A pair of columns about Democrats, one about what black voters lost by hitching their star to them, and another about the price Democrats paid for letting unions die, cried out to me. It's very much something that's been freaking me out, particularly since Trump took the White House. A lot of this began with Bill Clinton and his New Democrat nonsense.

Clinton was sorely wounded after his failed effort to nationalize health care. He stood strong and said that he was going to achieve it or strike down any alternative. ( popular joke at the time--What was the difference between Elvis and Bill Clinton? Elvis was alive.) While it was the right thing to do in many ways, his failure to achieve it meant he turned down something very similar to what became Obamacare, actually proposed by the GOP. Who knows where we might've been by now had that become law?

Clinton pivoted in the other direction, giving us the Republican Lite that failed to focus on helping the groups with whom Democrats were supposed to identify. When Obama ran, I was troubled by his educational positions. I had no idea he'd give GW Bush an extra term in education, and I had no notion he'd nationalize junk science to rate teachers. Nonetheless, he looked pretty reformy to me.

He ended up a lot worse than I'd expected. One thing that made me vote for him was his promise to enable card check. The possibility of enabling more union for working people seemed worth pursuing. Alas, he didn't bother. Obama also promised to find a pair of comfortable shoes and march with labor, but when Scott Walker shot labor in the back, Obama sat at his desk, presumably wearing heavy Oxfords that didn't encourage walking.

Hillary ran an uninspiring campaign, and the best thing people like me could say about her was, "Well, at least she isn't Donald Trump." Of course, because we don't actually run a national election, votes like mine in New York are relatively meaningless. While voting against Trump was a moral imperative, our fundamental lack of democracy left him President.

And this brings us to union leadership, which endorsed Obama despite his miserable record, and jumped at the starting gate to endorse Hillary. The idea was to be ahead of the curve. An early endorsement could, perhaps, strengthen your negotiating position. After all, AFT had endorsed Hillary against Obama, and that may have emboldened Obama to take all that reformy money and stab us in the back. Who knows?

So this time, the idea was to get with a winner way in the beginning. Or maybe it was about a preexisting preference for Hillary. I remember being part of an AFT phone call, supposedly to help pick a candidate. The first person to speak, supposedly from the crowd, was a hack for NY State Unity who ran an ad hominem blog on me. He called me a part time teacher and a part time unionist. Randi Weingarten tweeted it out and praised it, but retracted it when I pointed out his baseless attack applied not only to me, but also to every single working UFT chapter leader.

It looked to me like the Hillary endorsement was in the bag. I was not persuaded by talk of a "scientific survey" because there was no talk of how respondents were chosen and we were never shown the questions asked. It could have been a push poll, and one thing I'm certain of is no one I know actually took the survey. Also, I saw no evidence that AFT had made any demands of Hillary. Some people speculated that there was a job for Randi in a Hillary administration, but I don't believe that. I don't think Hillary would ever have risked the press reaction to a union leader as Education Secretary.

The main problem, though, was none of the above. The main problem, as we now know, was that Hillary was a loser. Why? Well, there's Russian interference. There are a whole lot of electoral irregularities, like the GOP crosscheck that actively discourages potential Democratic voters. But even after we acknowledge all that nonsense, there's the fact that Hillary failed to inspire voters to get off their asses and go to the polls. Had she managed that, she'd have won the Presidency just as Barack Obama had.

And why didn't Hillary inspire? Because she offered nothing other than more of the same. Universal health care? After having failed spectacularly to get that for Bill, she wasn't gonna try that again. Affordable college? She argued that we'd be financing Donald Trump's children, as though Trump would even dream of allowing his kids to go to SUNY or anyplace remotely similar. A living wage for all Americans? Hey, let's not get carried away. In fact, I don't recall her even bothering to pay the lip service to card check and/ or union that got me to vote for Barack Obama, once.

The point is that this corporate crap is not only unproductive, but also unappealing. Obama had enough charisma to overcome the stigma of some of his awful policies, but they hang in the air as having enabled Trump, and voters have had enough. We need to dump the "New Democrats" and find someone who supports working people.

And if UFT leadership can't find and support politicians with pro-labor, pro-teacher policies, they need to find someone who can, or make way for someone who can. We're in crisis and sleepy mediocrity simply won't cut it anymore.

Shockingly, NY State is encountering problems with its new evaluation system. According to Newsday, teachers can rate effective in test passing percentages, yet rate developing overall. Alas, such are the exigencies of a system that is created based on wishful thinking and a desire to fire teachers for no particular reason.

