The radical Dr. King

“In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.”
–Quote to New York Times reporter, José Iglesias, 1968.

Today we, as a nation, celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King who was born 91 years ago and assassinated in Memphis in 1968 while speaking in support of unionizing municipal workers. It's a good day to remember Dr. King, not as the harmless icon, portrayed in the mainstream media and in textbooks, but as the unapologetic radical anti-war, anti-capitalist, he was.

This is how King saw things:

“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.” -- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.

Trump's "very fine people" want no part of King's legacy. Instead they are rallying today in Richmond, VA to defend their precious assault weapons from Gov. Wortham's proposed modest gun-control legislation. Small groups of armed white supremacists, vigilante groups,  and nazis are moving to infiltrate the march and cause a "white uprising" resulting in an all-out race war.

Trump gave them all the green light on Friday when he tweeted:

The Democrat Party in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia are working hard to take away your 2nd Amendment rights. This is just the beginning. Don’t let it happen, VOTE REPUBLICAN in 2020!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2020

Yes, I was onto something in my previous post (Klobuchar was the worst of the six). NYT just co-endorsed Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in an anybody-but-Bernie move. Yes, they're both women. And Democrats would vote for either in a face-off with Trump.

But Warren's blocking with Klobuchar to attack Sanders during the last debate was an effort to legitimize herself to party leadership and peel away Sanders voters. It's an unprincipled block since up til now, she's had much more in common with Sanders than with Klobuchar. Whether the tactic will work or not in Iowa remains to be seen.

Those wringing their hands over the growing and undeniable polarizing of national politics and the rise of right and left-wing populism should remember that the political polarization is an echo of economic polarization, meaning the widening wealth and income gap and the collapse of the middle class.

Bernie Sanders, and to a lesser degree, Elizabeth Warren, are the only candidates speaking directly to the wealth and income gap. Their split and the ensuing rupture of their progressive base and any liberal consensus should leave both Biden and Trump smiling.

Anton Seals Jr. was on Hitting Left, Friday...

Cooperative farming is a central aspect of Seal’s community organizing. When he talks about the development of cooperative farming on the hundreds of acres of open land in Englewood, Seals draws a clear historical connection to the African and African American experience as stewards of the land, even in slavery, and the forced migration – as a result of racist terror – from the former Confederacy to Chicago. -- Fred Klonsky's blog

You can download the entire Seals interview from libsyn.com.

Klobuchar was the worst of the six.

"And then when it comes to Iraq, right now, I would leave our troops there, despite the mess that has been created by Donald Trump." -- Amy Klobuchar at Des Moines debate.

Of the six candidates on stage in Des Moines Tuesday night, Amy Klobuchar was by far, the worst.

She outflanked the others on the right on nearly every issue, from war to the economy, to the environment. She doesn't support a wealth tax or Medicare for all, tuition-free K-16 public ed, and if elected, won't repeal Trump’s tax break for the rich.

She wants to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and keep nuclear weapons in southern Turkey. She defended the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. She's a big fan of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and says that as president, she would "bring in American support again in a big way for Israel." She wants to keep the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem and leave in place the Trump administration’s policies on Israeli settlements.

And on it goes.

In other words, Klobuchar represents a wing of the Democratic Party that stands in direct opposition to progressives like Sanders and Warren on most of the fundamental issues.

She even slams Warren personally for being "too wonky."

So my question is, why would Elizabeth Warren decide to block with Klobuchar against Sanders Tuesday night? Was it just to score a few quick points against her long-time political ally in order to supplant him as the current progressive frontrunner? Was it simply an act of retaliation for Sanders' alleged "a woman can't win" comment in a private conversation? If so, it failed badly. It was a short-sighted, opportunist move that will divide the progressive wing of the party and will likely hurt mainly her as well as Sanders' chances of winning the nomination.

I hope not.

Last night, they somewhat, actually debated the war.

Bloomberg on Colbert: "We are the superpower of the world.” 

I missed the beginning because the Duke/Clemson basketball ended late. Clemson pulled the exciting upset over #2 Blue Demons (fallen angels?)

But I did catch the war debate.

Bernie Sanders and to a lesser degree Elizabeth Warren were the only candidates who took a forthright anti-war stance following Trump's assassination of Gen. Soleimani.

Last night, the rest were wavering on the war issue. You know, keep our embassy in Baghdad. Leave special forces in place. OK to use mercs, drones or even all-out war with congressional approval. All especially seemed agreed on that last point -- no spending on war with Iran without a vote in Congress. That's a good thing, given the current situation.

However, it belies the fact that congress (including most Democrats), has already given Trump and the Pentagon the trillions they need to carry on their eternal war to protect the oil.

But you could watch, especially Joe Biden, wriggle around the question,

BIDEN: Well, I tell you what, there's a difference between combat troops and leaving special forces in position.

Biden admitted he "mistakenly" voted for the war in Iraq (Oops!). But then tried to hide behind Obama.

I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to give the president the authority to go to war if, in fact, he couldn't get inspectors into Iraq to stop what — thought to be the attempt to get a nuclear weapon. It was a mistake, and I acknowledged that.

But right — the man who also argued against that war, Barack Obama, picked me to be his vice president. And once we — once we were elected president, he turned — and vice president, he turned to me and asked me to end that war.

