A Manifesto For The Entitled

To contact us Click HERE
Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein nails this one:

I am a corporate chief executive.

I am a business owner.

I am a private-equity fund manager.

I am the misunderstood superhero of American capitalism, single-handedly creating wealth and prosperity despite all the obstacles put in my way by employees, government and the media.

I am a job creator and I am entitled.

I am entitled to complain about the economy even when my stock price, my portfolio and my profits are at record levels.

I am entitled to a healthy and well-educated workforce, a modern and efficient transportation system and protection for my person and property, just as I am entitled to demonize the government workers who provide them.

I am entitled to complain bitterly about taxes that are always too high, even when they are at record lows.

I am entitled to a judicial system that efficiently enforces contracts and legal obligations on customers, suppliers and employees but does not afford them the same right in return.

I am entitled to complain about the poor quality of service provided by government agencies even as I leave my own customers on hold for 35 minutes while repeatedly telling them how important their call is.

I am entitled to a compensation package that is above average for my company’s size and industry, reflecting the company’s aspirations if not its performance.

I am entitled to have the company pay for breakfasts and lunches, a luxury car and private jet travel, my country club dues and home security systems, box seats to all major sporting events, a pension equal to my current salary and a full package of insurance — life, health, dental, disability and long-term care — through retirement.

I am entitled to have my earned income taxed as capital gains and my investment income taxed at the lowest rate anywhere in the world — or not at all.

I am entitled to inside information and favorable investment opportunities not available to ordinary investors. I am entitled to brag about my investment returns.

I am entitled to pass on my accumulated wealth tax-free to heirs, who in turn, are entitled to claim that they earned everything they have.

I am entitled to use unlimited amounts of my own or company funds to buy elections without disclosing such expenditures to shareholders or the public.

I am entitled to use company funds to burnish my own charitable reputation.

I am entitled to provide political support to radical, uncompromising politicians and then complain about how dysfunctional Washington has become.

Although I have no clue how government works, I am entitled to be consulted on public policy by politicians and bureaucrats who have no clue about how business works.

I am entitled to publicly criticize the president and members of Congress, who are not entitled to criticize me.

I am entitled to fire any worker who tries to organize a union. I am entitled to break any existing union by moving, or threatening to move, operations to a union-hostile environment.

I am entitled to a duty of care and loyalty from employees and investors who are owed no such duty in return.

I am entitled to operate my business free of all government regulations other than those written or approved by my industry.

I am entitled to load companies up with debt in order to pay myself and investors big dividends — and then blame any bankruptcy on over-compensated workers.

I am entitled to contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, loans and even bailouts from government, even as I complain about job-killing government budget deficits.

I am entitled to federal entitlement reform.

I am entitled to take credit for all the jobs I create while ignoring any jobs I destroy.

I am entitled to claim credit for all the profits made during a booming economy while blaming losses or setbacks on adverse market or economic conditions.

I am entitled to deny knowledge or responsibility for any controversial decisions made after my departure from the company, even while profiting from such decisions if they enhance shareholder value.

I am entitled to all the rights and privileges of running an American company, but owe no loyalty to American workers or taxpayers.

I am entitled to confidential information about my employees and customers while refusing even to list the company’s phone number on its Web site.

I am entitled to be treated with deference and respect by investors I mislead, customers I bamboozle, directors I manipulate and employees I view as expendable.

I am entitled to be lionized in the media without answering any questions from reporters.

I am entitled to the VIP entrance.

I am entitled to everything I have and more that I still deserve.

I would add one thing:  Even though I did not attend a public school and send my kids to expensive private schools with small class sizes and exquisite facilities, I am entitled to make education policy for the entire country's public school systems, call for larger class sizes, narrowed curricula and teachers paid minimum wage.
I am also entitled to say that teachers who work with kids in school all day throughout the school year only care about themselves while I, the private equity manager, the real estate magnate, or the corporate CEO only care about the kids.

NYSED Commissioner King: An Education Reform Hypocrite

To contact us Click HERE
NYSED Commissioner John King is forcing students to take more Pearson field tests this October in addition to the usual round of Pearson field tests students are slated to take in the spring.

A parent wrote a letter to the Albany Times Union to say that he had called NYSED to see if there was an opt-out clause from the field testing.

He was told by a deputy education commissioner that there was not.

He goes on to write:

This bothers me as an educator and as a parent of four children.

Perhaps I will take the lead of Dr. John King, state education commissioner, whose children won't be in a school where this field testing will occur because they go to private school. Maybe I'll keep my children home.

In a recent commentary by Dr. King ("Give students their moment," Sept. 5), he writes of the so-called "education reform agenda" including teacher evaluations and the Common Core Standards: "These changes will be felt in every classroom in the state." This statement is not true, as private schools are not subject to these mandates and are therefore exempt. Besides the obvious hypocrisy, it seems patently unethical to not allow an "opt out" clause for the field tests being foisted upon students attending public schools.

Commissioner John King is the perfect man to lead the NYSED through its reform agenda.

Just like so many others in the corporate education reform movement - from Barack Obama to Rahm Emanuel to Bill Gates to Arnie Duncan - King loves to pontificate about how he is making the public schools that Other People's Children (OPC's) attend better.

How is he doing this?

By forcing standardized testing in every grade in every subject, K-12, by narrowing the curricula and spending enormous amounts of time, money and effort on standardized tests, by tying teacher evaluations and school closures to the test scores and by stealing money from the classroom in order to hand it to the tech, test and education consultants.

Meanwhile, the school that King sends his kids to - a private Montessori school - doesn't do any of these things.

Oh, no - what's good for Other People's Children is NOT good enough for John King's little darlings.

They deserve small class sizes, a rich, diverse curriculum, excellent facilities and a school not run on test-based FEAR.

King doesn't have to worry about an opt-out clause for his own kids and the Pearson field tests because his kids aren't taking them.

If the so-called reforms that King is pushing on the rest of the state are so good, why doesn't he subject his OWN children to them?

Oh, right - it's because

a) He's full of shit that the NYSED/Regents reform agenda is going to "give students their moment" and he knows it and

b) Because he's a hypocrite.

State And Local Education Spending Declines Two Years In A Row

To contact us Click HERE
Via Political Wire, here's Mike Konczal on the decline in state and local spending for education (2009-2011):

This isn't adjusted for inflation, so the decline is even worse. The dotted line is the seven-year pre-recession average projected forward. I'm pretty cynical about these things and knew that spending had declined in 2010, but I had expected it to even out or go up in 2011. Instead, it has declined further.

There's been yearly increases in spending on elementary and secondary education going back decades. We didn't develop some sort of technology that made educating young people cheaper in 2009 - instead, states were hit hard by a housing crash and liquidity issues that come with having to maintain a balanced budget in light of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This also comes on top of the mass layoffs of teachers, some 200,000 during this recession. Rather than firing teachers while spending more elsewhere, we are just spending less educating our children, period. This is the worst kind of disinvestment, made at the worst possible time.

