harikari.com

The good news, potentially, was the release last week of new national standards for math and reading by a panel of experts convened by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. I say potentially because the standards have to be accepted and adopted by individual states, two of which (Texas and Alaska) have already refused to participate in the process.

The bad news is that to get to this point, it has taken us exactly ten years since the last effort, initiated by President George H Bush (America 2000)  continued under Bill Clinton (Goals 2000) and killed by George W Bush, who replaced it with the disastrous No Child Left Behind.  Where his predecessors’ efforts focused, in part, on encouraging all states to adopt rigorous educational standards while providing federally funded but independent reviews and assessments of the results, Junior’s NCLB has had the opposite effect. Its perverse incentives actually encouraged states to dumb-down their standards, and the tests that stem from them, so as to show illusory improvements in performance. Conversely, states that maintained high standards, such as Massachusetts, have been punished by NCLB.

The pace of reform in this country since ‘A Nation At Risk’ was released during the Reagan years makes a snail look like a sprinter.  It really is enough to make you want to scream in frustration. 

The issue of standards is a case in point. How can anybody actually think that it makes sense to have fifty different sets of standards to determine the appropriate reading level of our ninth-graders, or what our sixth-graders should know in math? Yet the move to national standards has been bitterly resisted, primarily by Republicans in congress who have clung to the manifestly erroneous belief that all educational decisions were best left to individual states and local school districts.  If states were competent to handle it alone, we wouldn’t be lagging most advanced countries in the educational performance of our children 25 years after ‘Nation at Risk’ sounded the warning bell.

It’s heartening that a bipartisan consensus among the nation’s governors has prompted this very significant and long overdue step which could have enormous future benefits for our children. Rigorous national standards will, hopefully, lead to common if not identical curriculum and tests, and a measure of coherence may yet emerge from the patchwork quilt that is the American K-12 education system. 

 That’s definitely worth a loud cheer.

I read an amusing article by Michael Kinsley on The Atlantic Wire yesterday.  It was about how Ronald Reagan, based on his record and his statements, would not be able to adopt the “Reagan Resolution.”  It’s a list of ten principles to uphold that many Republicans wanted to adopt as an acid test for their candidates getting any money from the Republican Party.  The ten principles are:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Kinsley writes:

He was a great one for assertions of principle but never one for mean-spirited anathemas. It’s a good thing, because if you judge from what he actually did as president, as opposed to what he said he would do—or, by the end, what he might have claimed (or even honestly believed) he had done—Ronald Reagan would not be able to sign the Reagan Resolution.

Kinsley then went through all ten principles and by his count came up with four apostasies of Reagan.  My interpretation of Kinsley’s summary follows, and I say interpretation because Kinsley might be saying Reagan did not comply with #2 (he had no stance on healthcare reform), and it’s difficult to say for sure if he would have adhered to #7.  But anyway…

He increased the size of the government payroll and increased tne national debt.

He signed a law that authorized amnesty for illegal immigrants.

On the “contaiment of North Korea and Iran” principle, the records shows that he publicly supported Sadaam Hussein’s regime, and secretly funneled money to Iran.  I wouldn’t call that contaiment.

He was in favor of the Brady Bill that imposed some restrictions on gun ownership.

(Read Kinsely for yourself to see if you agree.)

That was a good read, but even funnier was this comic that I just read on Mr. Fish’s site.

I was reading through the June issue of Harper’s Magazine and came across a letter from Ronald Reagan to Michael Jackson that was sent after Michael’s hair was accidentally burned while filming a Pepsi commerical.  I wanted to post the letter here, so I searched for it hoping I would find it and not have to type it myself.  I found it and a whole lot more.

Here’s the letter that started my search:

Dear Michael:

I was pleased to learn that you were not seriously hurt in your recent accident. I know from experience that these things can happen on the set–no matter how much caution is excercised. All over America, millions of people look up to you as an example. Your deep faith in God and adherence to traditional values are an inspiration to all of us, especially young people searching for something real to believe in. You’ve gained quite a number of fans along the road since “I Want You Back” and Nancy and I are among them. Keep up the good work, Michael. We’re very happy for you.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

In addition to the letter, I found this New York Times “The Caucus” blog post that gives a rundown of the relationship between Reagan and Jackson.  There I learned that Jackson visited the White House in May 1984 and also appeared with Reagan at an anti-drunk-driving event.

In September of 1984, Jackson invited Reagan to a “Victory Tour” concert at RFK stadium.  Reagan’s office drafted a letter to decline the invitation and to invite Michael Jackson back to the White House, but this time with his brothers. 