Huh?

But, only a few days ago, Biden had John Kerry arguing he hadn't really voted for the war. Or if he did, it was because Republicans tricked him into it.

“It was a mistake to have trusted them, I guess, and we paid a high price for it,” Kerry added. “But that was not voting for the war.”

These two need to get in a room together and get their stories straight.

Today's Washington Post summed it up best:

With tensions with Iran and controversy over President Trump’s decision to kill Qasem Soleimani big in the news, Democrats had a chance to define their party on the issue. And the debate began on that subject, with the candidates talking at some length. What we got instead was a lot of general talk about taking out combat troops but leaving in other troops who would be tasked with other missions.

As for the rest of the debate, again it was Sanders and Warren standing up for real reform on healthcare and education and the rest arguing “How we gonna pay for it”? (on everything but war).

Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar want Medicare for some, college for some, daycare for some, bring some troops home. It’s the Some Party.

Some of the craziest moments came from Buttigieg, who argues against Bernie's call for tuition-free college. PB doesn't think the wealthy should be allowed to send their kids to tuition-free public universities (and I assume to public schools in general).

And I don't think subsidizing the children of millionaires and billionaires to pay absolutely zero in tuition at public colleges is the best use of those scarce taxpayer dollars. 

Mayor Pete, I believe that's why they call it PUBLIC EDUCATION, public healthcare, public parks, and public space in general. Public schools would be much better funded if white parents and yes, rich white parents sent their kids there. You should be about taxing the wealthiest the most. Not excluding them from tuition-free public space.

The real winner of the debate may have been a candidate who didn't even take part. Appearing on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” immediately after the debate, Billionaire Michael Bloomberg got more unchallenged talk time than any of the six.

Bloomberg echoed the neocon line, promising that he would lead the U.S. to war if the national security of America is directly threatened,

“and if the rest of the world is threatened, we have an obligation to go and help. We are the superpower of the world, and with superpower status comes responsibility.” 

When you're as rich and powerful as Bloomberg and the leader of the "superpower of the world," I don't suppose you need congressional approval to do anything, invade or bomb anyone. Just ask Donald Trump.

WEEKEND QUOTABLES

Champaign State’s Attorney Julia Rietz

...told WBEZ in an interview Friday afternoon that her office is involved in a “comprehensive investigation” with the Illinois Attorney General, the Illinois State Police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois into the content of the email.

“There are efforts being made to unravel this – again – cryptic, unspecific allegation regarding a sexual assault,” Rietz said. -- WBEZ

Hamilton Nolan at the Guardian

Nothing requires less courage than letting yourself go along with a march towards war when you have the biggest military in the world. Show me a candidate willing to fight for peace, and I’ll show you the future. -- The Democrats must become a real anti-war party

State's Atty. Kim Foxx

We've got to have an inside/outside game. Chesa's [Boudin] election should speak to that. -- Hitting Left interview

Tracy Littlejohn, educator and homeschool coordinator

“I’ve gone into some fourth-grade classrooms where they thought we were extinct,” said Littlejohn, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation. -- LaCrosse Tribune

D.T.'s mercenary army

“I said to Saudi Arabia, you want more troops, I’ll send them to you, but you’ve gotta pay us... they’ve already deposited $1 Billion.” -- Rolling Stone

Not sorry. I will never apologize for protecting immigrants and refugee families in Chicago. https://t.co/pgWn3auhb1

— Mayor Lori Lightfoot (@chicagosmayor) January 12, 2020

Complicit Democrats can redeem themselves on Iran war budget vote

Senators Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna push anti-war legislation

"Every member of Congress who voted to give the most corrupt, unhinged, and unstable president in history $738 billion to fight endless wars...must never tell us that we cannot afford Medicare for All or a Green New Deal." -- Warren Gunnels, Sanders senior adviser

Despite their claims that congress wasn't consulted in advance of the latest U.S. aggressive moves against Iran, Democrats had a chance to make their voices heard. Instead, they are in many ways complicit.

For one thing, they passed on chances to constrain military aggression against Iran in the recent Pentagon budget debate. Only 41 House Democrats, voted against the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which increased the Pentagon budget by $22 billion, including billions for Trump's bogus Space Force. The final vote was 377-48. Democrats voted overwhelmingly for passage without any restrictions on the use of funds in a war with Iran.

One of the omitted amendments in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), would have barred Trump from using federal dollars for military action against Iran without congressional approval. Although the measure was included in an earlier draft of the NDAA, it was later stripped out in the compromise version that Democrats voted for anyway.

Khanna, one of the members who vocally opposed the NDAA in December, argued that his amendment would have prevented the US from using government funds to conduct the strike against Soleimani. Whether his claim is real or not remains a question, given Trump’s potential for ignoring Congress and violating the Constitution.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) also sought to include an amendment in the NDAA that would limit the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), which permits the president to take action against anyone responsible for or associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, arguing that it was too broad. Administrations have since used the AUMF to wage military action across the Middle East, efforts that have been seen as further expanding the executive branch’s war powers.

More than 30 progressive and anti-war organizations — including MoveOn and Indivisible — expressed disagreement with the bill, too. “It is a blank check for endless wars, fuel for the further militarization of US foreign policy, and a gift to Donald Trump,” they wrote in their December statement.