Even worse, state and local governments are having to spend ever more money on high stakes standardized testing, test preparation, Common Core consultants and a host of other expenditures related to the education reform movement, so that even as education spending has fallen over the last two years, the money that is going to education expenditures outside of the classroom has risen.

Essentially this means more money for Joel Klein and News Corp. more money for Pearson, more money for David Coleman and College Board, more money for the tech companies making the data tracking systems, more money for all the outside consultants and less money for classroom materials, reducing class size or hiring more teachers.

No wonder Klein and the education reformers/hedge fund managers are pushing for busting the unions and reducing teacher compensation and work protections.

If local and state governments are spending less on education, the only way for Joel and Company to suck up more of the money pot is to make sure it doesn't get spent in classrooms or on teachers.

Mayor Bloomberg King's Game 911 Tech System CityTime Mega-Crimes

To contact us Click HERE





http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/2012/06/suzannah-troy-note-to-press-activists.html  King's Game Danish film -- from Albany under the reign of andy cuomo to mike bloomberg and mrs. bloomberg Christine Quinn his mini-me -- the 2 get off playing good cop bad cop we have the largest mega corruption EVER and no one seems to notice...

Don't forget mega-corrupt MTA SAIC deal -- oh yeah and than the MTA and it's board got integrity?  Even less now that Andrew Cuomo stabbed the people of NYC in the back and sent a message go ahead and be violent towards women and get rewarded as well re: Dave Paterson silencing his 6 foot 9 best friend Dave Johnson's girlfriend in to silence.

Johnson fled.  The only honest folks with integrity resigned from their jobs in Albany as the corrupt Paterson and Johnson stayed on.  Finally paterson was forced to fire johnson who did plead guilty!

Judge Judy Kaye is a political fixer and betrayed all decency folks to do Cuomo's political fixing and it is is because of Paterson's daddy Basil who has powerful connections so from Albany to City Hall the most corruption EVER.

I had hoped Cuomo might change things but he has clearly signaled he is now part of the problem.

9-11 a nightmare I still can't believe but this too seems like a bad dream -- really mind blowing they are getting away with the largest tax payer abuse -- billions upon billions and no one seems to notice or care and the most corrupt players are all above the law while the little people are falsely arrested ticketed etc.

The New York Times Christine Quinn's Campaign Manager Protest Dress! by Suzannah B. Troy

To contact us Click HERE


Protesting tonight and I will wear my red wig!!!!!
Wait until you see the back!   I accuse The New York Times of killing news stories on behalf of Christine Quinn!


http://christinequinnminime.blogspot.com/2012/07/christine-quinn-chuck-meara-locked-out.html


I wrote at the very bottom of the back of the dress.....Thanks Carolyn Ryan, We owe you....xoxox Christine Quinn, Emily Giske!

Cuts to SNAP in the Ryan budget

To contact us Click HERE
For many years, the Food Stamp Program enjoyed reliable bi-partisan political support.  Even as the U.S. entitlement program for cash assistance was cut and converted to a block grant in the 1990s, food stamps remained largely unharmed.  Leading Republicans such as Senator Bob Dole joined leading Democrats in supporting food assistance for low-income Americans.

Now, at a time when U.S. household food insecurity is near record levels, the nation's largest food assistance program -- under its newer name the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- is targeted for the most severe cuts ever in its 50-year history.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, GOP Congressman Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan for 2013-2022, approved by the House of Representatives Thursday in a partisan vote, would cut SNAP by $133.5 billion, or 17 percent, over ten years.

In reaction to this proposed budget plan, GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, "It's an excellent piece of work."

Second-place GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, according to the New York Times, said the budget didn't go far enough.

The New York Times editorial yesterday disagreed.  The Times said the proposed cuts "would mean a loss of $90 worth of food a month" for the average household.  If you read the Center on Budget's analysis carefully, clearly the Times should have said "a loss of $90 worth of food stamps in a month" (the distinction arises because SNAP benefits are effectively food support only in part and effectively income support for the remainder).  An economist colleague called me up to criticize this oversight in the Times editorial and to encourage me to post on this topic, saying of the Times: "It's an attempt to be inflammatory.  They wanted a big number."

I see the point, but I might add that the budget cut correctly described, $133.5 billion from SNAP, also is a big number, and perhaps also in this election season an attempt to be inflammatory.

Update (4/1/2012): My colleague encourages me to explain the economic flaw in the Times editorial even more clearly.  The issue has to do with the effect on food spending from an additional dollar of SNAP benefits.  A good rough estimate is that an additional dollar of SNAP benefits generates about 30 cents of additional food spending.  The rest of the additional SNAP benefit substitutes for cash income that the household otherwise would have spent on food, freeing up resources for other household needs such as housing or transportation.  The economic lesson is that a targeted benefit such as SNAP is in part a food subsidy and in part a general income subsidy.  The Times editorial should not have said the Ryan budget would generate a loss of $90 in food, but rather that the budget would generate a loss of $27 in food and $63 in other household needs.

With this correction in mind, my friend writes: "What you did not do in your blog post was tell your reader the nature of the NYT mistake and what the right concept is.... So finally, if I object, it is that you did not take this opportunity to teach a little economics and encourage accuracy.   You came very close to saying, lying is okay as long as the political cause is GOOD.   I do not think you really believe that."

USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass

To contact us Click HERE
USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food website consolidates information from a wide variety of less-well-known programs that support farmers' markets and other local food infrastructure, facilitate local meat and poultry, promote local food sales to institutions such as schools and hospitals, and more.

Rather than duplicate existing work with yet another layer of program authority, the website compiles information from a breadth of USDA agencies with their own separate budgets and chains of command.  This simple inexpensive effort makes a powerful impression, articulating a sense of shared purpose for what might otherwise seem like a scattershot collection of tiny stand-alone projects. For a Department that sometimes suffers from accusations of serving only large-scale industrial farmers, the Know Your Farmer program humanizes a large bureaucracy and generates an outsized improvement in public reputation.

For an alternative view, the coverage at Forbes seems to complain simultaneously that the Know Your Farmer program is underfunded and covers the same topics as existing programs.  With a churlish spin, Forbes shares the same facts I just described above.

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Merrigan this year launched the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass, with a link-heavy report and an interactive map, publicizing all sorts of local food activities supported by USDA.  Because U.S. agricultural politics are local politics, the simple act of collecting small program data points by geography has a big communication impact.

House Agriculture Committee to propose deep cuts to SNAP

To contact us Click HERE
In contrast with the medium-sized cuts to SNAP proposed by the Senate (see earlier post), the House Agriculture Committee today proposed deep cuts.

"Do Republicans in Congress want to fix the food stamp program — or punish it?," asks David Rogers at Politico:

That’s the question facing the House Agriculture Committee leadership as it rolls out its plan this week to cut farm subsidies together with about $16 billion in 10-year savings from food stamps — also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Politico account portrays House Agriculture Committee chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) as a relative moderate, compared to House leadership that almost appears to want to sink Farm Bill legislation for the year.