Actually, what is shocking about this story is not that there are problems with APPR, but rather that the state admitted it. It's been pretty much standard fare for Reformy John King and Silent Merryl Tisch to nod their wooden heads, offer minor and insubstantial tweaks, and then go on their merry way. Governor Andrew Cuomo has staked his educational reputation on junk science, and believes in it deeply. Teachers must be rated by untested Common Core tests and judged by junk science, or he will have forsaken his self-appointed post as student lobbyist.

After all, Cuomo is doing his part to make sure we don't raise taxes on the rich or fritter away money paying teachers, and he'd rather assign the death penalty to schools with low test scores than fund them adequately. It makes for good sound bites on the news, and it makes Governor Andy popular with deep-pocketed folks like DFER, but it doesn't help our kids.

Sadly, demagogues like Andy Cuomo earn support not only from astroturfers and would-be robber barons, but also top faux-Democrats like Barack Obama, who happily allow their subordinates to cheer baseless school closings and ignore blatant misdeeds on Wall Street. This is the new Democratic Party, the one that leaves working people bleeding on the street while ensuring rich people don't pay another cent. With Democrats like Cuomo and Obama, I sometimes wonder why we need Republicans.

Of course, in NY State, it's tough to imagine a GOP candidate unseating Cuomo. Not only that, but it's also tough to imagine a GOP candidate that would favor working people any more than Cuomo. So it appears we haven't got a whole lot of choice here in NY State.

This notwithstanding, the fact is New Yorkers have had enough of Common Core nonsense, and all over the state parents and teachers told King and Tisch the same story (with the exception of one NYC session taken over by astroturf Students First NY). It's unfortunate that it's taken developmentally inappropriate instruction based on nothing to wake up our residents, but the fact is we know it's NOT true that 70% of our kids are failing to learn.

What will it take before pols like Cuomo listen to the will of the people rather than that of the hedge-fund dabblers in public education?

I've read a lot of criticism of Teach for America over the last few years. For one thing, they provide a scant five weeks of training, and that's clearly insufficient preparation to teach in urban schools. This is particularly true when you compare it to student teaching, which is basically a full year shadowing and experienced teacher.

But when there are teacher shortages, TFA is the tip of the iceberg. I myself was recruited via a subway ad, with no experience at all. And I watched for years as the DOE conducted intergalactic searches, taking anyone in the universe who could occupy a wooden chair in front of kids.

I don't fault non-career teachers who wish to give back to the community, or even pad their resumes en route to doing something else. If there is a need, and they are filling it, they are helping, even if they have to learn on the job.

But when faux Democrat/ Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel fires thousands of teachers and hires TFA grads to teach kids, that's something else altogether. In fact, TFA is now enabling the unemployment of working people. They are making their likely idealistic young college grads into scab labor. Their insane defense, that the jobs were eliminated and they are taking newly created jobs, is nothing more than a semantic game, unworthy of anyone capable of serious discourse.

The more nonsense I read from reformy types like those who have the audacity to muster such an argument, the more I think that objectivity is overrated. In fact, it's reasonable to present both sides of an argument. But like many other things reformy, this is indefensible. The argument is so weak it's ridiculous, and does not merit consideration.

If we're really going to help our kids, we have to raise them to differentiate not only between, say, fiction and non-fiction, but also between logic and BS. Because they're going to need that skill more than ever in the brave new world where people can scab and claim it's "for America."

There are many reasons why we in the union endorse President Barack Obama. First of all, he's a Democrat. Mitt Romney is a Republican. Everyone knows Republicans are no good. They support business over labor, and those of us who work are labor. Consider that.

Now sure, there are you naysayers out there, saying, oh, didn't he promise to stop the Bush tax cuts? Well, when he started out, he had other priorities. So he didn't get them that time. And later, he made a deal to renew them. But it was only because those bad Republicans were going to cut off unemployment benefits if he didn't! So we stopped them from doing that, and only broke one campaign promise to do so.

Then there are those of you who go on about the Employee Free Choice Act, the one that was going to let people join union via card check.  I know, you're gonna say not only didn't Obama pass it, but he didn't even try. While that may be true, his heart was in the right place. Anyone out there think Romney would have promised to pass it? Of course not. So there is substantive proof that Obama makes better promises than Romney.

Then there is Obamacare, a very good improvement over the crap we had before. Sure, he wasted a lot of time courting Republican votes, and dumped the public option, but remember, it's better than nothing.