On Sunday, Trump warned Iranian leaders against any military retaliation by boasting on Twitter that,

“The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment” and that if necessary he would use it to hit Iran “very fast and very hard.”

The $1.4 trillion spending deal for 2020 that became law in December includes about $695 billion for the Pentagon, an increase of about $19 billion from the 2019 level.

But Democrats still have a chance to redeem themselves in an effort to prevent all-out war with Iran by supporting a House bill introduced by Lee and Rep. Ilhan Omar and a Senate bill sponsored by Khanna and Bernie Sanders that would block funding for any military action "in or against Iran" without congressional authorization.

We should be watching closely and taking names on who votes which way.

🚨@SpeakerPelosi announced: This week, the House will vote on a #WarPowers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran. pic.twitter.com/gBH6WOy07A

— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) January 6, 2020

.@RepBarbaraLee and I are introducing a War Powers Resolution in the House to prevent a disastrous war with Iran.

We in Congress must reassert our Constitutional authority and stop a disastrous war.

The stakes could not be higher.
#NoWarWithIran https://t.co/UXpKdbfk4R

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) January 5, 2020

WEEKEND QUOTABLES

Evangelical Trump supporters at Miami rally, "He was sent to us."

Donald Trump

"God is on our side." -- N.Y. Times

Rep. Ilhan Omar

“‪Let’s not mince words: the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was an act of war undertaken without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We in Congress must exercise our Constitutional duty—and do everything in our power to stop another disastrous war. ” -- Press Release

Adel Abdul Mahdi, Prime Minister of Iraq

Adel Abdul Mahdi recommended that the government establish a timetable for the departure of foreign troops, including the members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group, “for the sake of our national sovereignty.”

“What happened was a political assassination,” Abdul Mahdi said. -- Washington Post

Sec. of State Mike Pompeo

Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more. -- Twitter

Trump's Orwellian doublespeak on Iran attack

“War is peace/freedom is slavery/ ignorance is strength.” -- George Orwell's "1984"

Trump, the master of Orwellian doublespeak, claims that he assassinated leader, Gen. Soleimani in order to "stop a war, not to start one." But as a result of the attack, a new stage in the continuing and escalating "eternal war" in the middle east now seems inevitable.

Trump has now committed 3,000 more troops to Iraq and there's already been a second U.S. airstrike, this one against an Iraqi military convoy, yesterday. Trump's latest war provocation is not just directed against Iran, but against the Iraqi coalition government as well. Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, is moving ahead with legislation calling on all American troops to withdraw to leave the country.

For me, the most stunning part of all this has been the bipartisan cheering for the assassination of a foreign leader (where do they think that will lead?) and especially the wishy-washy response on the part of the Democratic Party leadership to Trump's war provocation. I shouldn't be surprised really, given how many Dems signed on to Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Chief among the assassination cheerleaders was, of course, Joe Biden.

"No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani's passing. He deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region."

Nancy Pelosi's only issue seems to be Trump's failure to consult Congress first. It's a good issue but I wonder how Dems would have voted if he had. Didn’t they just vote with Republicans to approve the $1.48 trillion Pentagon war budget?

I'm pissed at Elizabeth Warren -- who until this week was one of my presidential faves -- after her initial response to Soleimani's killing echoed Trump's doublespeak. While Cory Booker was on CNN, justifying the assassination of Suleimani "as a bad man from a dangerous regime" at the same time expressing "concern" about the war, Warren was on Twitter doing the same.

Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020

Yes, costly indeed. It took two or three more tries for her to come out with a clear statement opposing war with Iran.

Empty suit, Pete Buttigieg...

"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences."

As those who follow me on Twitter know, I've been tweeting about little else since the killing of Soleimani. One of my posts had to to with regime-change policy architect Hillary Clinton's threat to "obliterate Iran" in response to an attack on Israel. The genocidal language sickened me back in '08 when she was running for president against Barack Obama. and in many ways set the stage for Trumpian war talk today.

I was expecting strong pushback on this from the right and pro-Israel trolls. But the only negative reaction I got was from left/liberal think-tanker and former N.Y. teacher union leader, Leo Casey who accused me of buying "the Gleen Greenwald-Matt Tiabi line on how Clinton would take us to war, while Trump would give us peace?" Whatever the hell that means.

Of course, I never said any of that.

As expected, Bernie Sanders broke from the party line and was strong and clear from the start.

I am introducing a bill with Rep. Khanna to stop Donald Trump from illegally taking us to war against Iran.

It's working-class kids who will have to fight and die in a disastrous new Middle East conflict—not the children of billionaires. https://t.co/H6ZHjijCnj

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 4, 2020

Enough talk. Time for action. The family and I are about to head downtown to join Chicago's anti-war marchers. I hope to see you down there or wherever you are marching today.

Baghdad embassy siege, a predictable result after 16 years of failed war policy

Bush declares victory in Iraq in 2003.

It was 16 years ago that President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared, "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. It was, as former President Bill Clinton called it, "the latest, grandest example of the eternal struggle of former presidents to rewrite history." And the Clinton's, who supported the 2003 invasion, know a thing or two about that.

New Year's siege on Baghdad embassy.