The story quotes Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) to illustrate some Republicans' animosity toward the nation's most important anti-hunger program:

“Americans, working Americans, the middle income and low-income working Americans — they are out there doing the best they can and struggling — are sick and tired of watching the abuses of the system,” Scott said. “I just want to say this one more time. You can’t feed the hungry by starving the farmer.”

"Starving the farmer" is quite some rhetoric. Net farm income this year is $91.7 billion, the second highest on record in nominal terms. For the commercial farm households who receive the highest level of subsidy, average farm income in 2010 (the most recent year available) was $135,000 and average household income was $185,000.  The many farmers who are "starving," relatively speaking, get much lower subsidies.

I am surprised that the politics of this works out well for the House Republicans. If the point is to protect farm programs and taxpayers by sticking it to poor people, it would still seem necessary to craft a bill that actually can pass. Tom Laskawy writes at Grist:

I would argue that the cuts to food stamps will be a non-starter for numerous House Democrats — many of whose votes will be needed to pass the bill, probably ending hopes for a new farm bill before the election.

Picking a no-holds-barred brawl with the Senate, leading to the bill's failure this year, drawing the wider public's scrutiny to farm policy, seems likely to harm the constituencies of rural and urban legislators alike.  But perhaps they see something I don't.

Federal government says all sorts of things about soy milk

To contact us Click HERE
Mark Bittman this week describes how he overcame years of heartburn by giving up milk.  Though the NYT columnist agrees this experience hardly counts as a controlled experiment, it does point his critical attention toward USDA's dietary guidance message about dairy.

Today the Department of Agriculture’s recommendation for dairy is a mere three cups daily — still 1½ pounds by weight — for every man, woman and child over age 9. This in a country where as many as 50 million people are lactose intolerant, including 90 percent of all Asian-Americans and 75 percent of all African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Jews. The myplate.gov site helpfully suggests that those people drink lactose-free beverages. (To its credit, it now counts soy milk as “dairy.”)

There’s no mention of water, which is truly nature’s perfect beverage; the site simply encourages us to switch to low-fat milk. 

Regarding MyPlate's inclusion of soy milk in the dairy group, however, not all federal government messaging seems to agree.

Soybean checkoff message

Like Bittman and MyPlate, the United Soybean Board also has high praise for soy milk. The board is a government-sponsored checkoff program, which has authority from Congress to issue federal government messages in favor of soybeans using money from a mandatory assessment on soybean producers. From the soybean checkoff website link we learn:

Soymilk is a great source of high-quality soy protein, frequently fortified with calcium and vitamin D for bone health, and an option for the lactose-intolerant.

Dairy checkoff message 

But the federal government's dairy checkoff program disagrees.  The program has authority from Congress to issue federal government messages in favor of dairy products using money from a mandatory assessment on dairy producers.  The dairy checkoff program has a bitterly sarcastic satirical flash-based interactive website, mocking soy milk for its sugar content, long ingredient list, and food science chemistry manipulations.

Mixed messages

By using checkoff programs to sponsor contradictory messages for different commodities -- while approving each message as "government speech" -- the federal government serves consumers poorly.  When will these programs be reformed?

Incorrect reports say that California's Prop 37 has zero tolerance for accidental GMO content

To contact us Click HERE
California voters are considering a ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling for foods that contain Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) ingredients.

A recent Oakland Tribune editorial against the initiative gets key facts wrong. The editorial, which was widely published in other newspapers, claims that the proposal has a zero-tolerance for accidental GMO content in foods that aren't labeled as containing GMOs. Such a policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label "may contain GMOs," simply out of fear of litigation.  But the editorial is mistaken. The initiative rightly allows foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs to carry a "non-GMO" label.

The initiative has several moderate and reasonable features.  For example, it would require genetically modified animals -- such as a fast-growing genetically modified salmon -- to contain a "GMO" label, but it would not require such a label for ordinary beef that had been fed genetically modified corn and soybeans.  A farmer or food manufacturer would not have to do any fancy testing to prevent accidental contamination with GMOs (for example by drifting seeds from a neighboring field, or from GMO-containing dust left over on farm machinery).  It suffices for the food producers to claim in writing that they used crop varieties and food ingredients that they reasonably believed were not genetically modified.  For example, a food manufacturer purchasing non-GMO corn would have to get the supplier to sign such an affidavit, but would not have to do scientific testing.  Some anti-GMO advocates might have wanted stricter rules, but there are good common-sense reasons why the initiative took these positions.

In this context, the Oakland Tribune editorial is particularly disappointing.  Whether you support or oppose GMOs, it is important to explain the initiative clearly so that our democracy can function as well as possible.

The Tribune editorial echoed a point that was also made in a recent working paper by the highly esteemed agricultural economist Colin Carter and several coauthors.  They wrote:

The California initiative would implement a zero-tolerance policy for accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances, even if the U.S. government has approved the GM material for human consumption.

But, after reading the text of the initiative, this seems incorrect. I wrote Professor Carter to ask about this, and his brief response by email while traveling made several good points in opposition to Prop 37, but didn't really back up this claim that the initiative takes a zero-tolerance position on accidental contamination.  Essentially, opponents fear that firms will anticipate legal problems and prophylactically label their products with "may contain GMO" labels, but I cannot really find a reasonable basis for that fear in the initiative itself.

Here's a subtle but important point.  A food manufacturer with a complex ingredient list, including corn or soybean ingredients from commodity sources, may have to use a "may contain GMO" label, but that's not a policy error.  Given that most U.S. corn and soybeans are produced with GMO varieties, it really is true that such products may contain GMOs, so the label is correct.  A food manufacturer who has made reasonable effort to use non-GMO ingredients is permitted under this initiative to use a "non-GMO" label.  I really don't see any part of the initiative that requires these essentially non-GMO foods to be labeled as "may contain GMOs" merely out of caution.

There are good reasons why some people will oppose this California Prop 37.  GMO technologies may well not be dangerous to humans.  Or they may have some risks and tradeoffs, just as non-GMO foods do, that are worthwhile because of the production advantages from the new technology.  Or, as economists in particular are likely to point out, it may be that a well-crafted voluntary labeling regime would have functioned as well as mandatory labeling without as much burden on society.  Still, opponents should make those points clearly rather than mischaracterizing Prop 37. 

FERN asks: Whose Side is the American Farm Bureau On?

To contact us Click HERE
The Nation this week explores the American Farm Bureau, which, through affiliated organizations, is simultaneously one of the most important farm lobby groups and also a major insurance operation.  The story is by Pulitzer-winning writer Ian Shearn.  It was supported by the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN).

Interesting passages address influence over the upcoming Farm Bill ...

In Washington, the 2012 Farm Bill has predictably been a top priority for the Farm Bureau lobby team. They have surprised players from both sides of the debate by conceding cuts in traditional subsidies in exchange for a large expansion of subsidized crop insurance that protects against disasters and falling prices at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $9 billion a year. The tactical, philosophical shift garnered praise even from Farm Bureau adversaries. Nonetheless, it should be noted that crop insurance is a small, but significant piece of Farm Bureau insurance companies’ portfolio. In 2011, they collected over $300 million in crop insurance premiums. 