Now as for all you teachers out there, whining that Obama gave Bush a third term in education, let me point out that he has never specifically said such a thing. If you watch what he says, rather than what he does, the results are quite impressive indeed. After all, he said in SOTU that he wanted less testing, even though all his programs suggest quite the opposite.

Finally, for those of you who really see this guy as an opponent of teachers and everything they stand for, let me present you with a stark choice. What do you want? Republican Romney, speeding toward destruction of union and collective bargaining? Or Democrat Obama, cruising a moderate 55 MPH toward the same goal?

The choice is clear.

From what I read, the state agreement is pretty much what was negotiated in 2010--20% state tests, 20% local or other tests, and 60% other evaluation. This will surely be a bonanza for testing companies ready to design whatever the hell it takes to extract more money from districts. And that, my friends, is business sticking its craw into education--Rupert Murdoch's wet dream. Though he'll surely want others, and with faux-Democrats like Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama eager to please, this is not the end.

So, 20% crap, or 40% crap (and a cursory reading of Cuomo's press release has me leaning toward 40), it's all crap. And we're running headlong into a system for which tests do not exist, a formula for value-added has not been developed, and whatever it may be it will surely not work anyway, all because Bill Gates says it's a good idea. I see it all now--"watch it, you son of a bitch, don't ask me to tutor your damn kids. You could take points away from me. And don't try dumping that troubled kid in my class anymore. I have troubles of my own. If only I could persuade those losers to drop out."

And the UFT, the UFT has finally negotiated a system that utilizes an independent arbitrator. After all, it's absolutely unacceptable for the chancellor to decide, what with his having rejected 99.6% of appeals. And this is someone's job on the line. So what do we have? An agreement that 13% of appeals will be heard by an independent arbitrator. If you're not part of the 13%, you must rely on the tender mercies of whatever Bloomberg puppet happens to be chancellor. How do you make it to the lucky 13? Who decides? What sort of response does UFT expect to get from the 87% who are surely screwed?

I'm very glad I don't have to pick and choose. In my view, anyone facing loss of position ought to have due process, a fair hearing, and an unbiased arbitrator to decide. Under this agreement, 13% get it, while 87% are SOL. This does not appear to be a huge victory, particularly when you consider 20% VAM is 100% crap. Extrapolating, I can only determine that 40% VAM is 200% crap.

What does a Democrat have to do before he loses my support?

Andrew Cuomo lost it when he said he was going to take on the unions. Who needs a Democrat for that? Isn't that what Republicans are for?

President Barack Obama declined to name Linda Darling-Hammond US Education Secretary. Instead, he selected Arne Duncan, who ran a failed "reform" program in Chicago. Why? Because his buds at DFER liked Arne better. Is that enough? No?


How about when he applauds a whole staff of teachers being fired in Rhode Island? Does it make a difference that a good deal of the kids they taught didn't even know English yet? Did they deserve that based on test scores of these kids? Should that make him think twice before applauding more, or indeed any Americans out of work? Should that make a teacher think twice before supporting him?

Then there's his failure to push for, let alone pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would enable working people to unionize more easily via card check. His promise to push that was one thing that made me vote for him in 08. There was also his promise to end the Bush tax cuts, which he never did.

There is the argument that a Republican could be worse, and that may be true. Nonetheless, I'd rather see a Republican doing what Republicans do than a faux-Democrat doing the same thing. Obama promised to find a pair of comfortable shoes and march with labor when it was in trouble. Frankly, I feel more like he donned a hobnailed boot and kicked us where the sun doesn't shine.

That's why it's so, so disappointing that the AFT could endorse him. If we don't stand against the nonsense he's enabled, we stand for very little indeed. Obama fooled me once, but I will not vote for him again. I don't care what a swell guy the AFT Prez finds him. I will likely support the Green candidate for President.

And yes, maybe I'm naive, maybe I don't understand the intricacies of politics, maybe I expect too much, but it breaks my heart that our national union would fail to stand up against a corporatist President who cares more about Bill Gates and Eli Broad than the people who teach our children, the people who are our children, and the people who will grow up to teach their children.

Biden suggests we should vote for him because he, and Obama, and Duncan are not Scott Walker. He says they should work with us, not against us. And he's right, of course.

Why, then, do they applaud Hurricane Katrina for bringing us more charter schools?  Why do they cheer when the entire teaching staff of a Rhode Island school is fired? Why do they allow Duncan to use his plainly failed Renaissance 2010 program as a template for America? And how on earth can they take marching orders from Bill Gates rather than we, the people?