Now, as night fell on the last day of 2019, U.S. embassy staffers were locked in a "safe" room with Trump calling on the Iraqi police to help protect them as the embassy in Baghdad was under siege by thousands of Iraqis chanting "Death to America", protesting the recent U.S. airstrike against Iranian-backed militia fighters in Iraq and demanding that all U.S. troops, including mercenaries ("contractors"), leave their country.

How the mighty have fallen. A predictable climax to a failed regime-change strategy that has transcended the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, caused the deaths of millions and cost trillions. It's one that still holds sway in the White House and within the leadership of both political parties.

Enough!

Rahm: Fighting Trump is 'sinking to his level.'

"Some may accuse me of being Pollyanna-ish — there’s a first time for everything." -- Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel is trying once again, to rebrand himself. He no longer wants to be seen as the divisive advisor who was canned by President Obama or the ex-mayor driven out of Chicago before voters could get a clean shot at him at the polls.

When he still had hopes of winning re-election, Mayor 1% tried to rebrand himself as a "progressive". But now, with real progressives threatening the centrists' hold on the Democratic Party leadership, he's dropped the progressive facade and is working with the DNC leadership to isolate and discredit the party's left-wing. Rahm now wants to morph into the "no-conflict" conciliator with Trump and the Republicans to "bring the country together."

He's warning Democrats to veer away from any anti-Trump resistance movements, especially the kind being forged by the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during the primary elections.

To Rahm, fighting Trumpism is "sinking to Trump's level."

In yesterday's Washington Post op-ed, Rahm appears downright giddy over the new NAFTA deal Nancy Pelosi cut with Trump. 

If everything in Washington centered on conflict, President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would never have been able to align themselves on a major trade agreement. And yet there they were, serving up evidence that division and consensus can sit, however uncomfortably, side by side. What did that moment tell us? Riven though we are, we are also, on many matters, united.

From Rahm's POV, there's no longer a need for sharp conflict with Trump over issues like climate change, gun control, or immigration. Why? Because we're all already agreed. There's a national consensus, says Rahm.

We don’t need to tell Americans that the president’s decision to bully Greta Thunberg was wrong — they know that. We don’t need to tell them that his Dec. 18 attack on Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and her late husband, John, was beyond the pale and beneath this nation — they know that as well. 

This from the former White House chief-of-staff who called immigration reform, "the third rail of politics" and who warned Obama's attorney general to "STFU" about gun control. 

Rahm's call for consensus-building with Republicans is nothing more than a poke at the left-wing of the party who he and Dem party leaders see as a greater threat to their power than they do Donald Trump. Without mentioning Sanders, Warren or AOC by name, Rahm tries to paint them as the purveyors of conflict and Joe Biden as the Pelosi-style unifier.

He writes:

If Trump is going to do his best to deepen the conflict, should we do the same? Or, after three years of enduring the White House’s efforts to pit community against community, should we lean into the exhausted electorate’s desire to embrace a leader who will bind up the nation’s wounds?

His rebranding efforts won't work. He's still the same divisive, corporate shill he's always been. If the Democratic leadership follows Rahm's lead and opts for conciliation with Trump as their strategic goal, they will fail again as they did in 2016.

Florida moment, the morning after

I'm down here in Trumpland (so the polls tell me), visiting family and getting a respite from the Chicago winter for a few days. I stopped in Walgreens early this morning to pick up the local papers. When I set them on the counter to check out, an older white guy in a Hawaiian shirt, standing behind me in line, sees the IMPEACHED headlines and goes off. But not the way I expected.

"Did you see? They impeached the son-of-a-bitch."

The two black women behind him in line chime in. One asks, "Is he really impeached? I hate that Trump. He's so rude and nasty. Are we rid of him?"

The second woman adds, "He's holding these rallies all over and you know, he doesn't even pay his people. He never has anything nice to say about anyone."

The white guy clarifies: "No, he's still president until the Senate votes him out. And that ain't happening."

The anti-Trump chatter goes on for another minute, with the black woman behind the counter joining in, shaking her head in frustration. "How did he ever get elected?"

I'm grinning, happy that my newspapers were the catalyst for this anti-Trump mini-rally. Just to make sure I'm not pegged as a deplorable, I say, "That's okay. We'll kick him out in November." I know, that wasn't all that revolutionary or inspiring. But in the moment, it was all I could think of.

My takeaway...Hatred of Trump among many is personal and visceral, not just political; i.e., there was no mention this morning of the Ukrainian arms deal or the phone call to Zelenskiy.

I, who've been the most skeptical of the Democrats' impeachment gambit, realize that this was just a snapshot and that us two old anti-Trump white guys in Walgreens aren't indicative of our demographic's voting patterns. But on this rainy Florida morning, the day after impeachment, I'll take it.

****

I'll be AWOL once again from Friday's Hitting Left show. In the NBA, when LeBron or Kawhi miss back-to-back games, they call it "load management." Exactly!

But you can tune in to www.lumpenradio.com tomorrow from 11-noon CT where brother Fred will be doing our annual movie talk with fellow film buffs Susan Kerns and Floyd Webb. 

CTU leaders take the wrong side in sexual harassment scandal

Machine boss Mike Madigan & whistle-blower Alaina Hampton

Chicago unions have no choice but to work with House Speaker Michael Madigan if they want to get anything done in Springfield. But working with Madigan is one thing. Embedding within what's left of Madigan's political machine and colluding with him to blackball his victims of sexual harassment is something else. And that appears to be exactly what CTU leaders have done.