... and contribution to the tenor of U.S. agricultural policy debate:

American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman was succinct, almost militant in his opening address last year at the group’s annual meeting: “We will not stand idly by while opponents of today’s American agriculture…try to drag us down…try to bury us in bureaucratic red tape and costly regulation—and try to destroy the most productive and efficient agricultural system in the world,” he said.

Incorrect reports say that California's Prop 37 has zero tolerance for accidental GMO content

To contact us Click HERE
California voters are considering a ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling for foods that contain Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) ingredients.

A recent Oakland Tribune editorial against the initiative gets key facts wrong. The editorial, which was widely published in other newspapers, claims that the proposal has a zero-tolerance for accidental GMO content in foods that aren't labeled as containing GMOs. Such a policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label "may contain GMOs," simply out of fear of litigation.  But the editorial is mistaken. The initiative rightly allows foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs to carry a "non-GMO" label.

The initiative has several moderate and reasonable features.  For example, it would require genetically modified animals -- such as a fast-growing genetically modified salmon -- to contain a "GMO" label, but it would not require such a label for ordinary beef that had been fed genetically modified corn and soybeans.  A farmer or food manufacturer would not have to do any fancy testing to prevent accidental contamination with GMOs (for example by drifting seeds from a neighboring field, or from GMO-containing dust left over on farm machinery).  It suffices for the food producers to claim in writing that they used crop varieties and food ingredients that they reasonably believed were not genetically modified.  For example, a food manufacturer purchasing non-GMO corn would have to get the supplier to sign such an affidavit, but would not have to do scientific testing.  Some anti-GMO advocates might have wanted stricter rules, but there are good common-sense reasons why the initiative took these positions.

In this context, the Oakland Tribune editorial is particularly disappointing.  Whether you support or oppose GMOs, it is important to explain the initiative clearly so that our democracy can function as well as possible.

The Tribune editorial echoed a point that was also made in a recent working paper by the highly esteemed agricultural economist Colin Carter and several coauthors.  They wrote:

The California initiative would implement a zero-tolerance policy for accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances, even if the U.S. government has approved the GM material for human consumption.

But, after reading the text of the initiative, this seems incorrect. I wrote Professor Carter to ask about this, and his brief response by email while traveling made several good points in opposition to Prop 37, but didn't really back up this claim that the initiative takes a zero-tolerance position on accidental contamination.  Essentially, opponents fear that firms will anticipate legal problems and prophylactically label their products with "may contain GMO" labels, but I cannot really find a reasonable basis for that fear in the initiative itself.

Here's a subtle but important point.  A food manufacturer with a complex ingredient list, including corn or soybean ingredients from commodity sources, may have to use a "may contain GMO" label, but that's not a policy error.  Given that most U.S. corn and soybeans are produced with GMO varieties, it really is true that such products may contain GMOs, so the label is correct.  A food manufacturer who has made reasonable effort to use non-GMO ingredients is permitted under this initiative to use a "non-GMO" label.  I really don't see any part of the initiative that requires these essentially non-GMO foods to be labeled as "may contain GMOs" merely out of caution.

There are good reasons why some people will oppose this California Prop 37.  GMO technologies may well not be dangerous to humans.  Or they may have some risks and tradeoffs, just as non-GMO foods do, that are worthwhile because of the production advantages from the new technology.  Or, as economists in particular are likely to point out, it may be that a well-crafted voluntary labeling regime would have functioned as well as mandatory labeling without as much burden on society.  Still, opponents should make those points clearly rather than mischaracterizing Prop 37. 

Hill District supermarket is delayed by multiple challenges

To contact us Click HERE
The supermarket that is planned for the Hill District neighborhood in Pittsburgh has been delayed by serious challenges. The project requires several million dollars in public and non-profit financing, in addition to the usual private sector financing, but not all of the expected money has been confirmed. The opening had been expected in November 2011 but is now scheduled for spring 2013.  Neighborhood residents are angry and frustrated.

This blog reported in July 2011 on early plans for the supermarket.  I viewed the cleared building site and took a long walk through the Hill District while visiting Pittsburgh for the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association annual meeting that summer.  I was interested in this particular supermarket because it will be the subject of economic analysis in Rand's Phresh study, comparing food and health outcomes before and after the introduction of the supermarket.

The Hill District is famous for its jazz history and as the setting for the plays of the great American playwright August Wilson.  There is some question about whether the Hill District meets official definitions of a food desert, because some parts of the neighborhood do have other supermarkets less than a mile away, but these official definitions cannot easily adjust for the steep hills that give the neighborhood its name.  Some federal financing sources seek to target neighborhoods that meet a technical definition.  Any visitor on foot would immediately recognize the Hill District as an exceptionally impoverished neighborhood, which seems like a food desert in laypersons' terms.

Even as recently as September 30, 2011, a report (.pdf) from the Reinvestment Fund, a neighborhood financing initiative, seemed to expect the store to open in November 2011.  However, the report did explain just some of the challenges facing the Hill House Economic Development Corporation (HHEDC), which played a central role in organizing the supermarket project.  About $6.8 million in financing was anticipated from multiple sources, which may have been difficult to coordinate.  The Reinvestment Fund wrote, "Despite a strong board and significant community support, a project of this scale was still a daunting task for HHEDC as a small [Community Development Corporation]."

These challenges have worsened.  Julie Matthews, who had led the Hill House development arm, was fired on February 9 this year, a day before she was scheduled to make a presentation about the project's financing.  In April, Matthews filed a whistleblower lawsuit, alleging that Hill House used restricted funds from the Reinvestment Fund and the Mellon Foundation in other unspecified ways. I have no information other than the news report about this allegation.  This week I noticed that the Reinvestment Fund's website has a whistleblower policy (.pdf), making clear that people involved in projects financed by the fund, who become aware of any misuse of funds, are obliged to report the misuse.

It seems likely that the project will go forward in 2013 despite these challenges.  Politicians and institutions in both local and national food financing initiatives would lose face if this high-profile project failed.  It is possible that resolving all the problems will require even more public and non-profit financing than initially expected.

Nobody should judge major national policies from one example, but this episode is likely to contain some cautionary lessons by the time it is over.  Though I fear some readers might think me an incorrigible economist for saying so, I think we should ask why supermarket chain managers could not make this project work using purely private financing, or even with just $1 or $2 million in public financing.  Supermarket chains are astute judges of local food retail conditions and market demand.  Just to take one example, they must recognize that not all Hill District residents will use the local market even after it arrives.  Despite the very high level of poverty, about a third of local resident households own an automobile, and even more have some access to shared automobile transport for grocery shopping.  One reason a supermarket may require a large public subsidy before choosing a particular location may be that they anticipate a tough competitive environment when they start operating. 

