My Perspective: Do We Really Need H.R. 3247?

On July 17, 2009, Congressman Brian Baird introduced HR 3247 to the U.S. House of Representatives which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. HR 3247 is a bill that is aimed at established a social and behavioral sciences research program at the Department of Energy and for other purposes. Congressman Baird was once a practicing-psychologist so it is easy to understand why he is hard-wired into him to figure out how to get people to change their behavior for the better. However, his tendency to do so led to quite a kerfuffle in the House as the Vancouver Democrat won committee passage of a bill authorizing the spending of $10 million a year to figure out how best to help and persuade people to reduce their energy use.

Republicans charged that Baird was trying to move the government into what some called mind control. The story quickly jumped out of Capitol Hill and is now hitting the conservative blogosphere and talk-show circuit. Fox News commentator Glenn Beck - no stranger to hyperbole - devoted a lengthy segment to Baird's bill, warning: "They're going to study us and find ways to essentially trick us into driving crappy hybrids, and I bet that's just the beginning." Baird's taking the hits with some humor - "The first thing we need to do is send aluminum hats to people to protect them from mind rays," he said - but you can sense the frustration in his voice (hey, I can do my own psychoanalyzing).

In one sense, Baird's legislation, H.R. 3247, is pretty unremarkable. It would establish a social and behavioral research program in the Department of Energy. Businesses do this kind of research when they are trying to figure out how to make their products more user friendly, like when they're designing the dashboard of a car. And so does the military when it's trying to entice new recruits. You could even argue that abstinence-only sex education, a favorite of conservatives, is aimed at "tricking" teens into not having sex. But the idea of behavioral research on energy seemed to get under the skin of many Republicans who have complained that the Democratic regime in Washington is inserting itself into too many areas of American life - whether it's bailing out the auto companies or revamping the health-care system.

"At some point, controlling peoples' behavior and social engineering becomes a threat to peoples' freedom," complained Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., during the debate over the bill before the House Committee on Science and Technology. Baird, who has also applied his interest in behavioral science to such issues as health care, countered that he's simply talking about using this research to communicate more effectively with consumers. For example, he noted that utilities have found that people are much more likely to follow energy-savings tips if they are shown right on their bill how their consumption compares to homes of similar sizes.

"We don't have to develop any of these new technologies" to produce immediate, major reductions in energy use, Baird said. "We just need to change our behavior. Depressingly, we don't. We aren't very smart about getting people to change their behavior." When reporters talked to Baird, he went on at length about how people don't always make rational choices, and about how social research can help show how to nudge them in a certain direction. In fact, "Nudge" is the title of a popular book on the subject co-written by Cass Sunstein, who is now a top White House aide in an administration that has shown quite a bit of interest in the subject. (One well-reported example from the book: Workers tend to set aside more in their 401(k) if they have to opt out of contributing instead of opting in.) Still, Baird said, this kind of talk "feeds into the paranoia that is so prevalent right now." His measure now heads to the full House and Baird said it is clear he has a floor fight on his hands.

Therefore is HR 3247 really needed? Doesn’t our government already do enough behavioral research of us the people through all the polls that come out regarding all the issues from healthcare to education to the economy? Congressman Baird speaks about us changing our behavior but instead of funding a research program in a government agency shouldn’t our Congress put more funds to the side for environmentalists and scientists to do this research for the government to look at and read on. Research funding is nothing new to Washington and is definitely nothing new to Democrats. A friend of mine once told me that she votes Democrat because they are the ones who give her the funds she needs to continue the research she is doing. She told me that they through funding toward all types of research no matter what it is because they are trying to find solutions to everything. When I asked her, don’t you think our government should be funding research that has proven results while the private sector funds the other research that is still experimental. She informed me that she doesn’t care about proven results as long as the money keeps flowing from the government and the Democrats support it, she is going to keep Democrats in office.

That conversation with my friend applies to HR 3247 because Congressman Baird, just wants to use more of tax dollars to fund research that probably has already been done in the private sector and our congressional leaders need to look at that research first and see how new it is in terms of when the data was last researched. We are still trying to recover from a near economic disaster and we want to fund a program that studies our social behavior as it relates to energy is not something that I feel is needed when job losses are predicted to continue to climb? For our U.S. Congress to think that research on our behavior as it relates to energy usage is worthy of funding is just as ridiculous as the passage of stimulus funds for a turtle bridge, funding for porn, and mice. This is just another way for our government to waste our tax payer dollars like they did for 8 years with abstinence only programs.

Now $10 million dollars might not seem like nothing in terms of how our Federal Government has been on a spending spree like never before for the last year and half but the reality is that $10 million can go toward healthcare reform or better yet to states and school systems in need of help in terms of balancing their budget, keeping teachers and providing the right resources for youth to achieve the 21st century world class education that they need to get. HR 3247 should be killed in the U.S. House of Representatives because our government should not be in the business of social and behavioral sciences research but instead they need to be in the business in just solving problems.

It is enough privately funded programs and government grants available for all types of social and behavioral sciences research so have environmentalists and energy scientists do the research while our government tries to solve real issues such as healthcare reform, education, the economy and a host of other issues plaguing our nation. It is bills such as this and the thought of taxpayer money going toward such programs that we the American people should be outraged that our government still hasn’t learned its lesson from the last 8 years that wasteful spending, we the people don’t like. Hasn’t our government spent enough on wasteful programs the last year and a half with all the bailouts, the stimulus layered pork bill and the pork layered omnibus bill. Hasn’t our U.S. Congress seen that we the American people are tired of them spending while not trimming much of the federal budget? President Obama promised us that he would cut federal spending and while his administration found $102 million to save our federal budget that is all for nothing when bills like this are attempting to get $10 million. So what does that do for saving?

Congressman Baird needs a quick lesson in fiscal responsibility and needs to know that it is not the government’s job to control our behavior because politicians can’t dictate social behavior. Many politicians have tried but the reality is that it just doesn’t work. We can have all the studies in the world that show us what foods are good for us but still if many of the American people don’t have a choice in terms of funds to buy the healthy foods than we will have to eat what is not just available but what is affordable to us. Government can’t control every aspect of how the American think and if our politicians want to understand why we act or behave the way we do than they need to do it on their vacation time in August at town halls and walking their communities to see why people don’t care about energy conservation or how people try to conserve energy.

Just like our Congressional leaders are home for the whole month of August for August recess to discuss healthcare they can spend some of that time trying to figure out social and behavioral factors that influence energy consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy technologies, and to promote the utilization of the results of social and behavioral research to improve the design, development, demonstration, and application of energy technologies. Since our Congressional leaders want to play scientists than they need to do it on their own time and with their own money from the salaries and budgets they already have for staffing, traveling, etc. So my suggestion to Congressman Baird is for him to stop this foolishness and get to work on real solutions to the problems plaguing us as a people.

Enough is enough people and our U.S. Congressional leaders need to know that we are not going to tolerate funding programs that take away from things that can actually help our nation. Funding a social and behavioral sciences research program is not something our government should be in the business of doing itself. Instead it is something the private sector should be doing and if the government wants to offer a grant for it than that is something I am not against but to have a government office or program for that is not what our government should be in the business of doing. HR 3247 is not needed in today’s time and I am not going to say it is a mind control bill but it is just another way for government to come with ways to figure out how we think and how we behave in order to come up with solutions and technology to help us as it relates to energy usage.

HR 3247 is a waste of time because social behavior can’t be changed by government by it can only changed through discussion, through us talking to one another and by us as a people accepting personal responsibility for our actions and changing it. So HR 3247 should not pass the U.S. House and our Congress needs to look at real legislation that will help improve energy costs in this nation that are continuing to sky rocket as energy companies are making huge profits like the oil companies. Something has to change and that is what Congressman Baird needs to be discussing and working on instead of wanting to establish and fund a social and behavioral sciences research program that isn’t going to help the average American in our day to lives.


Source:
HR 3247 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 3247
To establish a social and behavioral sciences research program at the Department of Energy, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 17, 2009
Mr. BAIRD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
A BILL
To establish a social and behavioral sciences research program at the Department of Energy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish a social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and understand social and behavioral factors that influence energy consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy technologies, and to promote the utilization of the results of social and behavioral research to improve the design, development, demonstration, and application of energy technologies.

(b) Director- The Secretary shall appoint or designate a Director of Social and Behavioral Research to carry out the program established under this section.

(c) Duties of the Director- The Director shall--

(1) develop a research plan in accordance with section 2;

(2) implement the research program under this section;

(3) work with the relevant Department of Energy program offices to integrate the results of social and behavioral research into their work;

(4) develop tools, practices, and information to apply and integrate the results of social and behavioral research into programs that--

(A) design, develop, and demonstrate technologies that supply energy and improve energy efficiency; and

(B) provide information on energy consumption to consumers; and

(5) assist the Secretary in awarding research grants under section 3.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH PLAN.
(a) In General- The Director, in consultation with the Advisory Committee established under section 4, shall develop a research plan and, not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, transmit such plan to the Congress. Prior to finalizing the research plan, the Director shall publish a draft of the proposed research plan in the Federal Register with a public comment period of not less than 30 days.

