Democrats who write big checks oppose a progressive agenda, at least when it comes to economics. And some do. But as John Judis has reported in National Journal, the Democracy Alliance, the party’s most influential donor club, which includes mega-funders such as George Soros and Tom Steyer, has itself shifted leftward during the Obama years. In 2014, it gave Warren a rapturous welcome when she spoke at the group’s annual winter meeting. Last spring it announced that it was making economic inequality its top priority.

Point 1 disagreement: Sanders IS meeting with ideological resistance. The power of those currently in charge is threatened by such change.

Point 2 disagreement: The savaging of the left took place in 2003/2004, not just in the 80s and 90s. They even had a press conference announcing Dean would not be president.

Point 3 about the Democracy Alliance. They are secretive in which media they are funding, so we really don't know what those mega-donors believe.

Howard Dean said a few months ago not to underestimate Bernie Sanders. I agree, and I also say don't underestimate the remaining power of the shape-changing OWS.

(Posted this in GD rather than GDP primary as it is not really about just this primary, and it is not so much about either candidate as about a movement that started in one form and is morphing. )

December 29, 2015

Florida Squeeze: A serious view of what Democrats face in 2016. Won't be easy.

We are seeing a different kind of progressive movement that's not easy to define. It's about Bernie Sanders, but that's only a part.

We're not going to be seeing much (or any) of Bernie in Florida. Can't blame him for that. All the state Democratic leadership appears to be on board with Hillary.

I am noticing though that there have been some well attended local events for Bernie.

Other than that he's hardly mentioned in our local media.

Democrats facing a potentially difficult 2016 with movement progressives

The data breach was by most standards a relatively minor happening that would have simply had a reaction limited to political insiders, data nerds and political press – had the DNC not bungled it so badly from a public relations standpoint. The DNC’s action inflamed non-political people who are backing Bernie Sanders and tend to see political parties as cartels that do not believe in the normal processes of Democracy.

Whether or not this is fair, a large segment of voters the party depends on feels the deck is stacked against the candidates they favor like Senator Sanders who articulate the views they live by. These are what I call “movement progressives.” They are motivated by issues particularly economic ones and are not comfortable with the Wall Street ties of the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign.

Those connected closely to politics support Secretary Clinton, like they did her husband because of the political benefit – Democratic administration and the potential for patronage jobs or consulting contracts.

....Political types like to use fear to motivate the Democratic base. Paraphrasing here but basically they say “If you don’t support this Democrat, you’ll get a much worse Republican who is a racist that will destroy reproductive rights, push religion, hand everyone guns and ban minorities from advancing in our society before deporting anyone with a foreign sounding name.” These fear tactics have long worked as movement progressives felt they needed to play defense and support the lesser of two evils. Closing ranks eventually happens as a worse alternative looms, and the Democratic establishment knows that. However now many progressives are reaching a wits end, meaning the trick may not work this year for the party.

There is a truly good comment in the comments section of the article. It was written by a Florida Democrat I learned to respect very much during the 2004 campaign.

From the comments

(The link to the comment doesn't seem to go straight to the comment I mentioned. I am speaking of the one by David Jones.)

As a lifelong Democrat, I find it appalling that the DNC and the FDP could not find it within themselves to facilitate an even playing field during this election cycle. The chosen line-up of speakers at Leadership Blue and the FDP convention, the limited debate schedule, and both the FDP Chair and Vice Chair signing on as official members of Hillary Clinton’s Florida Campaign Team has sent a loud and clear message that those candidates who subscribe to the traditional progressive policies that provided social mobility during our nations hey day, are no longer worthy of having their voices heard through official channels of the Democratic party. In doing so, the party leadership has slammed the door in the face of countless young idealists and very well may have mortgaged the future of our party in favor of a less than honorable process designed to advance a watered down political agenda that helps far fewer people than is needed at this juncture in our history.

Way to go, David. A big hand of

December 29, 2015

A sure way to destroy public education: give taxpayer money to the parents not schools.

And let the parents use it to send their kids to private school or even to home school them.

This is SB 302 which is happening in Nevada.

Nevada parents to get unprecedented school choice

But parents will be allowed to homeschool and receive the funding, said Anderson, questioning whether parents are skilled in making the right choices for curriculum and instruction.