If the public bill reaches $6 or $8 million for a single supermarket, and even then the project is stressed by financial management challenges and delays, it raises hard questions about this supermarket-centered and high-budget approach to addressing food retail problems in low-income neighborhoods.

Pittsburgh, July 2011 (Wilde)

Lawsuit challenges pork board purchase of "Other White Meat" slogan

To contact us Click HERE
A lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charges that the $60 million sale of the pork industry's "Other White Meat" slogan illegally diverts money to the lobbying efforts of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

One of the plaintiffs is Harvey Dillenburg, a pork producer in Adair County, Iowa.  Mr. Dillenburg is not a member of the NPPC.  He is required by law to pay a portion of every sale to the National Pork Board, which is supposed to use the money for promotions and advertising.  The National Pork Board is not allowed to lobby.  In 2006, the National Pork Board agreed to pay the NPPC $60 million in return for the property rights to the "Other White Meat" brand.  The resulting payments of $3 million per year for 20 years help fund the NPPC's powerful lobbying machine.

Think about how this arrangement looks from the point of view of Mr. Dillenburg.  Although he does not choose to support the NPPC, the federal government forces him along with all other pork producers to pay the National Pork Board, which in turn pays the NPPC.

The other plaintiff is the Humane Society of the United States, a leading animal welfare organization.  As the Congressional Research Service (.pdf) explains, the HSUS recently brokered a successful agreement with egg producers, reaching a judicious compromise about what type of cages seem ethically acceptable for hens.  Although the leading trade association for egg producers is now working with HSUS to get this balanced policy approved by Congress, the agreement faces implacable opposition from the NPPC.  The egg agreement causes no harm to pork producers, but the NPPC is worried that the precedent of a successful egg agreement will generate unrealistic hopes for similar good-faith negotiations about gestation crates for pork.  It is not surprising that HSUS has been looking into how the federal government's pork board -- which is not supposed to support lobbying -- helps fund the NPPC's efforts to spoil the egg agreement.

This blog, U.S. Food Policy, began covering the tale of the "Other White Meat" sale in a June 2006 blog post, which called for greater transparency about the terms of the sale.  When nobody would give me the documents voluntarily, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  USDA initially turned down my request, arguing that the information was "pre-decisional and deliberative".  When I appealed, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service in December 2006 released partly-blacked out versions of the key documents.

Although AMS hid critical details, enough information was revealed in 2006 to suggest that this was a poor use of pork producers' money.  For example, I pointed out accounting flaws in the supposedly independent appraisal upon which the $60 million sale price was based.  In the HSUS and Dillenburg lawsuit today, I learned for the first time that Mark Williams, who is largely responsible for pulling together the supposedly independent price appraisals, actually has been responsible for developing the "Other White Meat" branding since its inception. 

The HSUS explains further:

Through months of research, The HSUS uncovered glaring legal violations, conflicts of interest, and an exorbitantly over-inflated $60 million price tag associated with the deal. Much of the extraordinarily inflated value of the slogan resulted from 20 years of promotional campaigns funded entirely with pork producers’ own checkoff funds: roughly half a billion dollars. In essence, NPPC charged pork producers twice: once to make The Other White Meat successful, and again to pay for the value of that success.

Now, the case against this sale has only gotten stronger.  The National Pork Board has largely retired the "Other White Meat" slogan, in favor of the new "Be Inspired" slogan, and yet the pork board continues to pay the NPPC $3 million each year for the nearly worthless old slogan.  The NPB has an escape clause allowing it to cancel the payments, but it chooses not to exercise this clause.

The HSUS and Dillenburg lawsuit (.pdf) is well written, with astonishing details beyond what can be described in this space.  It was covered today in Feedstuffs and other trade publications.  I encourage everybody interested in U.S. Food Policy to read it in full.

After WIC package revisions, mixed changes in breastfeeding outcomes

To contact us Click HERE
A Tufts press release last week describes recent research by Ann Collins, Meena Fernandes and Anne Wolf at Abt Associates, and myself, which was published in the September 2012 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) (may be gated). 

In 2009, the federal government’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) changed the make-up of its food packages to meet several nutritional goals, including stronger promotion of breastfeeding. For new mothers participating in WIC, there were mixed outcomes after implementation of the policy change, according to an analysis from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science Policy at Tufts University and the global research and program implementation firm Abt Associates.

WIC provides three main food packages for mothers and infants: a full breastfeeding option with no infant formula but more supplemental food for the mother, a partial breastfeeding option with some formula, and a full formula option with less supplemental food for the mother. Among other changes, the new 2009 policy, called an “interim rule,” lowered the amount of infant formula in the partial breastfeeding option.

By studying administrative records of more than 206,000 mother-infant pairs from 17 local WIC agencies (LWAs) nationwide, the researchers found that more mothers received the full breastfeeding option after the 2009 package change but more mothers also received the full formula option. Fewer mothers received the partial breastfeeding option.

In the first four weeks following birth, the percentage receiving the full breastfeeding option increased from 9.8% to 17.1% and the percentage receiving the full formula option increased from 20.5% to 28.5%. The percentage receiving the partial breastfeeding option fell from 24.7% to 13.8%. The remaining mothers fell into other miscellaneous classifications.

After the implementation of the interim rule, there was a small increase in the amount of infant formula provided in the first month of life (548.6 fluid ounces to 559.6 fluid ounces per mother). The percentage of mothers who “initiated”, or reported trying to breastfeed the infant at least once, remained unchanged at approximately 65%.

“There had been some hope that breastfeeding initiation would increase after the policy change,” said Parke E. Wilde, Ph.D., corresponding author and an associate professor at the Friedman School. “While this did not happen, the good news is there was no decrease in the breastfeeding initiation, and more mothers did, at least, adopt the full breastfeeding package.”

The article in the AJCN also discusses opportunities for WIC to make further progress in breastfeeding promotion.

“We asked WIC participants about the point in time when they made their decisions about breastfeeding and what helped them when they made their choices about the decision to breastfeed,” said senior author Ann Collins, a principal associate at Abt Associates.  “More than three quarters of the women reported that they had decided before delivery how they wanted to feed their baby. What’s more, more than 84% of women reported that information on breastfeeding from WIC was ‘important’ or ‘very important.’ These findings suggest that special efforts by WIC agencies to reach out to WIC participants during pregnancy with information on breastfeeding could be very beneficial.”

The analysis does not account for all factors that changed during the same time period, for example the volatility of the 2009 economy. The study compared outcomes in the three months before the policy change and the nine months afterward.

The study also is a "recent featured journal article" on the Abt Associates front page.  The analysis was conducted with the support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.  [Minor edit Sep 27:] The views and opinions expressed by the authors of the journal article do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

There is a lot happening on the topic of further improving WIC's impact on breastfeeding.  Here are some links.  A longer report (.pdf) from this same research effort is available on the USDA FNS website.  An excellent literature review (.pdf) by Silvie Colman and coauthors helps put the new study in the context of a larger body of research.  In another report, Nancy Cole and colleagues explain the various detailed options selected by different states (.pdf), which is important for understanding how the changes actually were implemented.  A workshop summary (.pdf) posted on the FNS site describes a wide variety of ambitious options for future research.

