Ken Lovett reported that UFT President Mulgrew and NYSUT President Magee met with Cuomo aides on Friday after the unions unveiled attack ads against Cuomo's education budget and reform agenda.
Lovett wrote:
Sources say the unions during the meeting may have agreed to
temporarily pull their attack ads, leaving some insiders to question
whether the sides are trying to hammer out some type of agreement on how
to move forward.
Norm Scott heard "secret meeting" between Cuomo aides and the union heads and smelled sell-out.
Because whenever I hear the words "secret meeting" and Cuomo, I have these painful flashbacks to the meetings they had to bash out the APPR agreement back in 2012 or the CCSS test safety net deal that Cuomo reneged on - so why wouldn't I smell sell-out since that's what's happened before?
But my friends on Twitter, many of them part of locals around the state, assure me I have nothing to fear - here's a few tweets from Martin Daly that do a good job of explaining their perspective:
@perdidostschool DOn't let one article blind you to all that is happening across the state- the union is fighting this war on may fronts.
— Martin Daly (@marty10707) February 10, 2015
Now, nothing would make me happier in life than for Martin to be right about this and me to be wrong.
Seriously.
But I'm a little skittish, both as a UFT member who's seen his share of "compromises" from the leadership that ended badly for teachers and as an NYSUT member who's seen at least two in the last few years between NYSUT and Cuomo (the 2012 APPR deal and the CCSS safety net deal.)
So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical when I read a report from a reputable, excellent reporter like Ken Lovett (who broke much of the Moreland story before anybody else) about secret meetings between Cuomo aides and the union heads.
I'm glad to hear Martin Daly say the unions haven't pulled the ads, that there is no evidence that the union is backing off from the fight against Cuomo.
Nothing makes me happier than to hear that.
But the "secret meetings" thing concerns me a bit, because now is NOT the time to be doing any talking to Cuomo.
There is no reason the unions should be talking about anything with
Cuomo, not after he broke his promise over the CCSS safety net, not with
him taking heavy damage from both political sides.
The unions ought to be doubling down on the ads, running more of them,
exposing more of the Cuomo agenda for the brutal vendetta it is,
weakening him so that when the time to talk does come, he's soft and
pliable from the beatings he's taken.
The time will come for talk, but it surely hasn't come yet - there's
more attacking to be done to make sure that when the talk time does
come, Cuomo's beaten up enough to actually listen to what other people
have to say.
I stand by those words today.
We didn't want this war but Cuomo brought it on us.
The time for talk will come - but we're not there yet.
If the Lovett piece is correct, the union leaders at the NYSUT and the UFT may have agreed to pull their attack ads just as they were starting to get some traction against Cuomo.
Cuomo's on the run, badly enough that he wants the attack ads pulled and what do the unions do when they're asked to pull them?
They pull them.
Is this any way to fight a war?
Cuomo vowed to destroy public schools.
That's not hyperbole - he actually promised to do this.
He declared war on public education.
That's not hyperbole - that's how the Daily News described his budget.
And how do the teachers unions fight this war?
With an aim toward losing it, that's how.
When a politician vows to destroy you, you do not compromise with this person, you do not look for a seat at the table to talk to him.
You pick up the seat at the table and you bash him over the head with it before he can do it to you.
There is no reason the unions should be pulling their ads down now, not when Cuomo's getting beaten up all over the place for his reform agenda, not when he's under attack from both sides of the aisle over it.
There is no reason the unions should be taking about anything with Cuomo, not after he broke his promise over the CCSS safety net, not with him taking heavy damage from both political sides.
The unions ought to be doubling down on the ads, running more of them, exposing more of the Cuomo agenda for the brutal vendetta it is, weakening him so that when the time to talk does come, he's soft and pliable from the beatings he's taken.
Cuomo is out to destroy public education.
It is only fair, right and just that we counterattack and try to destroy him politically.
There is no other way to handle a battle with Cuomo.
There can be no compromise with a guy out to destroy us.
The time will come for talk, but it surely hasn't come yet - there's more attacking to be done to make sure that when the talk time does come, Cuomo's beaten up enough to actually listen to what other people have to say.
(Reuters) - A
dozen car bombs and suicide blasts tore into Shi'ite districts in
Baghdad and south of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, killing more than 50
people on the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that ousted
Saddam Hussein.