......Here's how the private school payments would work:

•Parents must enter into a written agreement with the Nevada State Treasurer.

•The money would then be deposited in an education savings account created by the parent for their child to attend a "participating entity" instead of their usual public schools.

•Anyone can become a participating entity by submitting an application to the state demonstrating that they are a private school, accredited tutor or "the parent of a child."

•The money must be spent on tuition, class fees, textbooks, tutoring or taking tests for Advanced Placement courses, college entry or government requirement, such as Nevada's standardized tests.

From The Desert Beacon in August:

Now, A Warning? SB 302 and the Privatization of NV Public Schools

It’s not like we weren’t warned. Nevada’s SB 302, the notorious ESA, is a give-away to the few at the educational expense of the many. State Senator Scott Hammond’s privatization bill is a GOP wet dream. It passed the Republican controlled Assembly on a 25-17 vote, and the Republican controlled Senate by 11-8. [NVLeg] Nevada Senators Atkinson, Denis, Ford, Kihuen, Manendo, Parks, Spearman, and Woodhouse had the foresight to vote “no.” They were right. The law is not getting rave reviews:

“The ESA law requires the “statewide average basic support per pupil” — $5,100 per student and $5,710 for low-income, and students with disabilities — be deposited into each ESA from local district budgets, a process that will divert, over time, substantial resources from the public schools. Studies have shown that Nevada substantially underfunds K-12 public education. For example, calculations by the Guinn Center show that Nevada K-12 funding is over $3,000 per pupil, or $1.5 billion, below the amount determined adequate by a 2015 education cost study. A recent ENN analysis shows that, even after the Legislature increased funding in the biennium budget, most Nevada school districts, including Clark County, are once again facing shortfalls in their operating budgets for the 2015-16 school year.” [EJO]

But, but, but… “we increased funding for education…” Yes, I could opine that if I gave nothing to charity last year and a dollar this year then my charity went up by 100%. That doesn’t mean that the funding was adequate in the first place. Nor does the law pass the Golden Rule Test: Do the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

No matter what one's view is of public education, charter schools, private schools, or home schools......in the long run this is the defunding of public education.

It is the destruction of public schools. And when the charter and private schools won't keep the kids who don't excel, when the parents decide home schooling is not for them.....I just wonder what quality public schools will be left for them.

December 27, 2015

Thoughts going out to Dallas area. Just heard from my kids there and both okay. But...

There's apparently been a lot of damage. They live in different areas but were out to dinner together when the power went out and cell phones went dead. One had hit very close with much damage. Extensive power outages.

Daughter got enough cell phone coverage back to call me but hard to hear.

Their homes are okay, but there seems to be roofs off and damage to cars all around. I had tracked it on a Dallas radar earlier and had a bad feeling.

Hope DUers and their families around there are okay.

December 24, 2015

No wonder Arne Duncan's leaving. More charter scandals in the media.

He will be receiving media accolades of course, but there will be many teachers and parents disagreeing. The problem is that his successor is even more in the pocket of charter school operators.

From the Chicago Sun Times last week.

Charter firm suspected of cheating federal grant program

A clout-heavy charter-school firm that operates four taxpayer-funded schools in Chicago is suspected of defrauding the government by funneling more than $5 million in federal grants to insiders and “away from the charter schools,” according to court records obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

No criminal charges have been filed in the ongoing investigation of Des Plaines-based Concept Schools, which has built a network of powerful supporters, including Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago.

.....Concept has 30 schools in Illinois and five other states, including four Chicago Public Schools-funded campuses with a total of about 2,200 students. CPS funds them under school-choice laws that provide for government funding of certain privately operated schools.

In June 2014, the FBI raided Concept’s northwest suburban headquarters and 18 other sites in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, seizing records regarding top Concept officials and the company’s participation in the federal “E-Rate” program, the Sun-Times reported last year. At the time, authorities would say only that they were investigating a “white-collar-crime matter.”

That article did not mention that Concept Schools are Turkish-based Gulen charter schools. Here is a more about that.

Remember that taxpayer money goes to charter schools, and there has been little or no accountability the last few years.