(b) Contents of Research Plan- The research plan shall--

(1) set forth priorities and a schedule for carrying out the research program under section 1 and the research grant program under section 3;

(2) address social and behavioral factors that influence--

(A) patterns of energy consumption by individuals, households, and businesses; and

(B) decisions to implement energy conservation measures,
including the factors that influence decisions to adopt energy efficient technologies and practices;

(3) include a description of the mechanisms the Department will use to integrate the findings of social and behavioral research into other relevant Department programs; and

(4) include responses to comments received during the public comment period.

(c) Review and Revision- The Director shall review the research plan every 5 years and revise the plan as appropriate.

SEC. 3. SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH GRANTS.
(a) In General- The Secretary shall provide grants to support social and behavioral research consistent with the research plan developed under section 2.

(b) Awards- Grant awards under this section may be for a period up to 3 years. The Secretary shall award grants through a competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed process.

(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

SEC. 4. SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment- The Secretary shall establish an Advisory Committee composed of experts in relevant fields--

(1) to advise the Secretary and the Director on priority areas for research;

(2) to assist the Director in the development of the research plan under section 2; and

(3) to provide other assistance and advice as requested by the Secretary or the Director.

(b) Federal Advisory Committee Act- Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory Committee established under subsection (a) until 3 years after the date the Advisory Committee is established.

My Perspective: The Party of No vs. The Party of Ideas

Being the party of ideas is not a good thing and being the party of no is not a bad thing. However being the party of ideas is not a bad thing and being the party of no is not a good thing either. If I have confused you than let me help everyone understand what the political concepts behind the party of no and the party of ideas. Many political pundits, political politicians and even news anchors don’t do a good job at explaining political jargon to the average American and that is what I am going to explain to you all in the best way I can.

Some people think being the party of no is a bad thing but in reality it is not a bad thing because sometimes we do need our politicians or a political party to say no to something’s that another politician or political party wants to do. However being the party of no is not a good thing either because even the party of no must have a good reason behind why they are saying no to certain legislation. Even the party of no must come up with an alternative to the legislation or idea that they are saying no to because we the American people don’t just like people saying no without having an alternative solution to what is being proposed. So the party of no can’t be simply saying no without actually putting together a better alternative that actually works.

Then again people think the party of ideas is a good thing and it is too a degree. We elect politicians based off their ideas and being the party of ideas helps in terms of coming up with ideas for the American people to vent through to see which ideas are in the best interest of us. However being the party of ideas can be bad because all ideas are not good no matter how people try to sell it. Some ideas that the party of ideas may come up with probably are costly and aren’t in the best interest of the American people or this nation financially. So the party of ideas has to be careful to make sure it brings out the best ideas and not ideas that set us the American people and America back.

However what political pundits, politicians and news shows don’t tell you is that the party of no and the party of ideas need each other more than many people what to think. The party of ideas needs the party of no because the party of no helps the party of ideas come up with the best ideas or at least flush out some of the waste that is in the original idea to get a new piece of legislation that is as close to good as possible in order to get it passed. Still the party of no needs the party of ideas because the party of no needs someone to say no too. If there were no ideas to float around than the party of no wouldn’t have a reason to say no or a reason to come up with an alternative. Nonetheless the party of no and the party of ideas are tied at the hip and the truth is that both parties know it regardless if they want to admit it or not.

The sad thing is that both political parties play politics at every change they get and as a result of playing politics, the party of no tends to just say no without offering any alternatives and the party of ideas simply pushes through their ideas no matter if it contains bad things or not. When the party of no and the party of ideas do this, it only hurts us the American people and our country. The party of no is judged as obstructionists while the party of ideas gets the label as dictators or bullies because they are ramming their ideas through without it properly being vetted. The party of ideas can tend to be bully and the party of no can be stubborn because both political parties just want to see how they either keep power or gain power back which leads to this type of labeling of parties and the political bickering that dooms tons of legislation that can help us the American people and our country in both the short and long term.

The political pundits don’t like to say this because even they are caught up in trying to boost their political party while demonizing or branding the other political party in a negative light. The politicians are not going to say this because they don’t want to lose any support from their own political party affiliation and they don’t want to hurt their parties chances of getting a piece of legislation through or stopping a piece of legislation from going through. Then the newscasters aren’t going to expose this because many of them have their own personal bias when it comes to politics and even the news stations themselves are bias with many of them owned by the left wing brand called NBC/MSNBC (Liberal) or right wing brand called Fox News (Conservative).

So the party of no and the party of ideas will never be exposed unless we the people get beyond the political rhetoric people are talking to read the actual legislation or ideas that many of us as a people don’t read. There are tons of ideas floating around about education, healthcare, the economy, taxes, etc. but not all ideas are good ideas and not all ideas are bad ideas. That is why the party of ideas and the party of no need each other to work in unison to come up with the best idea that will help us the American people and our country. It is when the party of ideas floats an idea and truly vets it to see how the public likes it as well as what the party of no has to say about it and what alternatives or suggestions the party of no might have to add to it that the best legislation is usually passed on behalf of the American people.

But due to the fact both political parties are too busy trying to score political victories in the sense of gaining more political power and clout that can lead to victories around election time, only delays political legislation that can benefit us the American people. Think about it people, if you don’t like the party of ideas than vote the party of no or if you don’t like the party of no than vote the party of ideas but are those the answers or solutions to what ails us. Isn’t there any other alternative than to put the party of ideas in place of the party no or the party of no in place of the party of ideas because wouldn’t that make the party of no the party of ideas and the party of ideas the party of no. Bingo! That is exactly the case. The labeling of political parties in terms of being the party of no and the party of ideas depends on who is in political control of the U.S. Congress or even your State Congress. The party of ideas is usually the political party that is in control and the party of no is the political party that is in the minority.

Still we the American people are just continuing a cycle and it is time for us to understand a lot of the political rhetoric and jargon that thrown around so that we do our own research on the party of no and the party of ideas to see why is certain legislation taking so long to get passed and why so few ideas work out the way we were told it would. The party of no is a good thing and a bad thing but it all depends on the cards that are dealt that dictates if the party of no is bad or good. The party of ideas is not a bad thing or good thing but it all depends on the deck of cards that the party of ideas wants to deal from the beginning that determines if the party of ideas is good or bad. Thus we the American people have to do our own research and get beyond the status quo look underneath the surface of what isn’t being said and try to understand it for ourselves the best way that we can.

This is how we uncover the truth behind the party of no and the party of ideas by doing our own research on both political parties ideas and reasons for saying no. Let’s not just assume that because the party of no is saying no that they don’t have an alternative or a better alternative to the problem. Let’s not just assume that because the party of ideas is has an idea that it is the best idea for the problem we are dealing with because how many of us have come up with an idea on our own and tried to implement it without any input from others and it failed in the worst way possible. This is just some of the things we have to think about when we hear what the party of no and the party of ideas have to say to us. We the American people must really vet the party of no and the party of ideas so that we understand what they are saying as well as what they are saying. When people say all things are political, please believe it because that’s how the party of no and the party of ideas operate in terms of using political strategy to either say ahead or to get ahead. Learn it, maneuver through it and educate others on how to get behold the political bickering and jargon in order to find the truth.

Groups increase ads targeting Neb. Sen. Nelson

Two groups that have targeted Democratic U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson in ads calling for health care reform are stepping up their efforts.

Howard Dean's Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee began airing a television ad featuring a Ralston, Neb. business owner on Friday. In the ad, the man calls for Nelson to support Democratic-backed health-care proposals.

The groups had planned to run the add 200 times in Nebraska and 50 times in Washington.

But following a response last week from Nelson's office, the groups announced Monday that the ad will run 600 times in Nebraska, and 100 times in Washington.

Sen. Mike Johanns, Nelson's Republican colleague, criticized the ads, saying he was "appalled by the misleading tactics being used ... to bully" Nelson.

Christie Opens Lead In N.J., Attack Ads Intensify

Republican Ahead By 14 Points In Latest Monmouth/Gannett Poll; Charges Corzine's Campaign With Fabricating Ads

CBS 2 HD Uncovers Evidence That Exonerates Christie In 'Walking Out' Ad

A new Monmouth College/Gannett poll shows Republican Chris Christie is leading Jon Corzine by 14 points among likely voters in the New Jersey gubernatorial election. This despite a visit from the top Democrat in the land, President Barack Obama, not too long ago.

And as the Corzine camp tries to figure out a way to close that gap, both campaigns are bickering about the meaning behind a new ad.

The ad wars are sizzling. First, Corzine tried to pummel Christie.

"When they demanded the truth, Chris Christie got up and left," the television spot in question said.

Christie returned the favor.

"Jon Corzine told us he'd cut taxes and bring jobs to New Jersey, but he's done exactly the opposite."

But Christie said the Corzine ad is unfair.

It shows him walking out of a Congressional hearing in June, where he was on the hot seat over multi-million dollar contracts he gave to friends when he was New Jersey U.S. Attorney.

"Christie gave one to the prosecutor who let his brother off on a stock fraud investigation, another to Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft. But when the time came for telling the truth, Christie got up and left."

Christie apparently did give out the contracts, but in his defense he said he wasn't walking out. He told the House Judiciary Committee he had to leave. A letter obtained by CBS 2 HD shows Christie told Chairman John Conyers quitting time for him was 1:30 p.m.