Case in point -- CTU's collusion with Madigan's gaggle of sexual harassers in the Alaina Hampton case. First, after offering to hire Alaina as a political consultant, CTU withdrew its offer, apparently under pressure from Madigan. Then they foolishly held back documents implicating themselves from investigators until they were forced to make them available.

After Alaina sued and won a settlement in the case, which cost Madigan's political committee about $900,000 (Alaina received $75K with the rest going to the lawyers), the teachers union picked up a large chunk of the tab.

As for Madigan, the powerful Southwest Side Democrat likely won’t be holding any benefits to pay for the settlement and his own court costs. Since September, labor unions have stepped up to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to Friends of Michael J. Madigan, the same fund used to pay the settlement. -- Sun-Times

And this from Politico...

The case is now settled, but Hampton says CTU has continued to disparage her on social media, so her legal team filed a cease and desist order. Hampton revealed the legal move Monday in a tweet directed to CTU after a spokeswoman described the case as having "factual distortions, hyperbole and outright lies." The spokeswoman's tweet was deleted, but not before Hampton responded with her own tweet: "You can't hide from the truth. That's one reason my attorneys sent you and CTU a cease and desist for defamation a month ago."

Even with reports finding bullying, inappropriate behavior and fear pervasive in Springfield under Madigan's rule, union leaders are reportedly still currying favor from the machine boss and still apparently following his lead on who to hire and fire.

CTU leaders are on the wrong side of this one.

CTU hit with defamation cease and desist letter https://t.co/O2eNh5W3dl

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) December 17, 2019

Can someone please explain to me why @CTULocal1 and @stacydavisgates/@SharkeyCTU1 can meet with Madigan weekly and never criticize him, but relentlessly attack @LightfootForChi at every turn? #twill

— Jeff O (@JeffO773) December 16, 2019

I'm missing Friday's show with Erika & Jen from The Girl Talk Show. Damn!

Erika, Jen, & Joanna from The Girl Talk Show

I can't believe I'm missing tomorrow's show featuring two of my favorite people. Jen Sabella and Erika Wozniak will be Fred's in-studio guests. For those who don't know them (you must not live in Chicago), Jen and Erika co-host The Girl Talk Show on the 4th Tuesday of every month, over at the Hideout.

Jen, who describes herself as a "professional tequila drinker", is actually a working Chicago journalist. Erika is a veteran, award-winning, teacher and union activist who currently works as an aldermanic chief-of-staff.

I should add that the GTS is produced by ace political strategist, Joanna Klonsky (yes, we are related).

I'm heading down to FL for a few days to visit family, escape the Chicago windchill, and get rid of this damn cold. So, Fred and Annie will have to carry on without me. I'll be listening and kibitzing by text, from 11-noon CT, via live-stream at lumpenradio.com.

One of the funniest (not so funny) parts of The Girl Talk, is when Jen and Erika present the "Douchebag of the Month Award" to some sexual harasser or predator.

My nominee for this month's award is the co-founder of KIPP charter schools, Mike Feinberg.

Feinberg would have been eligible for the award anytime during the past 15 years. He was finally fired by the KIPP board last year in response to allegations of sexual misconduct with former students and now he's suing KIPP and KIPP is suing him back. What a shit show.

According to Chalkbeat:

A former student alleged that KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg sexually assaulted her under the guise of a medical exam, and a former KIPP employee said he offered her money in exchange for sex, according to a court filing by the KIPP charter school network.

The filing offers new details on the sexual harassment and abuse allegations that led to Feinberg’s firing last year, a move that shocked many in the charter school movement. The motion, filed in November, asks for the dismissal of a defamation suit Feinberg filed against KIPP, the country’s largest nonprofit charter network.

There's still no explanation as to why it took KIPP so long to get rid of Feinberg. He was "involved" with a former KIPP student, employed by KIPP Houston in 2004, which led to a "financial settlement" at the time.

Please don't worry about Feinberg's recovery from this ordeal. He's doing much better than his victims. He's currently the president of the governing board of the Texas School Venture Fund, a conservative group that funnels millions of dollars to charter schools, vouchers, and other school privatization initiatives. 

He'd be a deserving awardee. 

Hard to understand CTU's vitriol on these charter closings.

Arne Duncan with K12 Inc. founder William Bennett

I'm having a difficult time making sense out of CTU policy statements lately. Yesterday, the union leadership came out with a blistering, overheated attack on CPS leaders. Why? Because CPS recommended the closing of two privately-run charter schools for poor academic performance and financial mismanagement.

The two schools are Chicago Virtual Charter School (CVCS) and Frazier Preparatory Academy Charter School. Both schools opened as part of Renaissance 2010, a failed initiative of former Mayor Daley’s schools chief, Arne Duncan. The initiative called for the opening of 100 new schools by 2010 amid the closure of dozens of schools the district said were "underperforming."

Private charter school operators moved in like vultures, promising that their non-union schools would outperform neighborhood schools. It turned out to be a lie. The best of the charters did just about the same as the schools they were replacing. The worst either kept getting their charters renewed with little oversight, or were closed, either for poor performance, financial mismanagement or put on probation and given a few years to improve. Several more went out of business of their own volition, as with any failed business venture.