Figure 1.  Food packages issued to new mothers, by age of infant.(click for larger image)

Education Nation Sponsors - A Rogue's Gallery Of Criminality And Corruption

To contact us Click HERE
NBC is a media conglomerate that used to be owned by the evil General Electric (a company that manages to straddle evil in quite a few ways, from making and profiting off armaments that kill people to making badly designed nuclear power plants to polluting the environment with impunity to exploiting its own labor all across the world to preying on low income minorities with $700 million in subprime loans, $218 million of which ended up in foreclosure.)

Now NBC is owned by Comcast, a company that is universally hated by consumers across the country and regularly ranks in the top five of the the list of "Most Despised" companies in America.  If you want to see just how bad a company Comcast is, check out the customer forums on Comcast's own site!  I have been a customer of all three major cable companies and I can say without a doubt that Comcast was by far, the worst of the three.  The bill consistently shifted around, they were always trying to stick me with charges for products or services that I never asked for, and the customer service was abysmal.  Then, when I ended my service and returned my cable box and paid my last bill, they claimed they never got the money and sent the last month's charges into collection.  Yeah, I have fonder memories of that time when my apartment building burned than I have as a Comcast customer.

So, let's cut to today.  NBC is running the third edition of its education reform show called Education Nation.  As has been usual with the other two editions of this nonsense, NBC has invited a corporate education reform friendly line-up of guests - people like Joel Klein, Geoffrey Canada and Michelle Rhee.  When they have invited parents or teachers to be part of the line-up, these have been parents and teachers who espouse corporate education reform values like firing hundreds of thousands of teachers, tying teacher evaluations to test scores, charter school expansion, online schools and the like.  This year, NBC is promoting the education reform movement movie "Won't Back Down," just as a couple of years ago they promoted another education reform movement movie, "Waiting for Superman."  And just as in the past, NBC's Education Nation tolerates no dissent from the corporate education reform narrative - Diane Ravitch and other noted opponents to the education reform agenda have not been invited to the show, though darling of the corporate reform movement Randi Weingarten is there to give her perspective on things.

Which perhaps makes sense, since the AFT is inexplicably one of the sponsors of this crap, as is the NEA.  Yes, you heard right, teachers - you're hard-earned dues money is going to help sponsor an NBC show that promotes the myth of the "bad teacher" and the sanctity of the standardized test score.  I suppose this is the unions' way of "staying relevant" in a time of anti-teacher, anti-union bashing, but frankly, both the AFT and the NEA would do better to put on their own "Debunking NBC's Education Nation Nonsense" show and invite real students, real parents, real teachers and real education leaders to tell their stories.  But that would take some actual ingenuity or desire at the unions to take on the education reform movement, and as we have seen over and over, that does not exist at either the AFT or the NEA.  They would rather have " a seat at the table" or some such nonsense rather than promote the values and principles their members hold dear - like smaller class size, a rich, diverse curriculum, and other progressive education values.

So I get why they wouldn't want to put on their own Education Nation to debunk NBC's corporate version.  But why the hell are they also sponsoring it?  Have you seen the list of corporate sponsors?  The line-up reads like a rogue's gallery of corporate criminality, nepotism and cronyism:

University of Phoenix
Gates Foundation (i.e. Microsoft/Monsanto)
Bezos Foundation (i.e., Amazon)
ExxonMobile
Citibank
Statefarm
Kelloggs Foundation

We could take a brief look at each of these criminal organizations and the harm they do to America and the world and then ask what would anybody who cares about kids, education or schools be doing watching an education show on a network once owned by one of the most evil companies in the world, now owned by one of the most despised, that is sponsored by these corporate criminals.  But you can do your own Google search and come up with the pollution caused by ExxonMobile, the horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses, the horror Bill Gates is doing to Africa and Asia via GMO, and the predatory business practices of TARP-recipient Citibank.  Instead I am going to focus on the University of Phoenix, since this company purports to be an institution of higher learning, has been a corporate sponsor of Education Nation for all three years and has managed to get its president onto the Education Nation stage to pontificate about education issues.

Here is how NBC bills the University of Phoenix:

University of Phoenix is constantly innovating to help students balance education and life in a rapidly changing world. Through flexible schedules, challenging courses and interactive learning, students achieve personal and career aspirations without putting their lives on hold. As of May 31, 2011, 398,000 students were enrolled at University of Phoenix, the largest private university in North America.

All of that is just advertising jive.  The University of Phoenix is actually a for-profit "college" with the highest number of student loan defaults of any school in the country.  One out of every four students who attends this "college" defaults on his or her loan.  The graduation rate is also one of the lowest in the country (currently 9%, 5% for online students), and even when you do graduate with a University of Phoenix degree, you find out very quickly it's not worth the paper its printed on.

So why is University of Phoenix on the list of Education Nation sponsors?  Why was the president of this for-profit diploma mill on stage at Education Nation talking about education standards last year when his own company has none other than, "Can you hold a pen and sign for the loan, please?"

NBC News president Steve Capus has defended the presence of University of Phoenix as a sponsor, saying that the company is not shaping editorial content for Education Nation and has been the subject of some "tough news stories" on NBC News.

But as FAIR has pointed out, NBC has actually done more to promote University of Phoenix than scrutinize them. Ann Curry actually patted a University of Phoenix VP on the head on The Today Show at "Learning Plaza" last year and praised him for helping kids.  So much for the "tough NBC news stories" on University of Phoenix.  And in fact, NBC has partnered with the University of Phoenix to "donate" technology to classrooms that will show NBC "educational programs" while promoting the University of Phoenix and made the University of Phoenix it's lead sponsor in the "On-The-Road" segment of last year's Education Nation. Far from being a simple sponsor with no say over editorial content, it is clear from the prominent place the University of Phoenix has on the sponsor's list, the donor's list, and in the content of Eduction Nation that NBC and its parent company Comcast are quite comfortable selling a diploma mill with abysmal graduation rates and the highest defaults of any college in the land to its viewers.

What are we to make of a so-called education reform forum that promotes and partners with a "college" that has stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers over the last decade in the form of defaulted loans, has saddled hundreds of thousands of students with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and continued to expand its business even as its graduation rates and loan default rates show that it should be shut down?

If NBC News was an actual "news" organization as opposed to some public relations wing of its parent corporation, the people at the network wouldn't be partnering with some shyster college like University of Phoenix and putting the president of said college on stage to talk about higher education standards.

No, if NBC News were an actual "news" organization, they would be exposing the University of Phoenix for the crap college it is, warning every American to stay as far away from it as possible, and asking law officials why the University of Phoenix president wasn't behind bars with Bernie Madoff.

But of course NBC News is not an actual "news" organization any more than Brian Williams or Matt Lauer are real newsmen (as opposed to corporate shills) and so we get the Education Nation crapola, hosted by the unctuous Williams, complete with corporate criminal sponsors and studio audience.