Sunni Islamist insurgents
linked to al Qaeda have vowed to step up attacks on Shi'ite targets
since the start of the year in an attempt to provoke sectarian
confrontation and undermine Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's
government.
Tuesday's bombs
exploded in a busy Baghdad market, near the heavily fortified Green Zone
and in other districts across the capital. A suicide bomber also
attacked a police base in a Shi'ite town south of the capital, officials
said.
"I was driving my taxi and
suddenly I felt my car rocked. Smoke was all around. I saw two bodies on
the ground. People were running and shouting everywhere," said Ali
Radi, a taxi driver caught in one of the blasts in Baghdad's Sadr City.
A
decade after U.S. and Western troops swept Saddam from power, Iraq
still struggles with insurgents, sectarian friction and political feuds
among Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.
In
a sign of concern over security, the cabinet on Tuesday postponed local
elections in two provinces, Anbar and Nineveh, for up to six months
because of threats to electoral workers and violence there, according to
Maliki's media adviser Ali al-Moussawi. The polls will go ahead
elsewhere on April 20.
In case you missed this, charter school operator and real estate magnate Geoffrey Canada declared war on traditional public schools yesterday.
The quote comes from a Times story about Michaelle Rhee's education reform group starting a New York chapter called StudentsFirstNY with plans to raise $50 million dollars to help close down schools, fire teachers and promote standardized testing.
“Folks are genuinely looking for opportunities to make peace and not war,” Mr. Canada said. “And I think that’s terrific. But someone has to make war.”
Of course Geoffrey Canada and the millionaire education reformers backed by the Billionaire Boys club intend to win - they've got the money, the press, the resources, and the political access and power.
•A majority of the voters surveyed—55 percent—would actually be willing to pony up an additional $200 a year in taxes to improve education systems. And 78 percent of the voters surveyed say that increased funding for education is necessary, while just 21 percent say it's not necessary.
•So where should the funding go? Voters' top priority is making sure schools can provide arts, music, and physical education classes to all students. In fact, 59 percent say that's extremely important. College affordability is another biggie. Voters want to see any extra money go to holding down tuition at state colleges, universities, and community colleges, with 56 percent of respondents saying that's extremely important.
•Voters don't necessarily place a priority on the issues that the Obama administration has steered money to. Just 31 percent want to see funding go to expand school options, such as charters. And just 24 percent place a priority on merit-pay bonuses for teachers. School choice doesn't seem to register much either—just 17 percent of voters want to see money for vouchers to help low-income parents pay for private schools.
So at the very least, voters in Swing States don't want the school closures, merit pay, teacher firing policies being promoted by the education reform movement and the Obama administration and happily touted by a shill like Geoffrey Canada when he goes on NBC's Education Nation or helps Mayor Bloomberg overturn term limits to run for a third term
Given the battles we have had in New York City over Bloomberg's policies of school closures, charter co-locations and Endless Testing and the high unpopularity of those policies in poll after poll, you can be sure New York parents and students don't want what the corporate education reformers are selling either.
But that won't stop these billionaire-backed corporate education reformers from trying to get their way on EVERYTHING.
As Mr. Canada said, this is war and they intend to win with their scorched earth policy.
So far, it's worked.
But clearly they're worried that once Bloomberg goes, they wont win every battle anymore.
Not to fear - with the corporate media, the corporate politicians and a governor with a suitcase full of hedge fundie/education reformer cash, I suspect not much will change come 2014.
Parents and students STILL won't want the policies these people are promoting - but they will be getting them anyway.
But that won't matter - you see, in 21st Century America, it's one billionaire, all the votes.
And that's one other policy these reformers are selling - a vision of America where the rich, the powerful and the connected make all the decisions and if you don't like it, it's just too damned bad.
WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.
If the president does it, it's legal.
That's the Obama theory of executive power.
That was George W Bush's too.
And Nixon's.
No wonder Arne Duncan thinks he can extort states to agree to his Race to the Top guidelines if they want waivers to the NCLB regulations that will soon have 90% of the nation's schools declared "failing."
Under the Obama theory of governance, cabinet secretaries get to make law or change the ones they don't like.
But that just ain't right. As Rick Hess pointed out here, cabinet secretaries are not given the constitutional powers to make law.
Neither is the president.
The Congress is.