FBI raids Concept Schools in Illinois, 2 other states

The FBI and two other federal agencies conducted raids in Illinois and two other states at charter schools run by Des Plaines-based Concept Schools, FBI officials said Tuesday.

Search warrants were executed at 19 Concept schools in connection with an “ongoing white-collar crime matter,” said Vicki Anderson, a special agent in the Cleveland FBI office that’s leading the probe.

The U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Communications Commission also were involved in the June 4 raids, but officials said the warrants remain under seal, and they wouldn’t give any details about the investigation.

....Concept was founded by Turkish immigrants and has ties to Turkish-American groups that have hosted Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and other state lawmakers on trips to their homeland in recent years, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in December. In 2012, Madigan visited Concept’s Chicago Math and Science Academy at 7212 N. Clark St., and praised the school in a video posted on YouTube.

After its efforts last year to open two new taxpayer-funded charter schools in Chicago were rejected by Chicago Public Schools officials, Concept appealed to the Illinois State Charter School Commission, which overrode CPS and allowed Concept to open Horizon Science Academy McKinley Park at 2845 W. Pershing Rd. and Horizon Science Academy Belmont at 5035 W. North Ave.

There is more about Gulen charter schools at The Perimeter Primate and at Charter School Watchdog

December 24, 2015

The Secret Keeper: Jules Kroll and the world of corporate intelligence.

This is a fascinating look at Kroll Inc in the New Yorker in 2009. This is the company that is doing the audit for the DNC.

Somehow I get a strange feeling that it is Goliath vs David. They do business around the world, and they are doing the DNC audit. Seems strange.

No way to post enough excerpts to cover the article effectively without breaking copyright rules.

The Secret Keeper

A Nigerian student asked Kroll to come to his country as so many were being killed.

“O.K.,” Kroll said, one hand outstretched as if to steady the young man. “O.K.” Kroll’s gaze—he has big, slightly bulging pale eyes—did not leave the Nigerian’s. “We are there. We’ve been to Nigeria about ten times in the past year or two. People exist there who want to turn things around. It’s a very tough environment. But we are there.” He asked the young man to write down his contact information.

A student from Germany asked how Kroll had the authority to conduct investigations. Wasn’t that role reserved for the police?

“No” was the short answer. Kroll needed a license to operate, that was all. Kroll then told a story about an American telecommunications company that was being extorted by Turkish hackers in Germany. The F.B.I. was not ready to get involved, so the company brought in Kroll. Kroll sent an operative into the hackers’ midst, quickly gathering enough evidence to interest the F.B.I. “This is how I make my living,” Kroll said. “The F.B.I. is busy.”

Actually, that’s not how Kroll has made his living, or, at least, not most of it. Breaking up extortion rings, nailing dictators—that’s the Marvel Comics version of Jules Kroll’s career. Kroll really made his living, and his name, on Wall Street. He owed his success not to Spider-Man but to Goldman Sachs and Skadden Arps and a long list of corporations, law firms, investment banks, management consultants, hedge funds, and brokerage houses. Kroll likes to say, “Sunlight is a wonderful antiseptic.” But he and his company have been more highly valued for keeping things in the dark than for the occasional, client-approved exposé. They are the keepers of innumerable embarrassing, probably career-destroying, possibly corporation-destroying secrets. Jules Kroll may pose, credibly, as a crusader for truth and justice, but his life has been more interesting than that.

Kroll is widely credited with having created an industry where there was none. Call it corporate intelligence.

The Courthouse News Service calls it a curious choice for the DNC audit.

December 22, 2015

Bernie Sanders isn't letting go of data breach controversy

Bernie Sanders isn't letting go of data breach controversy

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders may have gotten access to the Democratic National Committee's voter data system again and even apologized to Hillary Clinton onstage at the third Democratic debate, but the data breach fracas isn't ending anytime soon.

His campaign sent out a request Monday evening that Clinton join in his call for an independent audit of the DNC's centralized NGP-VAN voter data system. And campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said he did not expect the campaign (to) drop its lawsuit against the DNC until it gets some answers.

Weaver said the lawsuit could lead to a discovery phase, and possible depositions, if it continues, all of which he hopes will unearth problems with the voter system he said the campaign first alerted the DNC about in October.