CTU leaders have responded to the recommendation with vitriol, calling it "racist and irresponsible."

I have been an outspoken opponent of public school closings, especially the mass school closings in the black community, under Rahm Emanuel's regime, closings that disrupted the lives and learning of thousands of CPS students and drove hundreds of families out of Chicago. But that doesn't mean that no charter school should ever be closed, no matter how poorly it serves its students and their families or how corrupt they are. I know very little about Frazier, except that it has been on academic probation for several years and has failed to meet the standards set by its own operators.

According to the Tribune: 

At Frazier Prep, a K-8 school in Lawndale, CPS further cited a failure to meet a contractual requirement to implement a successful remediation plan and improve the school enough to get it off the academic warning list. Students in the community have higher-quality options, according to CPS.

 Since 2015, the Chicago Board of Education has used a “quality policy” to review charter schools. In accordance with that policy, school officials conducted “comprehensive performance reviews” and said they found that Chicago Virtual and Frazier Prep were failing to provide a high-quality education to students.

I generally mistrust evidence of "low performance" based solely or mainly on test scores. But I'd leave this decision to CPS in consultation with the school community.

CPS has assured the community that if the Chicago School Board approves the closures, CPS will provide families of current students with transition support "to help them identify a new higher-performing school that best meets their educational needs and priorities."

But we heard that before from Rahm. He lied. So far, Lori Lightfoot has shown that she's not Rahm 2.0. CTU President Jesse Sharkey told me as much on Hitting Left, last Friday.

But I do know something about Chicago Virtual Charter, a subsidiary of K12 Inc., the worst of the worst when it comes to privatization and plunder of American public education. The largest of the virtual charter chains, K12 Inc. in particular, has been a sewer of corruption since it was founded by Ronald Reagan's Ed Sec. William Bennett. The company was forced to remove Bennett as chairman of its directors following a series of racist remarks and gambling scandals which threatened the company's marketability.

K12 Inc. has been under investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, which has been looking into K12's involvement in a project that received an improper multimillion-dollar grant from the Department of Education during Bennett's tenure at the firm. MEANWHILE...

A K12 Inc. company database that included information for 19,000 students was available for anyone with an internet connection to see for at least a week, according to a report from Comparitech, which describes itself as a pro-consumer organization that offers security services. -- Digital Education

Trump's Ed Secretary Betsy DeVos touts online learning and cyber charter schools as a viable alternative to public schools. But her support for these virtual schools and the private companies that run them may have more to do with her and her husband's investment portfolio than with any positive results for students. Her husband invested in virtual school powerhouse K12 Inc. before she became secretary.

According to The Nation:

K12 Inc.’s lobbyists helped author model legislation to develop sweeping voucher laws through the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that provides state lawmakers with template legislation.

K12, Inc. initially wanted to open a full-time virtual school in Chicago, but Illinois law prohibited full-time online learning. To comply with the policy, K12, Inc. compromised by adding a mandatory, on-campus attendance requirement and thus the CVCS was born.

It's a school that never should have been opened in this city. In fact, back in 2006, the CTU filed a suit intended to stop state and city payments to the Chicago Virtual Charter School. The union sued the charter school operator, the Chicago Board of Education, which approved the school as part of its Renaissance 2010 reforms, and the Illinois State Board of Education, which gave final approval for the charter to open.

So the question is, why the sharp attack by CTU leaders, who called the CPS recommendation to close CVCS racist and irresponsible? I can understand their making a case against the closing of any neighborhood school. But CVCS was not that. Whether to close Frazier is a question worthy of community debate.

I hope the charges of "racism" against CPS leadership and the mayor's appointed school board isn't just a continuation of the negativity directed at the mayor and the board, stemming from the election and the school strike. But I see no other basis for it.

18 years of lies on Afghanistan revealed

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” -- Napoleon Bonaparte

Three U.S. presidents, Bush, Obama, and Trump, have bought and sold this big lie to the public and built their failed foreign policies upon it.

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable. -- Craig Whitlock, Washington Post

LOOKING BACK...On Oct. 2, 2002, then IL State Senator Barack Obama said in a major speech at an anti-war rally we organized in Chicago that "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." He referred to the Iraq War as his "dumb war" example in contrast to Afghanistan, which was billed as a winnable and necessary war to topple the Taliban government, drive out al Qaeda terrorists and install a pro-U.S. regime in Kabul.

"We must embrace America's singular role in the course of human events but we must also be as pragmatic as we are passionate, as strategic as we are resolute. 

Then there was...

Hillary Clinton supported the 2009 increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. During the administration's Afghanistan War review in 2010, Clinton endorsed General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation for 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal (ultimately accepted by Obama) for 30,000 troops. -- NYT

And regime-changer McCain...

Robert Kagan, a former adviser to his 2008 opponent John McCain, warned that a quick withdrawal threatens recent gains against the Taliban - and popular opinion could swing against the president if an emboldened enemy takes the speech as a cue to step up attacks.

"This is a political decision, not a military decision," he told POLITICO. "Americans are tired of this war, that's true. But they hate losing more, and if there's the perception that we're being run out of there, the public will turn on him fast." 

Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures.

The government has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan, but the costs are staggering -- into the trillions.