"The ad is a complete fabrication because not only did I send a letter saying I had to leave at 1:30, also the committee had agreed," Christie told CBS 2 HD.

Corzine, however, stands by his ad.

"The commercial is not a depiction. It's the facts," Corzine said.

Corzine doesn't like the Christie ad that claims unemployment jumped 73 percent on his watch.

"For the exact same time frame unemployment is up 96 percent everywhere else in the country," Corzine said.

Christie seemed confident his ad is 100 percent accurate.

"Moody's says today that our employment situation now and going forward to 2013 is worse than most other states in the nation, so Jon Corzine can paint whatever happy face he wants. A third party has verified what I've been saying," Christie said.

So will the negative ads stop? Well with 91 days to go, don't bet on it.

The negative ads are having the desired effect. The latest polls show that in voters' eyes, Christie's "negatives" have gone up 6 points since Corzine started airing the ads.

Rep. Sestak will try to unseat Sen. Specter of Pa.--By MARYCLAIRE DALE (AP)

Three years after he knocked off a veteran House incumbent, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak will seek a bigger prize and challenge Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter for his long-held U.S. Senate seat.

Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral, announced his Senate candidacy Tuesday at a crowded VFW hall in his suburban Philadelphia district, near his hometown. He then began a two-day, five-stop swing through the state.

Standing with his wife, Susan, the second-term representative vowed to put "principles over politics."

"We must restore the promise of the American Dream — that our children will have the opportunity, based upon their talents, to do even better than their parents," Sestak said. "Let's again lead this world by example and not intimidation."

In April, the five-term Specter severed his decades-long ties with the Republican Party to become a Democrat. He said, in part, it was to avoid a Republican primary challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey, who nearly beat him in the 2004 primary.

Sestak, 57, is challenging a White House-backed candidate who has millions more in the bank. But Sestak enters the race with enough money to get off to a competitive start and he has the potential to give Specter, 79, a serious run.

Much of Sestak's organizational and financial support would likely come from those in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who have been slow to embrace Specter.

Sestak's announcement had been expected. He has been campaigning and already visited each of the state's 67 counties.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Specter and Toomey in a close race, while Specter had a significant lead over Sestak.

Specter's campaign manager, Christopher Nicholas, on Tuesday denounced Sestak's "taxpayer-financed self-promotion tour around the state" and criticized the congressman for missing 105 House votes this year.

Specter has the advantage of backing from much of the party establishment. President Barack Obama and Gov. Ed Rendell, both Democrats, have pledged support. On Monday, his campaign released the names of more than a hundred party leaders who have endorsed him.

Recently, he voted against letting people carry hidden guns in 48 states if they have a concealed weapon permit in any of those states. The vote was viewed as an example of him attempting to appeal to party liberals.

Toomey's campaign issued a statement Tuesday welcoming Sestak to the race and calling him "a consistent liberal who really believes in his values," as compared to Specter, "a career political opportunist who believes in nothing but his own re-election."

Sestak supporter Tony Lucchesi, 47, of Norwood, questioned Specter's party switch.

"When he changed sides, I was't real comfortable with his reason," the laid-off trucking salesman said at the VFW post after Sestak's announcement. "He wanted to stay a senator, and he didn't think he could win as a Republican."

Sestak graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and commanded an aircraft carrier battle group during post-9/11 operations in Afghanistan. He has graduate degrees from Harvard University and served as director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

After more than 30 years in the Navy, he returned to Pennsylvania to run for office. In 2006, he defeated GOP Rep. Curt Weldon, who spent two decades representing what had historically been a Republican district. He won re-election in 2008 with 60 percent of the vote.

Sestak has $4.3 million in cash, while Specter has $7.6 million, according to the candidates' latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling in Washington contributed to this report.

On the Net:
Rep. Joe Sestak: http://www.joesestak.com
Sen. Arlen Specter: http://www.specter2010.com/

My Perspective: The Future of Education

The Future of Education must involve math, English science, social studies and foreign language with electives like art, music/band, and drama. Our youth need to be able to compete and the only way that can happen is by having them learn one or two foreign languages to compete with the likes of students from China, India, etc. We have to get serious about education and it starts with labeling our core curriculums and making sure our students have those core subjects from 1st grade until their senior year of high school or at least their 1st year of college.

I'm Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV

"Like the old joke goes, President Obama isn't a doctor, but he plays one on TV -- giving Americans a discomforting glimpse of life under ObamaCare, with government leaders and bureaucrats dispensing medical opinions that are better left to doctors, medical professionals, and patients," said House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "This is a lighthearted video, but it underscores a serious point that Congressional Democrats are going to hear throughout August as they travel outside of Washington: Americans want lower health care costs not a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and lets Washington bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by doctors and patients."

The House GOP Health Care Solutions Group has crafted a health care reform plan that will address rising health care costs and expand health care access and quality at a price our country can afford. To read about this better solution, go to http://blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=1140 . President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should scrap their plan for a government-run health care system and start over, and work with Republicans for real health care reforms that will make a positive difference for all Americans.

CNN Highlights GOP Web Video on President's Health Plan

CNN highlighted the new web video released yesterday by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) about President Obamas health care plan. The video is lighthearted, but one that underscores a serious point Congressional Democrats will hear throughout August as they travel outside of Washington: Americans want lower health care costs not a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and puts Washington bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.

The Truth About Health Care Insurance Reform

In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White Houses Health Reform Office, addresses a story that makes it look like the President intends to eliminate private coverage, when the reality couldnt be further from the truth.

Editorial: Soaking the middle class

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Having doubled the federal budget deficit in just six months in office, the Obama administration now says that the expanding deficit threatens the nation's fragile economic recovery and will require sacrifice to contain.

Sacrifice in the form of middle-class tax hikes, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Chief Economic Adviser Larry Summers.

Voters who swallowed candidate Barack Obama's oft-repeated pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year may be surprised to hear this warning. But they shouldn't be.

Politicians are notorious for breaking no-new-taxes pledges. Had they only done the math, voters would have realized that Obama couldn't deliver on his sweeping expansion of government by cutting out waste and soaking the rich, as he promised. The president gave up early trying to find big money from trimming government fat, coming up with less than a half-percent of savings in his first budget. And there's only so much he can squeeze out of the wealthy.

The middle class is where the money is, and that's where the administration will have to go to get the cash to fund its programs.

This would be a good time for those middle-income earners to think about how much they're willing to pay for Obama's ambitions. Congress is on summer vacation, and most members are back in their districts, presumably listening to constituents.

They should be getting an earful from the taxpayers who will be saddled with the $1 trillion to $2 trillion 10-year cost of the administration's health care plan.

With Summers and Geithner already talking about broad tax hikes to cover the deficits the administration has posted so far, voters may want to seriously weigh how much more government they can afford.

Likewise with the carbon cap-and-trade proposal that has already passed the House. It will cost the average household an estimated $3,000 annually in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Everyone wants a cleaner environment and everyone wants health care reform. But how much of each taxpayers are able to pay for should be a major consideration as these policies are shaped.

This isn't the end of what Obama has on his wish list. He also envisions expanding social spending on everything from college tuition to housing, and can be expected to drive up the deficit further with additional economic stimulus outlays.

It's good that Geithner and Summers have finally dropped the fantasy that the wealthy will pick up the tab for these vast new programs and everyone else will enjoy a free ride. It's not going to happen that way.

Taxpayers should make sure Congress understands their tolerance level for higher tax bills before it resumes debate this fall on massive new spending programs.

And the next time they come across a political candidate who promises them they can have a bright, new world that someone else will pay for, they should be a lot less gullible.

Editorial: Bankruptcy fallout

Our Editorials—Detroit News
Monday, August 3, 2009

Erasing costs through municipal bankruptcy may be attractive, but would taint the rest of the state

Municipal bankruptcy is like dropping an atomic bomb -- it may wipe out a problem, but the state will be living with the fallout for a long time. And there's no accounting for the drift.

If a school district or a city goes into bankruptcy, which is being talked about for the Detroit Public Schools and even Detroit itself, its credit rating and ability to float bonds for roads, bridges or school repairs would, in the words of municipal finance expert Lou Schimmel, be "devastated."

But there also is a strong likelihood that the credit rating of other Michigan school districts and municipalities would be damaged. As Schimmel stated, there would be a "black mark" for everyone.

Many school bond issues, for example, are run through a state loan fund, and the state essentially guarantees them. A school district bankruptcy may taint all other bond issues.

For a school district or a city to go into bankruptcy, its council or school board would have to give up control of its finances, and the state may have to surrender control as well. State law allows a state-appointed emergency financial manager of a city to seek approval for a federal bankruptcy proceeding, which would allow a bankruptcy court to throw out existing contracts, including labor agreements.

But under federal bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy judge may appoint a trustee to oversee the restructuring of the local unit's finances -- and there's no guarantee the trustee would be the financial manager named by the state.

It may be that Detroit Public Schools Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb, surveying the wreckage of years of financial mismanagement and a declining revenue base, would have no choice but to go into bankruptcy. He has more leeway to do so under state law than would an emergency manager of financially troubled city.