"We want to be confident we can get to the bottom of how data is handled at the DNC," Weaver told CNN Monday. "I think all the campaign(s) need to know what the status is."

....."We hope the Clinton campaign will join us in calling for a thorough, independent investigation starting from Day One in the campaign to review all possible data security failures that may have occurred at the DNC," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.

December 20, 2015

Not healthy for a Party to embrace only one candidate. No room for us there now.

There is almost no sense of reality anymore among Democrats at the national level. If some in leadership are realizing the harm being done, they are keeping their silence. That's not healthy either.

I think the final touch was when the Democratic Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, used a very unfortunate term in referring to Bernie Sanders after she sandbagged his campaign by running to the media first.

She said he doesn’t have anything other than bluster at the moment that they can put out there.

She actually publicly said that a Democratic candidate had nothing but bluster.

The use of the word bluster made clear that the party of Debbie WS is only for one candidate. It was not a good choice of terminology.

Many supporters of Bernie are new to the party, and if welcomed they might stay and become contributing members. There are so many fresh ideas available to a party that does not seem to want them.

I found an interesting comment today about the great possibility that the harm from the DWS and party handling of the database breach is likely not over.

Why The Democratic Party's Move Against Bernie Sanders Could Backfire

Sanders argued that the breach was jointly the fault of the data vendor and a staffer who made a bad decision to try to exploit the vendor error. The DNC, which is seen as politically aligned with Clinton, responded by abruptly blocking Sanders' access to his own data, a virtual shutdown of the campaign.

Sanders called the DNC’s suspension “arbitrary." Josh Hendler, a top Democratic tech operative, warned Saturday that the DNC's move against Sanders could deeply damage the party in the future by undermining trust in the committee.

"The stakes are higher than the political fight of the day between Bernie and Hillary," he wrote in a blog post. "The DNC being seen as a fair arbiter and steward of the data is critical to this continued advantage over Republicans. If the DNC is no longer that trusted broker, we might see candidates using third party systems. This risks the Party’s access to valuable data collected by campaigns, especially during a Presidential."

The apology from Sanders and the muted rhetoric from Clinton may come from a realization of the longterm stakes of the spat. Democrats are at a financial disadvantage against Republicans and allied outside groups, but have a technology edge due to effective cooperation, which has so far eluded conservatives. Losing the latter edge could be fatal as a national party.

The chairman and many of those surrounding her do not want, and do not think they need, Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the campaign.

That is not forward thinking. She seems not to understand that many Bernie supporters are, like I am, lifetime members of the Democratic Party.

December 20, 2015

Way too cozy.

Read the bus labels.

December 19, 2015

2008 DWS didn't like Dean's rules at DNC. Bypassed him, went to media first to complain.

Got a lot of publicity. Hmmm..

She was leading the way as Hillary's chairperson to move FL and MI primaries ahead of the others. I had written a lot about it but unfortunately the journal archives from DU2 are not available now.

In this video DWS also says Howard Dean "stamped feet" and said "rules were broken". She said Floridians still had raw nerves from 2000...and she was not happy about Dean's "rules".

Here's a little:

Dean says FL and MI would not negotiate with the DNC...took it public instead.

It is getting very obvious now that FL and MI leaders do not recognize the DNC as the authority. May I post The Nation article which points that out?

The Dean Legacy

A few months earlier, The New Republic had reported that Clinton's camp was "laying the groundwork to circumvent the DNC in the event that Clinton wins the nomination." This shadow DNC had a number of integral parts: adviser Harold Ickes would develop state-of-the-art technology to help Clinton reach prospective voters; EMILY's List and Clinton's allies in organized labor would launch an unprecedented effort to turn out supporters, especially women voters; former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe would raise untold sums from wealthy donors and the business community; and communications honcho Howard Wolfson would direct an unrelenting war room. Ever since 1992 the Clintons had used the DNC as an outpost for raising money from big donors, and funding candidates had taken precedence over nurturing progressive organizers. That model would continue into '08. Dean could remain at the DNC as a figurehead but only if he stayed in line.

There is no transcript of the interview with NPR, and it is about 8 minutes long. Near the end he says the two states took it public while refusing to have discussions with the DNC.

I see a pattern.