NEA is contemplating an early endorsement of President Obama. I hope they decline. During the last campaign, Obama promised NEA to do things with us, not to us. He's broken that promise, and repeatedly. He fooled me once. Will he fool the NEA twice?

I hope not. If we support people who stab us in the back, who take orders from billionaires, who stab us in the front, we can expect and deserve only more of the same.

On this Independence Day, let's not only celebrate; let's also declare ourselves free of politicians who do not support us, be they Democrats, Republicans, or whatever.

Update: Fred Klonsky reports the NEA has endorsed Obama. 

So says faux-Democrat Cory Booker in his love letter to the reformers who put him where he is today. Sure, let's not abolish tenure. Let's simply make it meaningless. The Wal-Mart family did not finance Booker so as to help working people. Wal-Mart money subverts public schools because union is a scourge that must be stopped, so that people can do as they're told, shut the hell up, and work until they die.

Booker hits all the same tired points "reformers" hit every morning instead of the national anthem, including the nonsensical claim teachers get lifetime jobs, and that we need to add merit pay. This, of course, is trotted out despite very recent evidence that it doesn't work. Predictably, Booker goes into the same old nonsense about bad teachers. They are a plague, apparently, and the only way to get rid of them is to worsen working conditions for all teachers. Teachers, says Wal-Mart's favorite mayor, must be compensated based on "effectiveness." Now what the hell that is, Booker doesn't say. Does it mean they get higher test scores? Does it mean they're cute and perky?

I'll tell you precisely what it means. An effective teacher, to disingenuous corporate puppets like Cory Booker, is an at-will employee. Booker rubs shoulders with Democrats and appears, for all intents and purposes, to be a reasonable guy. But he speaks well of anti-teacher Chris Christie and crooked Chris Cerf, because in whatever remains of his heart, he's no different from them or indeed, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

They all represent the same interests. Perhaps Booker takes another approach, not wishing to appear so radical. But make no mistake, like Christie, like Walker, he'll happily roll back the twentieth century so if you don't come in Sunday you won't bother coming in Monday.

That's what the Wisconsin Governor wants to do. He's basically living the Republican dream--rolling back that costly and inconvenient 20th century. Governor Scott Walker is pushing a bill to wipe out collective bargaining for public unions, except regarding salary. However, they'd only be able to negotiate increases that matched consumer price index.

Therefore, the best they'd be able to do is keep up with inflation (unless local voters approved a larger increase.) However, with the immediate 5.8% deduction Walker is imposing to fund pensions, as well as whatever it costs for 12.6% of their health care, they're unlikely to even stay where they started.

Not only that, but unions will be prohibited from collecting dues, and dues will be optional. This will pretty much preclude unions from mustering the resources to fight back. And should they try, Walker's prepared to call out the National Guard. Perhaps this is the new paradign, what we can expect from our corporate-friendly government. Haven't heard a peep about this from President Obama, fresh from his recent shout-out to the business community. Perhaps he's too busy helping Michelle advertise for Walmart.

Here in New York,  it doesn't seem time just yet for Andrew "take on the unions" Cuomo to resort to such tactics. After all, the legislature is still controlled by Democrats in NY, and some of these Democrats, unlike Cuomo, are still really Democrats. But Wisconsin is the wave of the future if we don't look out, stand up, and be heard. Democracy itself is in peril when working people are simply shut out like this. And while I applaud recent events in Egypt, I wonder what it will take for America to awaken and rise up against those who'd do the same. For folks like Walker, and Bloomberg, dictatorship is simply a more efficient way to get things done.

Perish forbid any of them should restore or continue taxes on those who can most afford to pay them. What on earth does it take to wake the sleeping giant known as America?

Joanne Jacobs writes about a Facebook campaign, undertaken by kids, to clean up Newark Schools.  The kids are upset that the schools are dangerous, and infested with rats and insects.  In fact, the kids walked out in protest.  I don't blame them.  No one should have to endure such miserable conditions when going to school.

There's recently been quite a commotion about Facebook founder Mark Zuckberg's 100 million dollar contribution to Newark schools.   The donation was conditional upon faux-Democrat Cory Booker taking control of the schools, something real Republican Chris Christie was all too happy to accommodate.  But as Joanne points out, "reformer" Rick Hess is not happy:

It's hard for even far-seeing union leaders to convince veteran union members to accept reforms to evaluation, tenure, or pay policies. It's much easier if they can tell their members that such changes are what it will take to unlock new funds. 