Bobb, as The Detroit News reported recently, has hired experts to advise him on the possibility. The district has the example of a federal court ruling involving the California city of Vallejo, upholding the abrogation of its labor contracts after the city went into bankruptcy.

Once unthinkable, bankruptcy is now being examined as an option, particularly in light of the "quick rinse" bankruptcies of the Chrysler and General Motors corporations.

Both Detroit's school district and city government have struggled for years with union negotiations over pay and work rules that have added costs to running the two operations. It has sometimes been easier, particularly for the city, to trim payroll rather than cut pay or benefits.

Bankruptcy can seem an attractive option in dealing with intractable unions.

It's in the best interest of employee unions in both the city and school district to take the threat of bankruptcy seriously and not push the administrations into such a financial corner that it is the only option.

If it can be avoided, it should be. A bankruptcy in Detroit would have the unfair effect of imposing doubts on bond issues and additional costs via higher rates throughout Michigan at a time when all of the school districts and municipalities are struggling.

ON IMMIGRATION- HISTORY IS ON OUR SIDE PART IV

The Immigrant Rights Movement in the Obama Era
Javier Rodriguez 31 July 2009 LaRayueladeJavier. blogspot. Com
From baja California

The fact that the street grass roots pressure, which traditionally is the face of the massive immigrant rights movement in the US is presently at a low ebb, does not mean that the process of the 23 year struggle to empower the undocumented immigrant in the US is at a stand still. On the contrary, the political reality we are presently living is comparable, but richer, to the period that ended in 1986, when then President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 that legalized millions of immigrants. Undocumented or not, the present moment for immigrants and the 47 million Latinos in America is extraordinary because inspite of the capitalist global crisis and despite the predictable and fierce upcoming anti immigrant right wing campaign now in motion with the introduction of new legistaive initiatives as well as the government’s expansión of the EVerify and 287g programs, the political conditions today unequivocally point to a national consensus for the passage of another landmark immigration reform law in 2009.

Since January several favorable national indicators have surfaced. The latest is an interview of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid published in the Spanish language daily La Opinion. The powerful democrat clearly expresses his view that immigration reform will be debated and probably approved this year because “the votes are there in congress”. This comes in the heals of several other major developments including revealing national opinión polls, the highly expected June 25, 2009 meeting between President Barack Obama, cabinet members and key congressional legislators and last the fact that Senator Judiciary Sub Committee Chairman Charles Schumer has assured the country that a comprehensive reform bill will be introduced this coming September.

Traditionally since the mega marches of 2006 ensued and subsequently every year since, opinión polls have guaged the thinking of the American people on the often volatile issue of immigration and the legalization of the 12 millon plus undocumented workers and their families. Especially after the May 1st street marches and boycotts and this year is no different.. Immediatelly after the May Day celebration in more than 100 cities, the Bendixen & Associates Firm polled the Latino community and the study projected an important increase of support for legalization which for the first time topped 80%. In this context to further explore the Latino state of mind in America, the PEW Hispanic Poll of 2008 becomes more relevant. “More than four-in-five Hispanics (81%) say that immigration enforcement should be left mainly to the federal authorities rather than the local police; 76% disapprove of workplace raids; 73% disapprove of the criminal prosecution of undocumented immigrants who are working without authorization; and 70% disapprove of the criminal prosecution of employers who hire undocumented immigrants. A narrow majority (53%) disapproves of a requirement that employers check a federal database to verify the legal immigration status of all prospective hires.

The survey finds that a majority of Latinos worry about deportation. Some 40% say they worry a lot and an additional 17% say they worry some that they themselves, a family member or a close friend may be deported. This is up slightly from 2007, when 53% of Latino adults said that they worried a lot or some about deportation (Pew Hispanic Center 2007).

Not surprisingly, worries about deportation and perceptions of discrimination in jobs or housing because of Hispanic ethnicity correlate with the view that Latinos' situation has worsened in the past year. Two-thirds (68%) of Latinos who worry a lot that they or someone close to them may be deported say that Latinos' situation in the country today is worse than it was a year ago, as do 63% of Latinos who have experienced job difficulties because of their ethnicity and 71% of Latinos who report housing difficulties because of their ethnicity

Why is this important? The 47 million Latinos in the US and the millions of undocumented immigrants are one and the same. 67% of this sector has one or more undocumented members in their households. Additionally, measuring and understanding the thinking of the rising Latino population is paramount in this all important and contemporary fight for dignity and equality. On immigration, like African Americans during the historic campaign for civil rights, latinos are the hub and the motor forcé of this struggle.

The third poll.Hidden amidst the worldwide coverage of the recent and unfortunate death of Singer Michael Jackson, another national poll on immigration silently came to the fore and entered the immigration debate. The Benenson Strategy Group’s findings revealed a stunning 86% public support for legalization. More surprising, the study also found a 67% Republican majority for legalization and here is the banger, when this conservative block was informed that when legalizing their status, immigrants will then pay taxes and other sundries, the support increased dramatically to a whopping 89%.

The White House June 25 discussion on Reform legislation. After two postponements, the top level showdown finally took place. The following is a synopsis of that Washington gathering which was observed closely by a delegation of Mexican, Central American and Caribbean diplomats, some of who are close to the Los Angeles based March 25 Coalition and other immigrant rights organizations in the US. The meeting was atended by President Obama, VP Biden, four cabinet members and 30 members of congress. It was the President who uttered the opening remarks and put forth the most important question to the legislators present: were there enough votes in the present session and were the legislative times sufficient to present and approve the legislation this year, as promised during the presidential campaign? The president’s inquiry was important because prior to this meeting his Chief of Staff Rham Emmanuel and the White House press spokesperson had both erroneusly affirmed, “there are not enough votes to pass immigration legislation in 2009”.

House Democratic Whip and Black Caucus President James E. Clyburn, of South Carolina informed the President that the 218 votes needed in the House to pass the legislation were there and the total included, on one side, the loss of democratic votes and on the other, Republicans moving to the plus side. Then Liberal Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the presiding Immigration and Judicial Sub-Committees chair interjected, adding that the Senate had the 60 votes needed for the legislation. More, the republican hawk John MCain confirmed Schumer’s assertions.

The meeting was atended by the most active Latino legislators on immigration reform in both the house and the senate. It was from this quarter that the president was warned that if immigration reform was not taken seriously and brought about this year, the possibilities of civil unrest was real.

In conclusión, a consensus to introduce immigration reform legislation this year was hatched. That the president’s leadership was fundamental and needed to ensure a smooth passage. More, that a commission take on the development of the proposed bill to be debated and voted upon in both houses during this year’s sessions.

Not long after the Washington conclave, Senator Schumer went public and announced his office will produce the bill to be introduced in the senate by Labor Day September 7, 2009.. With it, Schumer, like Reid, President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi before, placed forth a framework for the upcoming legislation and debate. In this sense the Washington political class is ahead of the game, meaning ahead of the immigrant rights movement, which with some exceptions, has primarily concentrated its guns on demanding that immigration reform in general be placed on the floor of congress.

The fact that after 23 years of struggle we have traveled this far, is a testament to the massive and persistent work accomplished by the pro immigrant forces as a whole and also to the intense level of political activity displayed for the last four and half years, since the coming of the paramilitary Minuteman and the defeat of the extreme right wing Sensenbrenner Bill HR4437.

This is the general panorama and it is obvious that the most important sectors, that is, the overwhelming majority of the American people, including Latinos, African Americans, democrats, congress and the new administration at the White House, progressives, liberals, conservatives, labor, clergy, business, the Latino and the major mainstream liberal media, from any political angle make a national consensus.

However the politics on immigration have turned murky. The Obama Administration, through its Department of Homeland Security, headed by Director Janet Napolitano, in anyone’s eyes, has opted for continuing and expanding repressive policies of massive displacement of workers and their families through the 287g agreements with police departments, the faulty and discredited E-verify program, the I-9 work place audits. The fear and terror factors are on without the public armed ICE raids of the last years. Additionally, the border wall of death in cement and virtual versions will become a reality and the continuous incarceration and prosecution of over 200,000 Mexican immigrants, primarily on immigration violations and of these, 20,000 plus are Mexican indians sitting in penitentiaries serving long term sentences.

Politically, what does it all mean? After six months of the new change you can believe in presidency, it can be said that the Obama administration is also looking at immigrants through the lens of criminality and potential terrorists and is seeking the consolidation of institutional persecution, disguized as national security. The political myopia is clearly on a collision course with the thinking of Latinos and immigrants as a whole, as so eloquently revealed in the findings of the PEW Hispanic Poll. So, the masks are off. “Welcome to the immigrant rights movement under the Barack Obama Administration” . As of this writing 1,600 American Apparel workers in Los Angeles are on the verge or have been fired for not having papers and the move Napolitano is making involves the same operative at 652 work places and possibly hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers nationally may lose their jobs. This is the climax of a move begun by former President Bush in early 2008 through Immigration and Customs Enforcement of I-9 investigation of employee rolls. Plain and simple, Obama could have stopped it administratively with a presidential executive order, much like the campaign promise of 2008 to officially end raids.