And even if the president or his cabinet secretaries think that the Congress is not acting in a timely manner to legislate, the Constitution does not give them the power to create law in the Congress's place.
Just as the Constitution doesn't give the president the right to declare war.
But I guess following the Constitution is an archaic practice these days.
People who want the president to follow the Constitution in matters of war and domestic policy are hopelessly wedded to the status quo and just don't care about the nation's security and welfare.
And one only have one shot to educate our kids or save the Libyan people, so we just can't afford to wait for the Congress to act on these matters.
This is what empire looks like when it is heading toward fascism and autocracy.
"Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards," the president said. "There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border....In short: the status quo is not sustainable."
(SIDENOTE: If you substitute "public schools" for Afghanistan and "teachers unions" for "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda", the ed deform rhetoric he uses is interchangeable boilerplate from the war rhetoric.)
Obama hasn't been as unrealistic in his public assessments of the conditions in Afghanistan as Bush was in his public assessments of the war in Iraq, but we learned last night from leaked documents published in the NY Times, the Guardian, and Der Speigal that both the Bush and the Obama administrations have been involved in some major deceptions about the war. To wit:
A six-year archive of classified military documents made public on Sunday offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.
The secret documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year.
The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the voluminous records several weeks ago on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday.
The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.
...
The reports — usually spare summaries but sometimes detailed narratives — shed light on some elements of the war that have been largely hidden from the public eye:
• The Taliban have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, a fact that has not been publicly disclosed by the military. This type of weapon helped the Afghan mujahedeen defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.
• Secret commando units like Task Force 373 — a classified group of Army and Navy special operatives — work from a “capture/kill list” of about 70 top insurgent commanders. These missions, which have been stepped up under the Obama administration, claim notable successes, but have sometimes gone wrong, killing civilians and stoking Afghan resentment.
• The military employs more and more drone aircraft to survey the battlefield and strike targets in Afghanistan, although their performance is less impressive than officially portrayed. Some crash or collide, forcing American troops to undertake risky retrieval missions before the Taliban can claim the drone’s weaponry.
• The Central Intelligence Agency has expanded paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan. The units launch ambushes, order airstrikes and conduct night raids. From 2001 to 2008, the C.I.A. paid the budget of Afghanistan’s spy agency and ran it as a virtual subsidiary.
Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements — attributing the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles or giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by Special Operations commandos.
Wow - there's some change we can believe in here in these documents.
Obama has stepped up assassination squads that target insurgent leaders but, oops, sometimes kill the wrong (i.e., innocent) people.
Oh, well, it's all for the good.
What's a couple of hundreds innocent murders a week when we're talking about being all big and manly and strutting and showing how tough we are in the conduct of this war.
Except that of course none of this shit is working.
None of it.
And we will leave this country just the way the Russians left it before - with billions spent, hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, thousands of soldiers injured, maimed or dead, and the place still a mess.
I hate to keep coming back to the Obama education policy, but the comparison is apt.
President Accountability hits on a strategy and will brook no dissent from his viewpoint.
He's like that with education.
Only firing teachers, firing principals, closing schools and reopening them as for-profit charters will fix the ills of the system.
Who cares how long it takes or what it costs or how many people die...
But it's clear from these documents - and the group that leaked them, WikiLeaks, says more are coming soon - that the war is NOT going well, that to WIN this war (whatever win means) will take another ten years and lots more cash and lives.
And to what end? The Taliban and Al Qaeda operate with impunity in Pakistan, so if Obama is doing this because he's going after Bin Laden ("Dead or Alive," Barack?) or he thinks he can permanently diminish the power of the Taliban, try moving the fucking war to Pakistan.
Nope, I don't think he's got such rational reasons for the way he has doubled down on the war with very Bush-like actions (i.e., assassination squads, lying about the actions of "our Afghanis," etc.)
No, I think this war comes down to another example of the BIGGER DICK FOREIGN POLICY in action, as elucidated by George Carlin:
That video of Carlin is old, but it remains as important and accurate an assessment of Obama's foreign policy today as it was of Daddy Bush's conduct of the Persian Gulf war in the 90's, Clinton's various little wars, and Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Change we can believe in?
Nope - just more lying bullshit from an asshole president/war criminal who conducts assassination squads in secret, covers up the real state of the war (and the war crimes the U.S. is engaging in to "win" it) and pursues an unwinnable war for his own egomaniacal ends.