It's a little tough for me to see how changing evaluation, tenure, or pay policies will help solve the gang, rat, or insect problems that plague Newark schools.  Tougher still is figuring why anyone would be concerned with "reforms" before addressing such elemental issues.  However, I'm just a lowly teacher,  not an educational expert like Rick Hess.   In fairness, it's possible that expert Hess simply ignores the realities on the ground, or hasn't actually bothered to examine them before favoring us with his important opinions.

And Hess can't solely be blamed for that, as it's entirely typical of the conversation in this country, initiated by billionaires like Bill Gates and the WalMart family.   Of course, their causes have now been championed by thoroughly ignorant public figures like Oprah Winfrey, Davis Guggenheim, and John Legend.   While few, if any of them, actually know what goes on in public schools (let alone send their kids to such places), they're universally willing to apply Bill Gates' untested and/ or discredited prescriptions without any critical thought whatsoever.

Personally, I'm not sure how to get rid of rats, aside from voting them out of office.  But I'm fairly certain merit pay ain't gonna cut it.

That was a tagline for a politician in a strange Firesign Theatre political ad.  But it might be Andrew Cuomo's strongest selling point.   Now I don't much like Andrew Cuomo, and if you want to know why you can read my buddy Reality Based Educator, who will give you chapter and verse.  Basically, though, I've decided that any politician who doesn't support teachers won't be getting my vote.  For starters, I've crossed Obama and Cuomo off my list.

On the other hand, billionaire GOP pick Paladino runs around saying, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore."  Thus, he models himself after Howard Beale of the film Network.  Here's the thing, though--Howard Beale was clearly in the throes of losing his mind.   He announces he plans to commit suicide on the air, and that's not precisely what I look to in a leader.  That doesn't apply, I suppose, to people who are literally ready to drink the Kool Aid.

Are New Yorkers ready?  Well, if they actively support Paladino, I'd say yes.  In fact, you only have to look to Darkest New Jersey, where they saw fit to elect Christie, to see the sort of thing teachers can expect from our pal Paladino.  And that would give me pause if I weren't convinced that Andrew Cuomo would be just as bad.   Cuomo is creepy and opportunistic.  But to me, he doesn't appear insane.

Still, if I were to vote for him, I'd be granting credence to the Firesign Theater well beyond what their parody envisioned.  I'm afraid I can't vote for Andy simply because he's not insane.  If he wants my vote, he's gonna have to start acting the way Democrats acted before they all morphed into Hopey-Changey empty suits.

From somewhere deep in Bill Gates' pocket, disgraced and unelected lame duck New York Governor David Paterson decided to take even more money away from public schools and give it to charters.  Apparently, the governor felt the draconian cuts we were already experiencing were insufficient.  In my school, I saw young teachers being excessed as a result of these cuts, and it was heartbreaking.

But for Governor Paterson, that wasn't enough.  Nor was it enough for the Wal-mart family or hedgefund managers who dictate what happens in American education.  Not only do charters not get cut, they get more.  Clearly, to the politicians the charter lobby owns, the 3% of kids who attend charters are more important than the 97% who do not.  Watch out for Andrew Cuomo, headed your way in a November election.

It's vital that teachers unite and send these people a message.  Don't believe the demagogues who claim that ruining our schools, demoralizing teachers, and revolving kids' lives around test scores is "for the kids."  Kids need smart, independent teachers--not a bunch of frightened automatons subject to being fired at the drop of Eli Broad's hat.  Kids need decent, clean facilities.

And our kids are not little robots who run around back and forth taking tests to make Michael Bloomberg look good.  Make no mistake--the widespread proliferation of charter schools is aimed squarely at the destruction of public schools, which are a real drag on the tax bills of billionaires.  For many uninformed Americans, reducing the tax bills of billionaires is our prime directive.

We're teachers.  It behooves us to know better.  Paterson can still do damage, but come November let's send a message that he and all his ilk are unacceptable and will feel our wrath.   In fact,  let's hope against hope the AFT sends Bill Gates that same message when he shows up as their honored guest.

It's now common knowledge that Charter Schools tried to buy NY State Assembly candidate Steve Baher for $200,000.  200K here, and 200K there, and they own the entire legislature.  It's not enough to own Barack Obama and Andrew Cuomo.  After all, there's just so much the President can do to push their agenda.  If they had legislatures statewide they wouldn't need to pimp out Arne Duncan on his race to see how high cash-strapped states can jump. 