If you take the bull by the horns and analyze Obama’s DHS policies, they are a softer but never the less vicious approach on the immigration enforcement issue. Think of it this way. The psychology of imperial arrogance is at work with the new “Change you can believe in administration” . The policies being implemented on millions of immigrants have been and continue to be domestic, but they are comparable and parallel to international US conduct on the countries of the third world. The hypocritical double speak of today is the norm in justifying the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. The State Department is also agressively moving on Iran. And presently the most elucidating example for us is the coup in Honduras. The president has stated for international consumption that Manuel Zelaya is the constitutionally democratically elected president in Honduras. However, it has been clear for some time that the overthrow of Zelaya was orchestrated by the US Embassy in Honduras and it was directed by well known and experienced extreme right wing Cuban American diplomats who have served the empire as far back as the Nicaragua Contra War. All in the name of democracy and the American dream. Is the president in denial?

The rhetoric on immigration is similar and comparative. The present immigration to the US has its roots in worldwide capitalist globalization, which for this hemisphere essentially means that neo liberalism and its international agreements such as NAFTA and the long term tentacles of US economic power have savagely exploited the immigration sending countries(paí ses expulsores). Mexico is the perfect example. Not only have Mexicans not reached the promised land of the first world but instead as promised with the signing of the trade agreement with Canada and the US, it now has a 50% poverty rate with over 25 million living in extreme conditions. So, for the last 29 years since Ronald Reagan and the extreme right took the reins of the empire, the capitalist stranglehold has deepened in Latin America causing the extreme pauperization of these nations and logically massifying the undocumented worker bonanza. No identifications, no regularization and in the shadows with no labor or human rights. This is the ideal migrant worker for the labor market of the civilized “democratic countries”.

As in Honduras and the rest of the rising Latin American democracies, that for over a century have suffered US intervention and exploitation, for the benefit of bourgesie democracy of course, the blame is placed on their doorstep, they the victim. The same arrogant psychology is used on immigrants and extended to Latinos as a whole.

“We are a nation of immigrants but you are an illegal alien. All they want is a piece of the American dream. Send the criminals back. We need a comprehensive immigration reform framework to ensure our borders and strengthen national security, a guest worker program to get a grip on future immigration and a path to legalization but for those that broke the law they will have to pay a fine and then get in back of the line”. Getting in back of the line under the admitted broken immigration system emphatically means a wait of up to 15 years more to get the coveted green card. Like the coups and the fabricated wars of occupation, the real roots of immigration are glossed over. The American dream is always basked in patriotism, however the history of American capitalist accumulation of wealth based on indian genocide and their stolen lands, slavery, the war on Mexico and on past and present exploitation of immigrants is never up for discussion nor in the official history books. This is the language of the empire..

All this begs the question, in today’s complex world, where does our bright scholar President Obama’s theoretical and political direction come from. Recall that not long ago, progressive and left pundits were in an uproar analyzing with incisive precisión the coming to power of the neo-cons and the Washington based Project for a New American Century-PNAC, the think tank behind W. Bush and the neo fascist conceptions that guided his administration. Well in order to shed some clarity on the essence and the politics of the real change embodied by President Obama, we now know that the guiding light behind him and his administration is the “Theory of Soft and Smart Power/La Teoria del Poder Suave e Inteligente”, promoted by another Washington based think tank, the Center for Strategic and National Studies-CSIS. Here is a partial list of the board of trustees: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros, Brent Scowcroft and the chairman is former Senator Sam Nunn. Dazzling isn’t it, they are all war hawks. No friends of immigrants nor Hondurans.

For the sceptics and the inexperienced in this social struggle, the task at hand will seem insurmountable. Predictably they will concentrate on denouncing attempting to revert the government’s repression and this is good. So will all the legal eagles of the movement. The repression we are seeing today under Janet Napolitano’s expansión plan is an extention of the 33 moth campaign of low intensity warfare on immigrants, readily waged by the Bush administration after the mega street demonstrations that culminated in millions boycotting work and the closing of of thousands of businesses on May 1st 2006. The government’s objective then was to punish immigrants for their audacity to embarrass the empire and subsequently to forcé them and their organizations to accept the corporate designed bad immigration reform legislations of 2006-2007. Today, the ex Arizona Governor is implementing the same strategy. It is the same policy of rendition as well as a diversionary tactic. History is the guiding force which one must continuosly look at to further move forward the social struggle. The political reality is the context in which to keep our eyes fixed on the prize. On immigration, the major prize is full legalization and family reunification based on international Human rights standards that will lead to the empowerment, dignity and equality for all the undocumented in this country.

The big error made by progressives and the left in the period towards the successful passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, was its lack of a consistent unity, which at crucial moments of the debate, essentially left it without a national mechanism to represent the interests of the people and to lobby congress directly in Washington D.C. Although today, we can proudly assert that we, the older and the new generations of organizations and leaders, have moved mountains, it is also well known publicly that the divisions in the ranks have consumed a lot of the creative energy of this grass roots struggle. It is also undeniable that in these past 23 years, not only has the undocumented population tripled since 1986, but also of the social struggle, the accumulation of organizational, leadership and political experience has proliferated nationally to levels before inconceived. But the lack of consolidating a national progressive/ left organization within the immigrant rights quarters, is once again the colosal political error of our times. And it is needed to concert and coordinate its plans of action, establish a presence and influence congress on the make up and content of the upcoming reform law. If not, in this last stage, with exceptions, it will be primarily the same middle and upper class organizations that have endorsed the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, NAFTA and Attorney General Albert Gonzalez, amongst other national and international issues, who the Obama administration and congress will look to, not only for advise and direction, but also to accept, or buckle under to the power of the elites in the capitol as it happened with the Hagel-Martinez and the Grand Bargain Bills of 2006-07.

In the next few days Sonia Sotomayor will become the first Latina Supreme Court Justice. Health reform will be voted on in early September and immigration legislation will begin debate. Make no mistake. We are at the threshold of history-En el umbral de la historia. Immigration reform is coming. However, the last scenario described is highly probable, unless the massive activist movement takes the capitol with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on the streets, the halls of congress and the White House. We are certain that, yes, this radical move is out there in the hearts and minds of the people. As paradoxical as it maybe, sources close to the chairs of both the senate and the house say that the word from them and the hill is that “petitions and faxes good but not sufficient, that the streets have to be taken once again in huge numbers”. Understanding the history and psychology of the leadership of this movement, it is imperative that if anyone, whoever makes the move, do so convening not the mass event itself, but rather extend the invitation to leaders and organizational delegates to come together to plan the strategy. This is the quandary. *The March 25 Coalition, now in its fourth year, was founded in Los Angeles on 15 February 2006 and it is the umbrella organization that in conjunction with other local and national coalitions has organized and galvanized the making of the largest social movement for immigrant rights in the history of this country, with massive mega marches, as well as the May 1st Great American Boycott-A Day Without an Immigrant in 2006 and up to the present.*Javier Rodriguez, a Media-Political Strategist, is a co-founder of the National Coalition for Fair Immigration Laws and Practices 1973-78, C.A.S.A 1971 -78, the Coalition for Visas and Rights for the Undocumented 1982-90, California Latinos for Jesse Jackson 1984, the March 25 Coalition 2006, May 1st National Movement 2007 and Parlamento Migrante in Mexico City 2007. A progressive journalist, has also published for the LA Times, La Opinion, Eastern Group Publications, Uno Mas Uno-Mexico, syndicated with Hispanic Link, ZMAG.org, NetworkAztlan. com and STN’s Portaluno.com. He is now writing his experiences and perspective as a leading activist in the Immigrant rights movement, including the making of 25 March 2006.

Email bajolamiradejavier@ yahoo.com

--
Dorinda Moreno
Elders of 4 Colors 4 Directions
Hitec Aztec Collaborations/ FM Global
We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For!
<fuerzamundial@ gmail.net>

A 'Pay-Go' Full of Loopholes--By David S. Broder

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:49 PM

There is less than meets the eye to the Democrats' "pay-go bill," the lavishly touted gesture toward fiscal responsibility that the House passed on Wednesday.

The pay-as-you-go measure, known as pay-go and endorsed by President Obama, was hailed by Rep. George Miller of California, the head of the Democratic Policy Committee, as a device that will force Washington to "make tough choices" and "help bring our fiscal house in order."

Other sponsors, such as Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who genuinely worry about the flood of red ink inundating the government, were more modest in their claims. They acknowledged that by itself, the bill will do nothing to cure the giant budget deficits, but they said it might deter Congress from "digging the hole deeper."

Its key provision requires that any new tax cut or entitlement increase be paid for by an offsetting reduction in other programs or a tax increase. If, for example, you want to guarantee child care for every working mother or provide her with a payroll tax cut, you would have to find savings or revenue elsewhere of equal size.

When the Democrats controlled Congress back in 1990, they passed a similar law and it helped establish the kind of discipline that led briefly to balanced budgets in the Clinton administration.

When the law was about to expire in 2002, the Republican majority let it die, figuring that its absence would make it easier to pass more of the tax cuts recommended by President Bush. Deficits mushroomed.

In the 2006 election, the Democrats took over and the first thing they did was restore pay-go as a rule of the House and Senate. This year, Obama encouraged them to make it a law, hoping it would give him more power to enforce it.