Now, Trump says he's ready to engage in peace talks with the Taliban, in preparation for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

News of the talks came just before The Washington Post reported it had obtained more than 2,000 pages of government documents that it says show how U.S. officials have for years misled the public about the war in Afghanistan.

What an irony it would be if Republican Trump, facing impeachment and a difficult 2020 re-election campaign, ended the war that Democrats couldn't or wouldn't end. Shades of Republican, Richard Nixon in March of 1973, withdrawing his defeated army from Vietnam, only to be impeached in October of that same year.

I'm doubtful. Most likely, this is for media consumption.

The media has been complicit... The editorial board of the very same WaPo that this week revealed the pile of lies driving the Afghan war, opposed the war's end just months earlier.

The Washington Post’s editorial board (1/28/19) was similarly apprehensive at the prospect of US withdrawal. Lamenting what it considered a deal brokered “mostly on the enemy’s terms,” it proclaimed that “an end to the Afghan war is desirable, but not at the expense of everything the United States has helped to build there since 2001.” -- FAIR

Tell us, WaPo. What exactly has the U.S. built there? The truth, this time please.  

WEEKEND QUOTABLES

Linda Ronstadt at the Kennedy Center Honors

Linda Ronstadt

“I’d like to say to Mr. Pompeo, who wonders when he’ll be loved, it’s when he stops enabling Donald Trump.” -- Rolling Stone

Sam Greisman, son of the actor Sally Field, another honoree

“Linda Ronstadt got up to get laurels, looked the fucker right in the eye and said ‘maybe when you stop enabling Donald Trump’” -- Guardian

Greg Hinz on ComEd's annual Mike Madigan fundraiser

Source... “It was put together by a combination of ComEd and Exelon. . . .I went because I understood it was part of the process." -- Crain's 

Sharkey on Hitting Left

CTU Pres. Jesse Sharkey

We characterized Rahm as “Mayor 1%”, you know, as a “corporate shill”. We picketed his house…The thing about Rahm was that he was such a clear corporate figure who had taken a year-and-a-half off from government work to make $16 million as a stock trader or private equity guy. And that’s clearly not Mayor Lightfoot. She’s not in that same category. -- Hitting Left

Pete Buttigieg cuts ties with a campaign donor

"I learned about it this morning and within about an hour of that, he's no longer involved in the event or the campaign. Transparency and justice for Laquan McDonald is a lot more important than a campaign contribution." -- CBS News

Trump tells Jewish group...

A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers. Not nice people at all, but you have to vote for me you have no choice...“You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax. Yeah, let’s take 100% of your wealth away,” Trump said, slamming Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren during his speech at the Israeli American Council-- Market Watch

Atty. Gen. William Barr...

...threatens communities of color with loss of police protection. 

If communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need. Barr didn’t specify which “communities” he meant, but his comments were interpreted by many to refer to groups that have protested police violence against people of color. -- Washington Post

On Hitting Left: CTU Pres. Jesse Sharkey on Mayor Lori Lightfoot

On yesterday's Hitting Left show, Fred and I interviewed CTU President Jesse Sharkey about the 2019 teachers' strike and found lots of common ground. As readers of this blog know, while we supported the teachers' demands and walked the picket line with the strikers, we've disagreed with current CTU leaders on some issues, including their equating the city's first black, gay, woman mayor, Lori Lightfoot, with her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel. Here's part of our interview where we ask Jesse about his own take on Mayor Lightfoot.

FK: But am I wrong in feeling that your argument made during the lead-up to the strike and the strike itself was that the new administration was fundamentally not different from Rahm Emanuel’s and that there was this characterization of Mayor Lightfoot as being “Rahm2.0”?

JS: Yeah, you’re wrong in the sense that we characterized Rahm as “Mayor 1%”, you know, as a “corporate shill”. We picketed his house…The thing about Rahm was that he was such a clear corporate figure who had taken a year-and-a-half off from government work to make $16 million as a stock trader or private equity guy.

And that’s clearly not Mayor Lightfoot. She’s not in that same category. The thing about Lori Lightfoot is that she had made a series of promises. But at the negotiating table, she wasn’t putting those things in writing into the contract.

MK: I’ve got lots of quotes here but I’m not going to throw them all at you. But it’s pretty clear that the union leadership was referring to the mayor as “Rahm2.0” or worse in some cases. But now, you’re saying that’s not your take?

JS: No, I just don’t think it's accurate. And I think there are ways, in the heat of battle, that people say all kinds of things polemically or rhetorically. But I don’t think the overall way in which we conducted our strategy…You didn’t see us picketing the mayor’s house or calling her “Mayor 1%”. You know, you’ve got 25,000 people...

Protestors come to ⁦@chicagosmayor⁩ home, she leaves them doughnuts #CTUstrike ⁦@CTULocal1⁩ ⁦@ChiPubSchools⁩ pic.twitter.com/OQapV2p7cO

— Mary Ann Ahern (@MaryAnnAhernNBC) October 18, 2019

Hat's off to Julián Castro

Democratic presidential hopeful Julian Castro joins Black Lives Matter co-founder Melina Abdullah and others in calling for two LAPD officers to be fired in the police shooting of Grechario Mack.

Julián Castro was the only presidential candidate aware enough to pay tribute to Fred Hampton on the 50th anniversary of Fred's assassination by Chicago cops.