Is there anyone out there who really believes these hedge fund guys are worried about the welfare of our children?  More likely they're tired of paying taxes to support education.  After all, if the public school system were to collapse entirely there'd be no change whatsoever for the children of Michael Bloomberg, Joel Klein or Barack Obama.  They talk a lot about public schools, but you wouldn't catch their kids attending on a bet.

It's interesting they always act so concerned about the schools they long ago deemed not good enough for their children.   If we really wanted better public schools we'd mandate that people who control school systems send their own kids there.  Maybe then they'd find ways to devote the hundreds of million dollars NYC took to reduce class size to reducing class size.  Maybe instead of bashing unions, which have historically enabled a middle class, they'd be encouraging them.

Stranger things have happened.  But our political system is so thoroughly corrupt, our free press so incurious and one-sided that all we hear about is the one politician who didn't take the money.  Who knows how much it costs to buy Andrew Cuomo? How much is David Paterson?  Did they get a discount when he chose not to run again?  And how much was the President of the United States?

More importantly, what will it take to get politicians who represent we the people rather than merely they the hedge fund gazillionaires?

The right-wing, pro-voucher, anti-union NY Sun editorial board wrote a love letter to Rod Paige's favorite teachers' union leader today to help her celebrate her 50th birthday.

The Sun lauds UFT President Randi Weingarten for her "idealism" and her "leadership." They note how Ms. Weingarten won her fourth presidential term with 87% of the vote (no mention of the fact that only 30% of the membership actually voted) and teacher's salaries have gone up 43% since Weingarten started negotiating with Bloomberg in 2002.

Finally the Sun says they're sending Rod Paige's favorite teacher labor leader a copy of Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" in the hopes that she'll add vouchers to the list of concessions she has already handed the education reformers/Walmart proponents like added days, added time, gutted work protections (seniority, grievance rights, the return to bathroom duty), authoritarian mayoral control, union-sponsored charter schools, merit pay and reformatted school financing that favors getting rid of costly veteran teachers and hiring lots of Teach For America missionaries.

Just to show you how much Weingarten despises the role of being a traditional union leader (i.e., actually looking out for the rights and needs of her union membership) and loves sucking up to the education reformer/Walmart proponent lobby, the NY Daily News says that she held a fund-raiser for her charter schools at UFT Headquarters last night to mark her 50th birthday.

That's right - a fund-raiser for her charter schools at UFT Headquarters paid for by you and me and the rest of the UFT rank-and-file.

What's that tell you about Ms. Weingarten's priorities?

The Sun also reports that Representative George Miller (D-California), an architect of the No Child Left Behind law who would like to expand the law to science and social studies next year, has praised New York City for two "groundbreaking" programs: the merit pay program Weingarten agreed to earlier this year and the school report cards that have caused such controversy here in the city.

Leaving aside the idiocy of Miller for now (and make no mistake, what he says is idiocy - a few minutes of research on Bloomberg's school report card program would have told him how stupid and reductionist it is to base a school's grade almost wholly on test score progress rather than overall performance), let us note that both the school report cards and the merit pay program were enabled by concessions Weingarten made to the mayor.

Miller says he'd like to take some of these "groundbreaking" programs national and while the current leadership of both the NEA and the AFT disagrees with much of Ms. Weingarten's education "reform" agenda, she is expected to go to Washington and take control of the AFT pretty soon.

Which means nationally teachers can expect to see some of the same "groundbreaking" concessions like merit pay, additional time and days, charter schools and gutted work protections that Ms. Weingarten has brought UFT members here in New York City.

Before she goes, it is expected that she will also concede teacher tenure to Mayor Bloomberg and replace it with something called "due process" which she and her minions currently praise at the Green Dot charter schools they have helped bring in to the city (Due process, btw, means the administration can "do" whatever the hell they want to teachers and there's not much you can "do" about it.)

Perhaps the Ayn Randians at the NY Sun editorial board will even get a Merry Christmas present in the form of vouchers from Ms. Weingarten before she heads off into the sunset to destroy teacher work protections nationally the way she has destroyed them here in New York (though even I think Ms. Weingarten knows that would be going too far.)

But who know? When Rod Paige - the man who compared the NEA to terrorists - says you're the only teacher labor union leader he can stand and when the right-wing, pro-voucher, anti-union editorial board at the NY Sun sends you love letters to mark your 50th birthday and when you hold a fund-raiser for charter schools at the new UFT headquarters building constructed with the dollars of actual working rank-and-file UFT members/teachers, it's hard to say just how you will sell out next.

But one thing is for certain - she will sell out.