The good news out of all of this is, fewer people are watching TV these days, and of those, fewer still are watching NBC News shows, so who knows how many people are actually going to see this garbage.  Many Americans have woken up to the fact that what they see spewed on TV news programs these days is propaganda and lies.  They actually hold teachers and schools in much higher esteem than, say, news media personalities from NBC.

Still, it's really a big pain as an educators to have to push back against the lies and propaganda on something like NBC's Education Nation and it's certainly true that many of those lies and some of that propaganda has become conventional wisdom for Americans.

How could it be otherwise when all they ever hear about schools from hacks like Brian Williams is "Our schools are in crisis!"

Apple Factory Workers Riot At Foxconn

To contact us Click HERE
A fight at the Foxxconn factory in China that makes products for Apple spiraled into a full-scale riot on Sunday, forcing the shutdown of the factory:

A riot between workers at Foxconn's Taiyuan factory in northwest China has caused the company to temporarily shut down operations there for a day.

According to Reuters, a personal dispute between several Foxconn employees broke out into a riot late Sunday night.

The riot involved 2,000 workers and 40 were sent to hospital for medical attention, the report noted.Citing Foxconn, the report said the personal dispute in a privately-managed dormitory escalated at around 11 p.m. on Sunday.

However, local police brought the situation under control at around 3 a.m, the company said."The cause of this dispute is under investigation by local authorities and we are working closely with them in this process, but it appears not to have been work-related," Foxconn said.

Local news site Sohu Finance said the riot involved Foxconn employees and security guards.

While the actual reason for the riot was unknown, rumors suggest it started because a security guard had beat up an employee which caused the dissatisfaction of other employees, the news site said.Chinese news site Sohu IT included photos of the riot from early morning which showed broken windows of the dormitory, campus supermarket and bus.

The news of the riot at Foxxconn comes on the heals of revelations that the factory used enforced student laborers to make the iPhone 5.

 

"Won't Back Down" Getting Savaged By Film Critics (UPDATED)

To contact us Click HERE
Frank Bruni loved the parent trigger propaganda piece "Won't Back Down, but movie critics for Salon, NPR and the Associated Press did not.

First, NPR's review:

 All cynicism aside, the movie taps a rich vein of accumulated public frustration at the continued failure of government to provide decent access to public schools for all American children. Aside from religion itself, no subject lends itself more to arm-waving entrenched positions than education. And perhaps a movie aimed at a mainstream audience can't help but distill the discussion into culture-war sound bites.

 For all its strenuous feints at fair play, though, Won't Back Down is something less honorable — a propaganda piece with blame on its mind. Directed with reasonable competence by Daniel Barnz from a speechifying screenplay he co-wrote with Brin Hill, the movie is funded by Walden Media, a company owned by conservative mogul Philip Anschutz, who advocates creationist curricula in schools. Walden also co-produced the controversial pro-charter school documentary Waiting for Superman, so the outfit is not without axes to grind.

...


In fact, it's nuance and reason that fall by the wayside amid the sloganeering rhetoric of Won't Back Down. Like most large institutions with interests to protect, the unions could use some reforms, especially when it comes to shielding bad teachers from scrutiny and discipline.
But if you were to wave a magic wand that replaced unions and bureaucrats with a rainbow coalition of local parents and educators coming together to create the kind of school they want, the result would be chaos, not to mention an end to the tattered remains of our common culture.
"We need to start somewhere," comes a stern, God-like voice in Won't Back Down, waving off all talk about the role of poverty and inequality in under-resourced schools and underachieving pupils. We do indeed. Just not here.

 Next, David Germain of the Associated Press pans the movie:

 Despite earnest performances from Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis as a pair of moms leading the fight, "Won't Back Down" lives down to its bland, us-against-them title with a simple-minded assault on the ills of public schools that lumbers along like a math class droning multiplication tables.

Director and co-writer Daniel Barnz ("Beastly") made his feature debut with 2009's "Phoebe in Wonderland," an intimate story of a troubled girl aided by an unconventional teacher. Here, Barnz gets lost in red tape as "Won't Back Down" gives us the inside dope on the teacher's lounge, the union headquarters, the principal-teacher showdown, the hushed halls of the board of education.

Theaters should install glow-in-the-dark versions of those old clunking classroom clocks so viewers can count the agonizing minutes ticking by as they watch the movie.

 ...

 And it's the children who suffer in "Won't Back Down." Other than some token scenes involving Jamie and Nona's kids, the students are mere extras in a drama that spends most of its time prattling on about how the children are what matter most.

 And finally, saving the best for last, Andrew O'Hehir

So teachers’ unions don’t care about kids. Oh, and luck is a foxy lady. This is what I took away from the inept and bizarre “Won’t Back Down,” a set of right-wing anti-union talking points disguised (with very limited success) as a mainstream motion-picture-type product. Someone needs to launch an investigation into what combination of crimes, dares, alcoholic binges and lapses in judgment got Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal into this movie. Neither of them seems likely to sympathize with its thinly veiled labor-bashing agenda and, way more to the point, I thought they had better taste. Maybe it was that actor-y thing where they saw potential in their characters – a feisty, working-class single mom for Gyllenhaal, a sober middle-class schoolteacher for Davis – liked the idea of working together and didn’t think too much about the big picture.

Perhaps that was a mistake, because the big picture is that the movie is unbelievable crap and the whole project was financed by conservative Christian billionaire Phil Anschutz, also the moneybags behind the documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman,’” which handled a similar agenda in subtler fashion.

...

 “Won’t Back Down” was reportedly inspired by a California law that allows parent-teacher takeovers of failing schools under certain circumstances. Again, that sounds like a fascinating premise, albeit one that’s highly likely to go in unforeseen “Animal Farm” directions. But all we get here is the most blithe and moronic kind of “let’s put on a show” magical thinking, in which ripping up the union contract and wresting control of the school from the bureaucrats becomes an end in itself, and what happens later is shrouded in the mists of an imaginary libertarian paradise. There are attempts at Fox News-style balance here and there, as when someone observes that most charter schools fail to improve outcomes and when a bombastic union exec played by Ned Eisenberg delivers a monologue about the current assault on labor (right before announcing that he couldn’t care less about children).

...

 Most people still understand, I believe, that teachers work extremely hard for little pay and low social status in a thankless, no-win situation. But this is one of those areas where conservatives have been extremely successful in dividing the working class, which is precisely the agenda in “Won’t Back Down.” Breeding hostility to unions in themselves, and occasionally insinuating that unionized teachers are a protected caste of incompetents who get three damn months off every single year, has been an effective tactic in what we might call postmodern Republican populism, especially in recent battles over public employee contracts in Wisconsin and elsewhere. It works something like this: 1) Turn the resentment and frustration of people like Jamie – people with crappy service-sector jobs and few benefits, whose kids are stuck in failing schools – against the declining group of public employees who still have a decent deal. 2) Strip away job security and collective bargaining; hand out beer and ukuleles instead. 3) La la la la, tax cuts, tax cuts, I can’t hear you!