It could do just the opposite. The bill says that at the end of the year, if Congress has spent more on new entitlements or tax cuts than it has saved, the president can roll back or sequester the excess. But the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper, warned in a July 14 memo that, as introduced, the bill might allow spending to increase -- and by a staggering amount.

"In effect," it said, "that rule would allow the Congress to enact legislation that would increase deficits by an amount in the vicinity of $3 trillion over the 2010-2019 period without triggering a sequestration."

The reason is that the bill exempts from pay-go all of the spending involved in Medicare physician payments and all of the revenue dependent on estate and gift taxes, the alternative minimum tax for individuals and the administration's plan to continue the middle-income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

That is not the only giant loophole in this version of pay-go. Unlike the one enacted in 1990, it is not accompanied by any multiyear cap on discretionary spending. That means the 40 percent of the budget reflected in annual appropriations bills for ongoing or new government programs does not have to be paid for.

When I asked Hoyer about the budget office report and these big exemptions, he said, "They are right." But he defended the exemptions as necessary to get the bill approved. If the Medicare payments and the tax breaks that may be coming were not exempted, he said, they would certainly be given waivers this year -- and that would set a bad precedent for the process.

To critics, including Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, that sounds like premature capitulation to the free-spending ways of Congress.

The realistic appraisal of this legislation came in a hearing of the House Budget Committee from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser last year to John McCain.

"It is important to recognize," he said, "that rules such as pay-go are no substitute for the genuine political will to solve the problem" of runaway budget deficits. "The very best-case scenario is that that legislation will not worsen an already bleak fiscal picture."

Keep that in mind as you listen to the Democrats celebrate.

davidbroder@washpost.com

Solutions Are the Problem in Education--By Mary Kennedy

Published Online: July 28, 2009
Commentary

There used to be a saying that if you were not part of the solution, you were part of the problem. The implication was that we all, collectively, were creating the problem, and that the solution required all of us to change together.

But in education, solutions are a big part of our problem. School people are swamped by a deluge of solutions. They suffer from reform fatigue.

A few years ago, I visited teachers in several districts spread across the nation. I was struck by the variety of interruptions they experienced in their classrooms, and by how many of these had begun as good intentions. Here’s one example: A science teacher took part in a National Geographic Society project that gave his students a chance to collect samples from a local waterway and contribute them to a national database. Sounds like a great idea, right? His class got to participate in a national science study. But the timing of the project caused the teacher to interrupt his ongoing science unit. When the project was finished, students had forgotten where they were in their regular curriculum.

National Geographic is hardly alone in wanting to help educators. The number of associations, institutions, government agencies, and volunteers of all kind who want to solve educational problems has grown so large that teachers are now surrounded by helpful voices and besieged by ideas too numerous to attend to. Instead of strengthening teaching, this multitude of innovations and reforms distracts both teachers and students from their central tasks, making it difficult to concentrate, to stay on task, and to sustain a coherent direction.

Moreover, these improvements often contradict one another. Consider two ideas currently on the table for evaluating teaching practice. On one hand, we have lesson study, a highly structured undertaking that requires months of collective effort and careful thought. On the other, we have walk-throughs, quick and unstructured events that can be conducted by one person in under five minutes. These ideas seem to make entirely different assumptions about how we can learn about teaching, yet they are both popular right now.

There have always been zealous education reformers, of course. But the number and variety of helpful ideas is now so great that the solutions themselves have become a problem.

It is easy to brainstorm about alternatives in education, but hard to anticipate their unintended consequences. Take, for instance, pullout programs. These well-intentioned entitlement programs, introduced in the 1960s, pull students out of their regular classrooms for special instruction. The timing of the pullout has to fit the pullout teacher’s schedule, which means that the original teacher must adjust her instructional schedule to accommodate this movement. Since both teachers may be teaching similar content, they also need to coordinate their instruction, something that takes time. And that is not all: Every time a student is pulled from a regular classroom, and every time that student returns to the regular classroom, the ongoing instruction is interrupted. Students are distracted, and so is the teacher. Lesson continuity and coherence are at risk.

Pullout programs are one of many helpful ideas introduced to improve education. Every test, every assembly, and every public-address announcement is a helpful addition that ultimately disrupts instructional continuity. Every change of schedule, from hourly to block scheduling and back to hourly, requires teachers to revise their routines and strategies. Every new policy, from zero tolerance to team-teaching, pulls teachers’ attention away from their teaching and toward solving a logistical problem. Instead of thinking about how to engage students with curriculum content, they must think about how to revise their procedures, schedules, and strategies to accommodate the newest helpful idea.

Remember when we decided that teachers should have telephones in their rooms? The idea was to “professionalize” the job. Well, now that teachers have telephones, parents can call up at any time to leave messages for their children. So when students are struggling with the difference between ¼ and ½, or debating the merits of the Bill of Rights, the phone rings. And it is right there, in the middle of the classroom and in the middle of every lesson.

The problem is this: Both teaching and learning require sustained attention. Not only do students need opportunities to think, but so do their teachers. More than anything, teachers need time to compose their thoughts and make sure that, when they approach a new unit or a new lesson, they have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish.

Students are even more vulnerable to distractions. In my conversations with teachers, I have found that they care more about maintaining the momentum of the lesson than anything else. The central challenge of teaching is finding enough uninterrupted time to get students’ minds wrapped around an idea, and keeping it there until the idea makes sense to them. Disruptions don’t merely take a few moments of class time: After them, teachers often feel that they need to rewind the entire lesson and begin anew.

Yet we live in a time when reforms and fads have become so commonplace that every new board member or superintendent feels a need to make a personal mark on his or her district by introducing something new. As these policymakers come and go, teachers are buffeted by the raft of competing new ideas they leave behind. So routine turnovers in leadership reignite this continuing series of distractions, further reducing teachers’ chances of finding time for reflection and maintaining a stable environment for intellectual work.

No wonder that when the new superintendant comes to town, and the new professional-development program is brought in, teachers go into their classrooms and quietly shut their doors.

Every American teacher feels some level of reform fatigue. If you think you are part of the solution, check again. You may be part of the problem.

Mary Kennedy is a professor in the department of teacher education at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Mich.

Are Schools Wounding Kids?--By Kathie Marshall

Published: July 29, 2009

When I returned to the classroom this year after six years as a literacy coach, I chose to teach a reading intervention class other teachers actively avoided—a mix of 6th and 7th graders reading at a mid-2nd to early 4th grade level.

It was a year of change for me as a teacher. I was returning to the classroom for the first time since No Child Left Behind prompted my district to introduce mandatory instructional programs. These included a scripted reading curriculum for our intervention students.

Teaching struggling readers wasn’t new to me. In the late 1990s I had created a language arts intervention course using service learning as the primary vehicle for motivation. Now, however, I found myself pushing students through a massive workbook each day. Their general response was, “It’s boooooring!”

Pretty quickly I found myself “cheating”—changing up the curriculum on Fridays. We read plays from Action Magazine, wrote and illustrated poems, did word games, and sent letters to pen pals and authors. I began letting my more creative side breathe a bit. When the theme included a story about wacky inventions, we had a contest in which students devised their own. When author Elisa Kleven’s scrap art was introduced, students invented their own scrap-art figures and wrote character sketches. Throughout the year, there was this constant tension between what I was supposed to be doing with students and what I was actually doing.

And what was I supposed to be doing? To me, hand-in-hand with the goal of improving reading was the equally important goal of providing my at-risk students with positive learning experiences. Many were already beaten down and convinced they were losers. Bringing some fun and win-win into the classroom equation would help them, however cautiously, to try once more. Was this not important, too?

Teacher-consultant Bill Page defines at-risk students as “Children who are expected to fail because teachers cannot motivate, control, teach, or interest them using traditional methods and prescribed curriculum.” This is precisely what I observed in the early months with my intervention students.

To shine a light on these issues, one day I had my kids sit in a large circle. One child at a time answered the question, “When did you turn off to school?” In my years as literacy coach, I met privately with intervention students who had the lowest grade point averages, and they always had an answer to this question. Most often they turned off in 3rd or 6th grade, when they realized they were struggling and others around them seemingly were not.

Interestingly, seven of my 7th graders this year had turned off to school in the 2nd grade, when they were part of a district experiment that retained the lowest performers. They still had not forgotten what it felt like to be left behind as their friends moved on. At least now I was able to tell them how sorry I was this happened to them. Surely these students deserve a chance to heal the hurt and rethink their identities as learners, something no scripted curriculum I’m aware of can address.

‘Teachers’ Little Comments’
Recently, I came across Kirsten Olson’s new book, Wounded by School. I immediately devoured it and found more insights into the world of at-risk students.

Olson explains that her book began “with a desire to understand the experiences of highly capable learners, virtuoso explorers who showed unusual vitality in learning.” But she was “quickly diverted by the repeated and powerful descriptions among my research subjects of educational wounding and laceration in school.”

As I read this, I immediately saw an image of myself as a 6th grader. I was walking back to class after recess, and for perhaps the fifth day in a row I asked my teacher, “Can I go to the nurse? I have a headache.” “What’s wrong with you?” shouted Mr. Wright. “Why do you always have a headache?!” It was another 15 years before my migraines were diagnosed. I warily hid my headaches from others after my teacher taught me to believe something was wrong with me as a person.

