You’ve got to love the political coverage in Montana from time to time. Today’s editorial in the Independent Record offers a huge sigh of relief, because the Legislature never intended to deny access to the media during caucuses and legislative sessions:
“I would just like to state upfront that there is and has been no interest in limiting any of the media’s access to the legislative process,” Senate President Mike Cooney, D-Helena, said. Cooney said he was “somewhat taken aback” by reporting that suggested lawmakers wanted to limit access.
It’s certainly a relief to learn that the Legislature never intended this action, given the incredible attention paid to this non-issue in the past few days, largely by the Lee Newspapers. In the past few days, we’ve seen
Guess what they discovered? No intention to close the sessions. In the meantime, a candidate (Claudette Morton) announced her intention to run for the Superintendent of Public Schools, and the best we can get is some boilerplate set of generic observations about her candidacy, with no specifics to give the voters any real information.
Yes, these reporters are right: media access to our legislative bodies and government officials is critical to the public’s ability to understand and weigh in on critical policy questions, but not if the reporters are more interested in their ability to cover the news than actually doing it.
Now, they’re denying John Bohlinger a vote at their totally irrelevant caucus:
Bohlinger said the state party has no authority to define who is a Republican and who is not. And he doesn’t think he will get turned away on Tuesday.
‘‘If they were to do that, they would look silly,’’ Bohlinger said. ‘‘And I don’t think they want to look silly.’’
Well, half right is something. They don’t have the authority to define who is a Republican.
I do appreciate that his proposal does offer an extension of unemployment benefits. I hope that survives more than any other part of the package.
On the broad question of the proposed economic stimulus proposals, I’ll admit I’m not smart enough to understand how sending a few hundred bucks to people three months from now is going to have much of an impact on the economy, but if the federal government wants to keep mortgaging our shared future for the sake of political expediency, sign me up.
I’m also not smart enough to understand what $500 will do for people for people making over $75,000 per year, but Senator Baucus does, and has thus proposed making them eligible for the package as well:
Unlike the package negotiated by House leaders and the White House, Baucus’ $156 billion measure would allow tens of millions of seniors living on Social Security to qualify for the rebate, extend federal unemployment aid and boost a business tax rebate. Baucus’ rebate is lower than the House plan’s $600 per individual. He also would eliminate a House provision to phase out the rebate for Americans making more than $75,000.
It’s not exactly complicated to see why Baucus and other Senators want to extend the rebate to people on Social Security. They vote. There’s not much more to it than that. Of course, the spectacle of the American government giving more and more to the elderly while we refuse to adequately care for our children is something we should probably think about addressing one of these decades, but certainly not now.
Understanding the rationale for extending the benefits to people making over $75 is a bit more complicated, especially when that extension trades off with the rebate for lower income people, who are much more likely to spend the money, and thus, stimulate the economy. So why is Baucus advocating less money for those who might stimulate the economy (if such things actually work) and more for those who are less likely to do so?
Since it isn’t for average Montanans, who make nowhere near $75,000 annually, one has to ask who Max Baucus is really representing.
Let’s continue our assault on the public schools:
To open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we have expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let’s apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.”
Liberate the poor children? Liberate? Given that Bush had liberated these children from the burden of reading programs to help achieve, it’s certainly interesting that he wants to liberate them from their schools. It’s so frustrating to see a potentially revolutionary reform of schools so driven by a narrow-minded, right wing agenda to destroy public schools.
Let’s blame the behavior of Africans for getting AIDS:
America is leading the fight against disease. With your help, we are working to cut by half the number of malaria-related deaths in 15 African nations. And our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is treating 1.4 million people. We can bring healing and hope to many more. So I ask you to maintain the principles that have changed behavior and made this program a success. And I call on you to double our initial commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS by approving an additional $30 billion over the next 5 years.
Wow. Did Jerry Falwell write that line straight from Hell? I thought that demonizing the people who suffer with HIV and AIDS went away in, oh, I don’t know, 1984. And for what it’s worth, Bush’s rigid adherence to behavioral modification costs lives and prevents access to health care. Just ask the health care workers who are seeing efforts undermined by Bush’s mandated abstinence programs and the millions of women denied reproductive health care under the Global Gag Rule.
Let’s use totally inappropriate warlike metaphors for illusory humanitarian aid:
Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region.
Armies? Compassion? War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Oh, and maybe some day one of the 22 firehouses destroyed in New Orleans will be rebuilt.
One more favorite part. The end. I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel for this, the worst modern American presidency. That certainly deserves a standing ovation.
That’s the interesting premise of an article by Matt Miller in this month’s Atlantic Monthly. Miller’s argument, at its core, is that American education is badly hampered by our tradition of local control of schools and that, in order to improve student success rates, we need some degree of national oversight of curriculum and testing.
He makes his most compelling case when he addresses the issue of curriculum. He writes:
Local control has kept education from attracting the research and development that drives progress, because benefits of scale are absent. There are some 15,000 curriculum departments in this country—one for every district. None of them can afford to invest in deeply understanding what works best when it comes to teaching reading to English-language learners, or using computers to develop customized strategies for students with different learning styles.
It’s an outstanding point. My district is currently in year one of a planned six year process to redevelop our curriculum. Six years. That’s half the time that one cohort of students will spend in the Helena School District. How can help but wonder why our students are struggling when there is no developed, cohesive, vertically aligned curriculum in place, and no plan to have a fully developed one for another five years?
More importantly, why should my district and the other 14,999 all try to develop individual curricula? The answer may not be a federally mandated curriculum (God knows what students would learn about evolution and government under the Bush Administration), but certainly there is a more efficient system than thousands of districts working individually. In Montana, the problem is magnified by state standards that are so vague, districts have almost no guidance in terms of developing their programs.
Keep Reading