For working people, the New Democrats may as well be Republicans. They've moved so far to the center you can't tell where left ends and right begins. That's called "triangulation," they tell me.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter was very much a pro-labor candidate. Yet he vetoed a bill that would have required workers in union shops who fail to join to pay an agency fee. Sure, they can earn the salaries the union negotiates, and enjoy whatever benefits they negotiate as well. They just don't have to pay for it. Oddly, Colorado is not one of those "right to work" states. But now Ritter is a true leader, able to stand up to organized labor, and Republicans there will just have to find someone else to complain about.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is talking about extending school days and school years. As a parent, I'm understandably excited about the possibility of my child being tested even closer to death than she is now. He's talking charter schools and merit pay. To his credit, he's also talking of free junior college and lower class size, but I've heard that sort of talk before.

In fact, I heard it from New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer, who was going to compel the mayor to follow the guidelines of the CFE lawsuit. He was going to demand reduced class sizes in New York City. When he got elected, though, he proposed a "menu" including class size, or longer days, or longer years. The legislation about class size that I've read about includes no real benchmarks, no requirements, and no penalties. Instead of your class of 34 kids, Klein can put you and another teacher in the same room with 67 kids. Now you have 33.5 kids, and class size is reduced.

The expert, of course, is UFT President Randi Weingarten, who's already negotiated a longer school day and year. Not only that, but she's fearlessly sent teachers permanently into the halls, into the lunchrooms, and into the bathrooms. She sent her teachers to teach a 6th class (which she claims is not a class, but which the chancellor calls a small class) Monday to Thursday. She's shredded their seniority rights and earned well-deserved accolades from anti-labor, anti-teacher voices from the New York Post editorial board to ex-US Secretary of Education Rod Paige.

So where are pro-labor people to look? Is it a sin to say you don't want to work days, nights, weekends, and summers (like me)? Is it heresy to say you don't want your kids to do that either?

Who stands up for working people in the good ol' US of A nowadays?

There's a lot of talk about '08, but many things could happen before then. Everyone seems to think Hillary Clinton has already clinched the nomination, just as Howard Dean had done a few years ago (remember?). But one loss, one unfortunate war whoop, and Howard was gone (only to rise from the ashes to do a great job for Democrats in 06).

I don't think I'll be voting for Hillary in the primary, though. First of all, I don't much like the fact that she's regarded as the inevitable choice. Also, I have liked John Edwards a lot since very early in the '04 campaign. If you'd seen him speak before he became Kerry's much-toned-down no. 2, you might too.

Hillary is very determined. I like that. I very much doubt she'll let grass grow under her feet while accusations against her go unanswered. Considering Kerry's wasted candidacy, that's the thing I like best about her. She won't give the Swift Boat Vets (or whoever) a free ride if she wins.

Still, her PR guy, Mark Penn, is not my favorite person in the world. He's the worldwide CEO of Burston-Marsteller, which represented clients like Union Carbide (after the 84 disaster in Bhopal), and the Argentine military junta.

B-M's website, under "Labor Relations," used to state "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns," until The American Prospect went and quoted it.

Back in 2003, two large unions, UNITE (which later merged with the hotel and restaurant union, HERE) and the Teamsters, launched a major drive to organize 32,000 garment workers and truck drivers at Cintas, the country's largest and most profitable uniform and laundry supply company (it posted $3.4 billion in sales and $327 million in profits last year). Its longtime CEO, Richard Farmer, was a mega-fundraising "Pioneer" for George W. Bush. Cintas was sued for overcharging consumers and denying workers overtime pay--it settled both cases out of court--and was ordered by a California superior court to give employees $1.4 million for not paying them a living wage. It has also maintained unsafe working conditions (an employee in Tulsa died recently when caught in a 300-degree dryer) and, according to union officials, has used any means necessary to block the organizing drive. According to worker complaints documented by the unions, management fired employees on false grounds, vowed to close plants and screened antiunion videos. A plant manager in Vista, California, threatened to "kick driver-employees with his steel-toed boots," according to a complaint UNITE HERE filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). To put a soft face on its harsh tactics, Cintas hired Wade Gates, a top employee in B-M's Dallas office, as its chief spokesman. Gates coined Cintas's shrewd response to labor: "the right to say yes, the freedom to say no," which has been repeated endlessly in the press. In a speech at USC Law School last year, he outlined Cintas's strategy, calling for an "aggressive defense against union tactics." Says Ahmer Qadeer, an organizer for UNITE HERE, "It's the Burson influence that's made Cintas much, much slicker than they were." The unions have won two NLRB rulings against Cintas, but for four years the company has continued to resist the organizing campaign. Penn disclaimed any responsibility for B-M's activities before his arrival at the firm, and he told The Nation he has "never personally participated in any antiunion activity," even though B-M's antilabor arm is still operating under his tenure. (Penn added a personal note: "My father was for many years a union organizer in the poultry workers union.")