Wounded by School delineates a dozen different types of school wounding and their effects, including:
• Feeling you aren’t smart and your ideas lack value.
• Feeling you don’t have what it takes to be successful in school.
• Feeling ashamed of your efforts.• Suffering a loss of ambition, self-discipline, and persistence when faced with obstacles.

In a section called “wounds of rebellion,” I found my intervention kids and their defensive symptoms:
• The only way to protect yourself is to rebel.
• In response to being unsuccessful or told we are unworthy, we become hostile.
• We are unwilling to see another point of view.• We act out, as an adaptive response and it becomes fixed, maladaptive, and self-destructive.

Olson quotes one student, who remembers a crushing moment in 7th grade that led him to declare, “I quit! I just really quit!”

The student saw himself as a screw-up: “Basically I became motivated to not do well—like what I could do well was not to do well. ... Kids that struggle are so much more sensitive to moments—especially bad ones. These moments shape their whole lives, their sense of themselves. Teachers’ little comments had a huge effect on me.”

These lines could have been spoken by any one of my intervention students. In an essay about three strengths of his, one of my students wrote: “I am good at three things. I can draw (graffiti), I like to be bad, and I get in trouble a lot.”

Olson’s book is not directed only at struggling students. Her research clearly shows that all students are vulnerable to school wounds. She nails what I observed this year among the most capable 6th graders in my English and history classes. She writes:

“Rather than making them more dutiful, more competent, and more disciplined, they grew weary of school and learning … risk averse, overly intimidated by authority, or likely to underestimate themselves … simply deadened—less enlivened by the world and its possibilities than they might be.”

I wonder if this was why some of my most successful classroom projects from past years seemed less engaging this time around. Although these students were strong oral readers and tested well, they didn’t enjoy reading, were often highly apathetic toward learning, and resisted staying on-task if the work was challenging. As a result, I was disappointed at times by their response to assignments that had once excited and engaged my students before I became a literacy coach.

On our last day of school this June, as I dismissed the class with the cheery words “have a great summer,” one of my best students turned back and said, “We’ve been waiting for this day since September.”

What is within our control to do differently?

After eight years as a literacy coach, Kathie Marshall returned to her Los Angeles classroom in the fall of 2008 to teach middle grades language arts. She writes frequently about instructional practice and the teaching life.

My Perspective: All Politics Are Local

“All Politics is Local.”
Thomas (Tip) P. O’Neill, former U.S. Congressman & House Speaker

If all politics are local than why do so few people care about what is taking place in their city, town yet alone country or state. Why do so few people on facebook talk about the local political issues in their place of location but many talk about national issues? I have been hearing since I was a little boy that all politics are local but it seems that very few people care enough to talk about the local political issues affecting us as a people. I have had phone conversations with people who complain about education in their city or state but instead of talking about these issues and sharing what they would do with their local school board or state board of education, many just complain without doing anything.

Let me take it step further, so many people speak to me about how their politicians such as school board members, city council members, mayor, state representatives, state senator, governor, U.S. Congress member or U.S. Senator doesn’t do anything but when they have the opportunity to try to vote those people out, people don’t even show up to the polls unless it is a Presidential candidate on the ballot. When will it change people. All politics are local but even my age group, the youth in this nation fail to realize that. Even those who are politically savvy seem so caught in the national scene of politics that they fail to speak out against the local political issues plaguing their community, city or state.

When will it change people and when will we realize that no matter how much a President does in D.C. or what the members of Congress do in D.C. that money that comes to our city or state have to go through our local governments so if we don’t have the right people in place at the local level than that money will be wasted. If we as a people don’t put the right people in office on the state level than we are going to see our taxes raise in our state in order to balance budgets or the cutting of funding for certain state programs that are successful to us. If we as a people don’t elect the right put to our local school boards than instead of our local school board ensuring our children get the right resources to obtain a world class education than they will waste funds on old textbooks and give contracts to friends or put it in their own pockets. If we don’t elect the right leadership to local municipalities than we are going to see crime in our communities increase and the standard of living go down because our local municipalities aren’t spending the funds in the right way.

All politics are local but it seems that many people don’t care about their local elections. It seems as if people don’t take the time to elect people to school board, city council, etc. When will all of this change. When will we change national issues and turn them back into local issues and how they either benefit or hurt our local political discussions. This is what needs to take place. This is what many people in the age of Obama are missing. Local politics is the key to transforming America. It is clear that Obama has having a tough time changing Washington and he even admitted in his victory speech that he might not be able to change D.C. in one term. Therefore, we as people have to take hold of our local politics and change it. That’s where real change comes from, the local level.

If we are to change our education systems, our healthcare systems, our economy, and our future than it starts with getting involved in our local politics to change it. We have to change the status quo of politics on the local level. We have to change how we elect our local leaders and we must hold our local politicians accountable. It is time to stop getting outraged or obsessed with what Obama and the national government is doing when we aren’t doing the same for our local political issues. When will we as a people wake up and take hold of future and realize that it is through local political issues that we change government and how we do business. Most of our taxes as people come from our local and state governments. We have to understand that it is the people we elect to local and state government that harm or help us more so than those in D.C.

We as people have to do better and we have to engage ourselves in local politics if we are to change Washington. If we can’t change our local and state governments than changing D.C. will never occur. It is the local and state politics that helps D.C. stay the course of political bickering and discourse when the rest of the nation is suffering. We have to get political savvy and political astute about our local political issues because those are the issues that affect us more than our national political issues. It is the things at the local level that we as a people must monitor. It is no longer good enough for us a people to know who our President of the United States is but we don’t know who is our state representative, state senator, governor, school board member, city council member, mayor, U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator is? We have to do better people and this is the time to do it now rather than later.

We have to teach our youth that they must know about the local politics affecting their community such as crime, water rates, community clean ups, abandon houses, education, etc. We have to talk to our youth about local issues affecting our city, town or state because we can’t depend on our schools to do it. In fact if we don’t know the issues than we need to learn the issues right along with our youth if we are going to truly change the fate our nation. All politics are local but so few of us try to get involved in local politics. That is why we must get involved now in the local political issues plaguing us and we must share these issues with our neighbors, our family and friends no matter if it is through Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. We have to share our local political issues with each other so that we can perhaps share solutions on how to solve many of the issues plaguing our various cities, towns and states.

Now is the time to put change into affect by finally dealing with local political issues that impact us more than national issues. If not now than when, if not here than where, and if not today than what day? It is time to change the climate of local politics forever and it all starts with each of us getting involved in the local issues, discussing the local political issues, and sharing as well as shining light on those local issues plaguing our neighborhoods, communities, towns, cities and states. Be the change we want to be in the world but that all starts with changing our local politics.

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.”
Norman Vincent Peale (1898 - 1993)

My Perspective: Detroit’s GOTV Efforts Falling Short

I got to my polling precinct at about 9:30a.m. and I was only the 10 person to vote in my polling place which houses two precincts 1 and 2 for 13th. In fact I had to walk through another polling location in order to get mine and the turnout at that polling location was low as well but the candidates had their people out in full force. Still as I voted I asked the election people how many people had been through the polling location and they said I was probably the 20th or 25th person they have seen since voting started at 7a.m.

So it makes me wonder where is all the excitement about the local election like many had for the Presidential election. Where is the full throttle of getting out the vote and making sure more than 15% of Detroiter’s vote in this primary? Everyone has said that this election is about Detroit’s future and the fate of the city will be decided in more ways than one but it seems as if the message isn’t getting to people of Detroit. In fact I received an email yesterday from an organization of mine where one of the members said that it will be low turnout tomorrow and that might be good for many members of the organization I am a member of. However I beg to differ because low voter turnout doesn’t benefit anyone and it is sad because people marched, got beaten and dead for us to vote but many of us take election primaries and even general elections off that don’t have a Presidential candidate on it.

Detroit we have to do better than this and this is why according to one of my policy partner Akindele Akinyemi:

1. Unemployment: 22%.

2. Graduation High School rate: 24-38%.

3. Adult illiteracy: 55%

4. Bachelor's degree or higher: 11.0%

5. Graduate or professional degree: 4.2

6. Never married: 43.6%

7. Now married: 31.2

8. Separated: 4.2%

9. Widowed: 8.3%

10. Divorced: 12.7%

11. Ranks #1 in the nation in violent crime.

12. Wayne County, Michigan, lost more than 89,000 residents from 2000 to 2006 -- a loss of 4 percent of the county's 2 million residents.

13. A third of the population in Detroit lives in poverty.

14. Detroit Public Schools did not make AYP.

15. The City of Detroit is $300 million in a deficit. The Detroit Public Schools are $259 million deficit.

16. Detroit has 871,121 residents down from 951,270 in 2000 and 1, 027,000 in 1990.

17. 12.3% of the residents in Detroit are White while 81.2% of the residents in Detroit are Black.

18. Looking at the Black population in Detroit only we get this...
a) 775,772 residents in Detroit are Black.
b) 321,182 Black people have a high school diploma.
c) Only 45, 239 Black residents have a bachelors degree.

The average price of a home is now $18,513 and it’s going to get worse. Detroit is facing a crisis of epic proportions that officially puts Detroit statistically (and real term) on par with the great depression.