The letter was reviewed by a young associate counsel who objected to Reagan signing the letter.  The associate was John G. Roberts, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

David Weigel at The Washington Independent got a laugh out of this part of Robert’s rejection:

In today’s Post there were already reports that some youngsters were turning away from Mr. Jackson in favor of a newcomer who goes by the name “Prince,” and is apparently planning a Washington concert. Will he receive a Presidential letter? How will we decide which performers do and which do not?

Prince, the “newcomer,” was touring in support of his sixth album, Purple Rain.

That’s pretty funny, but I thought this part was even better:

Why, for example, was no letter sent to Mr. Bruce Springsteen, whose patriotic tour recently visited the area?

Yes… another clueless Republican who heard only the chorus to “Born in the U.S.A” and never bothered to listen to the verses.  Springsteen’s 1984 tour was not patriotic in any way, and he loathed the Reagan Administration.

Reagan wasn’t a very smart man, but he did recognize a foe when he saw one.  Young John G. Roberts?  Not so smart…

If you were voting in the Republican primary tomorrow, which candidate would get your vote and why?

“Uh, hello? Rudolph Giuliani. He protected New York City from the terrorists on 9/11 and he’s like the anti-terrorist version of Sean Connery in the Untouchables. The Iraqi people put me in a wheelchair, so now he’ll put one of them in a torture prison.”

via Something Awful

For the following reasons, I don’t think this primary season is going to be easy for Republicans.

1. Romney will implode on the issue of his religion. Proper Xtians don’t like Mormons and Mormons don’t like a Massachusetts Governor who won’t defend their faith — and Mormonism is tough as shit to defend under serious scrutiny.

2. Huckabee, like Romney, will fall under the weight of his faith. He is simply TOO religious.

3. Giuliani has secrets just waiting to find the right mouthpiece.

4. Ron Paul isn’t a republican.

5. Thompson’s a poseur. He’s a great republican, though. Just like Reagan.

6. Tancredo’s a nutjob. Tancredo, before it’s too late… WTF!?!?

7. Hunter is…wait. Who? Actually, if Hunter wins the nom and chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, I may actually consider voting for “Hunter/Thompson 2008″.

8. McCain. Caucus Republicans love him, but don’t believe in him. Hate him, but respect him. He won’t pander to the Christians, he won’t get tough on terrorists, he did spend 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp, but he ran against Dear Leader 8 years ago, and lost. If he can’t defend his nomination from a draft dodger, how can he defend our country from islamo-fascist militants who want to bomb our malls and poison our small town water towers? However, I think he’s the only one who could kick the Dem nom’s ass in 2008 if he manages to get past the past 6 years of lap-dogging and elbow rubbing.

Those of you like me, who have not yet donated to a charitable relief organizaton that will help care for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, have probably asked yourself several times why you haven’t given any money yet. When you think about the disaster, you know that the people of New Orleans need your help, but you don’t act because you think in some way you would be giving in to the current social political system that you cannot stand. I hadn’t tried to work through these thoughts until today when I read Ted Rall’s column. He has put into words the troubling thoughts that I’ve been too lazy to sort through and write about.

Government has been shirking its basic responsibilities since the ’80s, when Ronald Reagan sold us his belief that the sick, poor and unlucky should no longer count on “big government” to help them, but should rather live and die at the whim of contributors to private charities. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan’s privatization of despair.

(snip)

It’s ridiculous, but people evidently need to be reminded that the United States is not only the world’s wealthiest nation but the wealthiest society that has existed anywhere, ever. The U.S. government can easily pick up the tab for people inconvenienced by bad weather–if helping them is a priority. That goes double for Katrina, a disaster caused by the government’s conscious decision to eliminate the $50 million pittance needed to improve New Orleans’ levees.

(snip)

Granted, in terms of popularity of likelihood of success, trying to make a case against giving money to charities compares to lobbying against puppies. The impulse to donate, after all, is rooted in our best human traits. As we watched New Orleanians die of thirst, disease and anarchic violence in the face of Bush Administration disinterest and local government incompetence, millions of us did the only thing we thought we could to do to help: cut a check or click a PayPal button. Tragically, that generosity feeds into the mindset of the sinister ideologues who argue that government shouldn’t help people–the very mindset that caused the levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust and led to official unresponsiveness. And it is already setting the stage for the next avoidable disaster.

It’s time to “starve the beast”: private charities used by the government to justify the abdication of its duties to its citizens.

Governments should help people. Helping people is one of the main reasons that governments exist. The citizens of New Orleans paid taxes, and government failed them. Now everyone is passing the cup to help them out. I still might decide to donate some money, but I won’t feel all that great about it.

Truth is I feel better about giving money to organizations who fight against Bush’s destructive policies and to politicians running against Republican foot soldiers for Bush.