Fred Hampton was only 21 when he was murdered by Chicago Police 50 years ago today.

He fought for better education and housing, to end hunger and police violence.

He taught that where there's people, there's power. We can live that lesson today.https://t.co/7SZeGgtejT

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) December 4, 2019

On Tuesday, Castro joined a Black Lives Matter protest in Los Angeles, demanding before a crowd gathered outside LAPD headquarters that two officers be fired for killing Grechario Mack. This would’ve been unthinkable for a presidential hopeful four years ago, writes Zak Cheney-Rice at New York Magazine. 

Cheney-Rice is quick to point out that Castro is polling at less than one percent nationally and failed to qualify for the November primary debate, and appears likely to miss December’s as well.

...he’s done himself few favors by pursuing a platform of dubious popularity aimed at helping a small subset of suffering people who have negligible political influence.

But the cards were stacked against Castro and against any non-white candidate in a race so controlled by the party hierarchy and corporate power. All the remaining anointed Democratic debaters are white and all of them seem to me, to be misreading the "negligible political influence" of that so-called "small subset of suffering people." Democrats will do that at their own peril.

Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Chicago Panther himself, stood up on the House floor and recounted the police attack of the house on Monroe St. that fateful night of December 4th.

Madam Speaker, on a cold December morning, 4:30 A.M. Nobody was moving on the streets. They came into that west side community, in Edison trucks. They came into that community with machine guns with the single purpose of killing Fred Hampton and everybody else who was in that apartment. They came using public utility trucks. Not police cars. And in that hour of the of morning. They knocked on the door when they got to that apartment. 

Half of the police officers went to the front door, half went to the rear door.They knocked on the door and they said and one of the gentlemen inside the apartment, he asked who is it, at 4:30 in the morning. And he got a response from one of them police officers and answered by saying, Tommy. And when he said Tommy, he came in shooting. 

I was out in L.A. that night and we got the call around 4 a.m. west coast time telling us that Fred and Mark Clark had been murdered. It was a call that will stay in my memory forever.

Buttigieg's white blindspot on school deseg

“I have to confess that I was slow to realize ― I worked for years under the illusion that our schools in my city were integrated because they had to be because of a court order,” the Democratic presidential candidate said at a North Carolina talk with the Poor People’s Campaign. . -- Mayor Pete Buttigieg

There's no need for me to beat up on Pete Buttigieg any further, now that the master of the white blindspot has all but eliminated himself as a serious presidential candidate.

But I just have to say that I spent a good deal of time in South Bend high schools a decade ago and it only took me about a minute-and-a-half to notice that the schools were racially segregated. Why did it take him so long?

Of course, I wasn't the first to notice. The district has been signing onto consent decrees and deseg plans for the past 40 years, plans which were largely ignored. Last year's Focus 2018 plan, essentially did an end-run around the consent decree in favor of "school choice". It reminded me of the way Chicago failed to respond to deseg orders right up until 10 years ago when Arne Duncan got a federal judge to relieve the district of its obligations under its own consent decree.

South Bend schools are governed by the South Bend Community School Corporation, which has a board of publicly elected members. I say this only to remind myself and my fellow elected school board supporters that an elected board is hardly a panacea when it comes to racial desegregation.

According to the Notre Dame Observer:

In South Bend, "...black and Latino students are disproportionately punished, suspended and dismissed from schools, crippling chances of academic achievement and obstructing efforts for “equitable and supportive learning environments for all students.” Black students are disproportionately arrested in public schools as compared to white students, resulting in a school-to-prison pipeline fueled by zero-tolerance policies. Beyond school discipline, residential segregation and the ill effects of concentrated poverty further disadvantage minority students trapped in segregated schools.

The road to Democratic victory in 2020 runs through the black community, and I suspected the Buttigieg campaign was a loser when I watched his announcement to run back in April, in a cavernous South Bend former Studebaker factory, filled almost entirely with white supporters.

Buttigieg has led a rejuvenation of his city's downtown area, true. But his is a gentrification strategy that left out a quarter of the population living as outsiders and living at or below the poverty line. That's a quarter filling most of the seats in South Bend's public schools.

Last week, The Root’s Michael Harriot penned a viral op-ed billing Buttigieg as “a lying motherfucker” for stating eight years ago that lower educational achievement within impoverished minority communities boils down to a lack of role models.

Not my choice of words, but I understand.

WEEKEND QUOTABLES

Sen. Elizabeth Warren at Chicago's Broadway Armory

Sen. Elizabeth Warren 

 "Only in Chicago is the big Saturday night entertainment politics." -- Tribune

Mayor Pete Buttigieg hasn't got a clue

"I was slow to realize" South Bend schools were not integrated. -- Interview with Rev. William Barber

Alaina Hampton settles sexual harassment suit

““Since speaking out publicly nearly two years ago, we have seen positive changes in this state,” Hampton’s statement said. “The legislature has passed sweeping legislation to deal with sexual harassment, which achieves important gains — although there is still more to be done." -- Tribune

Ald. Daniel La Spata
...in response to my blog post which called the passage of a $15 minimum wage by the City Council, a "big victory for Chicago workers."

"Of course that’s a win. One Chicago workers had already been struggling toward."

La Spata was one of the 11 aldermen who voted against passage.