So with statistics such as this, why is Detroit’s GOTV efforts lacking. Where are the elderly who bothered me for months in asking me was I registered to vote and telling me to vote like they did for the Presidential election? Where are my friends on facebook who had statuses talking about the Presidential election telling people to vote today in the City of Detroit’s Primary election? Where are the unions in terms of getting their members and voters in the city out to vote like they did for the Presidential elections? Where are the churches and what are they doing to get a larger turnout of voters in the City of Detroit’s elections? This is truly sad that Detroit’s GOTV efforts are falling short.

To think that 167 people are running for City Council and only about 10-15% of the city’s residents will come out to vote is truly a sad day in a city where people scream for change but when presented with the opportunity to voice change at the ballot box, we the people don’t even show up. I applaud those who have voted and will vote in today’s primary for the City of Detroit and other primaries across the State of Michigan and the nation but the reality is that we have to do better Detroit. Our GOTV efforts can’t continue to be this low. Why hasn’t our City Clerk done a better job in terms of getting more Detroiter’s out to vote? Four years in office for Janice Winfrey and it seems as if Detroit’s voting numbers continue to go down year after year, election after election. However it is not all Mrs. Winfrey’s fault but a part of the City Clerk’s job is to get out the vote and to make sure elections are run fairly. While elections have been run fairly, the GOTV efforts have fallen short. We have to do a better job of mailing voters and putting up billboards.

The City of Detroit needs to undergo a drastic grassroots GOTV effort in terms of neighbors talking to neighbors about voting. We all need to be engaged in this effort. All politicians, political candidates, churches, political and civic organizations, the elderly, the middle age, the youth and unions all need to help one another in getting people out to vote. I know we all want voters to vote for particular candidate but the truth of the matter is, our efforts need to first be aimed toward getting voters out to vote than trying to pursue them to vote for our particular candidates. Where is the same excitement and sense of urgency that many Detroiter’s had for getting Obama elected President. We are missing a golden opportunity to change Detroit’s politics forever. We have to do better people and if the current rate of voter turnout holds up throughout the day than Detroit will be left with the status quo advancing to the land of 18 for not just City Council but the City Charter and the status quo moving on in the School Board races as well.

Detroit’s GOTV efforts have to change if we are to change our city’s destiny there’s no if’s, in’s or but’s about it. So let’s vote before it is too late today.

Iran leader approves Ahmadinejad presidency--By Parisa Hafezi

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei formally endorsed the second term presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday after a disputed election that plunged Iran into its worst crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The results, which leading reformists and moderate defeated candidates Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi said were rigged to ensure victory for the hardline Ahmadinejad, led to violent protests and deep schisms within Iran's clerical and political elite.

Leading opposition figures and two former presidents, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, who backed Mousavi in the vote, were not at the ceremony although they had attended such events in the past, Iranian media reported.

"The official ceremony was held and Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) approved Mr Ahmadinejad's presidency," al-Alam state television said.

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in by parliament on Wednesday.

He then faces the hard task of forming a cabinet that will be acceptable to the mostly conservative parliament, which may object if he names only members of his inner circle. Parliament has in the past rejected some of Ahmadinejad's cabinet choices.

Mousavi and Karoubi say the next government will be illegitimate.

Khamenei has endorsed the June 12 election result and demanded an end to the protests at which more than 20 people have been killed.

Iranian officials deny any fraud in the election, in which Ahmadinejad was declared to have won 63 percent of 40 million votes cast, against 34 percent for Mousavi.

Part of Iran's influential Shi'ite clerical establishment has also signaled misgivings over the aftermath of the poll, which has touched off the country's worst internal upheaval since the 1979 revolution.

ROUGH RIDE
Without Khamenei's support, any cabinet list could get a very rough ride as many lawmakers have been critical of Ahmadinejad since the vote.

The power struggle can only hamper the leadership's ability to tackle the Islamic Republic's economic problems, as well as the struggle over its nuclear program, which Iran says is only peaceful, but which the West suspects is aimed at bomb-making.

In an apparent effort to deter street protests, Iran on Saturday put 100 protesters, including several senior moderate figures, on trial. They face a range of charges, including acting against national security, which is punishable by death.

Rights groups say hundreds of people, including senior pro-reform politicians, journalists and lawyers, have been detained since the election.

The mass trial of reformists has no precedent in revolutionary Iran's 30-year history. The trial resumes on Thursday.

Leading reformers, including Khatami, have rejected what they say is a show trial and said some defendants had made confessions under duress.

Many of the defendants have spent weeks in jail without access to lawyers, Mousavi said on Sunday. He said the trial was "an awkward preparation" for the start of Ahmadinejad's new term.

Even some hardliners have criticized the trial and the official portrayal of the protesters as people determined to overthrow Iran's system of government.

Some defendants, including Khatami's vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtahi, told the court that they were wrong to have said the vote was fraudulent.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Lou Dobbs challenges his own CNN network--By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's "no bias" brand. And on top of all that, his ratings are slipping.

How does Lou Dobbs keep his job?

It's not a simple answer. CNN insists it is standing behind Dobbs, despite calls for his head from critics of his reporting on "birthers" — those who believe President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States despite convincing evidence to the contrary. The "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, and thus not eligible to be president.

Dobbs' work has been so unpopular that even Ann Coulter has criticized him.

Dobbs has acknowledged that he believes Obama was born in Hawaii. But he gives airtime to disbelievers, and has said the president should try to put questions fully to rest by releasing a long version of his birth certificate. He's twice done stories on his show after the public leak of a memo from CNN U.S. President Jon Klein saying that "it seems this story is dead."

Klein said those stories were OK because they were about the controversy and weren't actually questioning the facts. But critics suggest Klein is parsing words, that even raising the issue lends it credence.

Joked The Washington Post's Lisa de Moraes: it "explains their upcoming documentary: `The World: Flat. We Report — You Decide.'"

Dobbs hasn't made it any easier by using his radio show to fight back at critics, who he called "limp-minded, lily-livered lefty lemmings." He considered going on CNN tormentor Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show to thank him (O'Reilly says the birthers are wrong, but he defended Dobbs' right to talk about it).

"He's embarrassed himself and he's embarrassed CNN," said Brooks Jackson, a former CNN correspondent. "And that's not a good thing for any network that wants to be seen as a reputable, nonpartisan news organization."

So who needs the headache?

Klein said Dobbs does a smart newscast that explores issues that get little in-depth attention elsewhere, such as trade with China, health care funding and the stimulus plan. He suggested Dobbs' CNN work is unfairly lumped in with his unrelated radio show, and that he's judged on the show he did a couple of years ago, when Dobbs became a political target for his campaigning against illegal immigration.

The two men sat down after last year's election to make changes, aware that the anti-immigrant Dobbs' image ran counter to the brand CNN was trying to create. CNN calls itself the network of unbiased reporting compared to conservative commentators on Fox and liberal ones at MSNBC.

Since then, Dobbs has been doing a relatively straight newscast, Klein said.

"He brings more than three decades of experience reporting and broadcasting the news," Klein said, "and that's very valuable to a news network."

Through a spokeswoman, Dobbs said he would not comment for this story. But he is a CNN original. Except for a two-year break a decade ago, he's been with CNN virtually from the network's beginning. Much of that time was spent anchoring a business newscast that made him hugely influential in the business community and immensely valuable to CNN. Old-timers say the desire of advertisers to be connected with Dobbs and Larry King essentially funded the network for years.

Dobbs is considered among the smartest people at CNN, and also the most personally intimidating. For whatever reason — the rise of CNBC as a competitor or a sense that opinionated hosts were the future for cable news — Dobbs morphed from a business anchor to a polarizing populist.

That version of Dobbs seemed better suited for HLN, formerly CNN Headline News, which has an opinionated prime-time lineup led by Nancy Grace. But reruns of Dobbs' show didn't do well on HLN, which is more female oriented. Klein said he and Dobbs determined Dobbs was more valuable as a reporter than as a commentator.

The 861,000 people who tune into his 7 p.m. ET newscast on a typical night are down 20 percent from last year, according to Nielsen Media Research. He's still ahead of MSNBC's Chris Matthews in that hour.

"It's very cutthroat," said Janet Keefer, a Drake University journalism professor and former CNN producer. "As long as he isn't doing anything that's driving viewers away, they'll keep him."
Fear could be another factor keeping Dobbs and CNN together.

Dobbs has never been shy about fighting for his point of view. His feud with former CNN chief Rick Kaplan spilled out on the air in 1999 when he objected to having his "Moneyline" show pre-empted for a speech by President Clinton about the Columbine school shootings. "CNN President Rick Kaplan wants us to return to Littleton," he said. Dobbs soon left CNN and returned after Kaplan left.

With Dobbs hosting his own weekday radio show, the thought of him launching anti-CNN missiles every day has to be disconcerting.

It's also not hard to imagine Fox News chief Roger Ailes coveting Dobbs as a prize for his struggling business news network, offering reports to the main news channel as well.

Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters for America have called for CNN to take Dobbs off the air; he's proven a galvanizing and attention-getting force for his critics. At CNN, they're hoping the controversy dies down with the heat of August.

For that, they'll need Lou Dobbs' help.

___
On the Net:
http://www.cnn.com
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — David Bauder can be reached at dbauder(at)ap.org