"The right to say yes, the freedom to say no." Sounds great, doesn't it? Still, to me it's very rough to imagine a prospective union holding more sway over working Americans than the person or company that signs their paychecks.

There's a lot more in the article if you choose to tackle the whole thing. And there are other corporate advisers besides Mr. Penn. Now, can you win an election without dealing with companies who've engaged in blatant anti-union activity? Can Mr. Penn possibly blunt the incredible hatred the right seems to have for Hillary? And if so, at what cost?

Hillary was instrumental in persuading President Bill Clinton to veto the bankruptcy bill that precludes catastrophic medical emergency from having your bills haunt you (to the early grave the emergency may not have provided you). However, she voted for something very similar in 01, and was absent for the vote on the bill GW Bush signed into law.

While I'd probably vote for her against a Republican, I don't really trust her. Obama hung around New Jersey with faux Democrat Cory Booker, and lost my vote right then and there. I'm left with Edwards, who I like a lot, and maybe Bill Richardson.

Who does the enlightened teacher vote for in this primary?

While perusing The Chalkboard, I noticed a comment about Cory Booker, the newly-elected Newark mayor, and “school choice.” That got me suspicious and curious, and a Google search led me to a point of view the NY Times had neglected to share.

Cory Booker is back – like a recurring disease. The former one-term city councilman whose wholly unproductive career has been artificially sustained by Black America’s worst enemies has amassed bundles of rightwing cash for his second assault on Newark city hall. Booker’s stealth mission on behalf of the far-right Bradley and Walton Family (Wal-Mart) Foundations, under the tutelage of the hyper-racist Manhattan Institute, once again threatens to provide the Right with a long-coveted showcase for privatization and capitalism in-the-raw in urban America.

Now I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn’t sound all that promising. This guy is backed by, of all people, the anti-labor, union-busting Walton-Wal-Mart family? Is there anyone besides John Stossel who thinks they mean to help working people? Does Stossel even believe that stuff?

Cory Booker, however, could just be the crest of a new wave. The Black Commentator goes on to speak of Democrat-in-name Booker’s background, as well as his support for vouchers:

The Black Commentator is proud of the role we played in exposing Cory Booker’s true political and financial backers, in 2002. The Cover Story of our inaugural issue, “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree,” April 5, 2002, was the first published revelation anywhere of Booker's political genesis in the bowels of Milwaukee’s Bradley Foundation – George Bush’s favorite foundation, the outfit that birthed a fully financed Black school voucher “movement” out of thin air and hard cash. As an original board member of the Bradley-created (and now Bush-financed) Black Alliance for Educational Options, and a co-founder of the Newark voucher outfit Excellent Education for Everyone (E-3), Booker worked his way ever deeper into the Right labyrinth of mega-money, media manipulation, and raw corporate power...

Booker’s benefactors, the Walton Family and Bradley Foundations and the rest of the rightwing constellation in which he travels, are unalterably committed to wholesale privatization of education and everything else in the public sector they can lay their hands on. That’s what Booker doesn’t want the Black public to know.

It’s an uphill battle when you’re up against right-wing millions in a city that’s been rife with corruption forever. But despite the apparently new direction, Newark appears bound for more of the same, with a new anti-worker, union-busting flavor. Last I heard, Newark was one of the very few locales that paid less than NYC for teachers. When you have to worry about your staff defecting to fun city, aside from the cesspool of corruption that's plagued your own city forever, hopes for decent public education are not likely to materialize into anything worthwhile.

Have you ever noticed how it's free to get into Jersey but they charge you eight bucks to get out? Everyone complains, but in the end they always reach for their wallets, realizing it will be well worth it. Some things you just have to pay for. To my mind, good teachers are a high priority--even higher than escaping New Jersey (Now I kid about Jersey, but I also work there often, and guess which nearby ___location is the target of their jokes?).

More frightening than Jersey, though, is this precedent--if Republicans screw up the country so badly that no one can support them or their policies, they can simply back Democrats who will serve up the same "death to the middle-class" policies GW and his rubber-stamp Congress have been dispensing for five years. Now, instead of wasting time with smokescreens like gay marriage, they can just smile and say "We're Democrats."

Apparently, it can work.