On the plus side for "Won't Back Down", NY Times food critic Frank Bruni loved the movie so much that he decided to devote an entire column to how much teachers unions and unionized teachers suck and how much better we would all be if teachers would just mindlessly accept whatever "reforms" the education reform movement wants to impose on schools.

That Bruni thought enough of "Won't Back Down" that he used it as a springboard for his teacher attack column makes you wonder what he was watching.

Maybe Bruni wasn't watching the same "Won't Back Down" as the critics for NPR, Salon, and the AP?

Maybe he was watching the video to Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down."

Or, more likely, Petty's "Don't Come Around Here No More."

Hey, Frank, stay away from the magic mushrooms when you're writing about education, okay?

UPDATE - 3:01 PM: Critics from Variety, the Arizona Republic, the Hollywood Reporter and the Village Voice also think "Won't Back Down" sucks.

Maggie Anderson in the Voice writes:

The fat, lazy public school teacher who can’t be bothered to stop diddling with her phone or shopping for shoes online while her second-grade class erupts into mayhem in the opening scene of Won’t Back Down isn’t the most despicable entity in this tearjerker. That would be the union that protects her, the same malevolent force in Davis Guggenheim’s horribly argued pro-charter-school documentary from 2010, Waiting for Superman (both films were funded by Walden Media, led by a conservative billionaire).

...

 Viewed solely as maternal melodrama, Won’t Back Down succeeds; its actresses, as they spearhead the takeover and work through “personal demons,” rouse, rage, and rue admirably (though in Davis’s case, marveling at yet another fine performance doesn’t stop you from wishing that her first leading role was in a worthier vehicle). But there’s no prettying up the movie’s vilifying of teachers’ unions, which here resort to dirty tricks and smear campaigns—an easy enough scapegoat for the larger, more intractable economic problems also ignored in Guggenheim’s film and by most politicians of any stripe.

And David Rooney of the Hollywood Reporter writes:

The jury is still out on a solution to the national education system crisis, but the verdict is delivered with a heavy hand and a stacked deck in the formulaic Won’t Back Down. Simplifying complex school-reform hurdles into tidy inspirational clichés while demonizing both teachers’ unions and bureaucracy-entrenched education boards, the movie addresses timely issues but eschews shading in favor of blunt black and white. It’s old-school Lifetime fodder dressed up in Hollywood trappings.

Peter Debruge of Variety writes that the film takes its audience "for dummies" by "grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand" while Barbara VanDenburgh of the Arizona Republic writes that

Oversimplified politics undermine the film at every turn. The shrill preachiness reaches a fever pitch by the film's climax, a schoolboard hearing that takes place under the watchful gazes of a muralized Abraham Lincoln and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and in which the deciding vote is cast by a man named -- what else? -- Mr. King, who monologues against a backdrop of the civil-rights leader to thunderous applause.

The movie doesn't just shriek its point to you through a megaphone -- it beats you over the head with it.

And it doesn't matter which side of the debate you land on; two hours of schmaltz mired in bloodless policy debate just doesn't make for good movie watching. Even if you stripped the film bare of political pretensions, you'd still be left with unabashed, hokey sentimentality where such feel-good adages as "Change the school, you change the neighborhood" are sprinkled on complex problems like so much fairy dust.

There's a real conversation to be had about the sorry state of the public-school system, but all this movie is going to trigger is a lot of screaming.

Looks like there will be no Oscar for the ed reform movement again this year.

They were dying to get an Oscar win for Davis Guggenheim's "Waiting for Superman," but not only did "Superman" not win an Oscar, it wasn't even nominated.

Judging by the reviews of the heavy-handed, badly written "Won't Back Down," the reform movement is going to have to hope the third time is a charm when it comes to winning an Oscar and promoting their message via pop culture.

Wonder what they'll try next?

An animated Disney education reform picture (Donald Duck can be the lazy, nasty, unionized teacher.)

Maybe an updated Boston Public mini-series that promotes privatization, charterization and high stakes testing?

Or maybe they can stop trying to fool people with propaganda and engage on the issues for real.

Improving the education system is not as easy as firing all the teachers, closing all the schools, and turning the entire public school system to charters.

The economic conditions that kids face at home matter when they come to school.

The movie critics get this.

Why can't the education reform community and the politicians?

Why can't President Obama?

Homeless Children In NYC Shelters At All-Time High, Majority Turned Away From Shelter System

To contact us Click HERE
It's the "Ownership Society," Bloomberg edition:

Almost 20,000 children are spending the night in homeless shelters in New York City, according to new data, an increase of 24% since July 2011.

The Coalition for the Homeless, which published the figures, said the number of children in shelters would be even higher were it not for the fact that 65% of homeless families seeking admission to shelters are being turned away.

The homeless charity places some of the blame on the closure of the Advantage housing program in the summer of 2011. Since then there has been no rent-subsidy program in place for accommodating homeless families.

The number of homeless children in NYC shelters rose from an average of 15,704 in July 2011 to an average of 18,489 in July 2012, the most recent month for which average statistics are available. A freedom of information request by the Coalition for the Homeless found that 19,537 children were in shelters on 23 September – the most recent information available – which it described as "an all-time record high".

"For the first time ever there is no program in place to help people move from homeless shelters to housing," said Giselle Routhier, a policy analyst at Coalition for the Homeless. She blamed mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration for the increase in homelessness among children, the impact of which she said is "really detrimental".

"Homeless kids are more likely to feel anxiety and depression and an array of other health problems. That impacts itself on schooling as well – homeless kids miss more days of school, oftentimes they do worse in school than their peers, so we know it has a very negative impact. The fact that we're seeing record numbers of children in shelters is very disturbing to us."

65% of homeless families are currently being turned away from the shelter system.

This is an outrage.

That the 35% who are accepted into the shelter system amounts to the highest rate of homeless children in NYC shelters ever is also an outrage.

Tell me how poverty does not affect destiny when you're living on the street as a kid and even the homeless shelter system is turning you down for a bed?

Huh, Mr. Bloomberg? 

Mr. Nocera? 

Mr. Kristof? 

Mr. Brooks?

Mr. Obama?

No excuses, right?

If we just fire some teachers, we can solve this homelessness problem, right?

Highest Number Of Homeless In NYC Since The Great Depression

To contact us Click HERE
 In 2005, New York City had 33,000 people living on its streets.

This year, that number has increased to 46,000 - almost 20,000 of whom are children.

Even the NY Times editorial page, which normally blames these kind of socio-economic problems on bad schools and bad teachers, understands that the sharp increase in homeless children in New York City since 2005 is a problem that could be alleviated by the politicians in charge.

The Bloomberg administration unwisely ended priority referrals for homeless families to public housing and for federal rent subsidies, which have very long waiting lists. The mayor should find a way to give destitute families quicker access to public housing and rental vouchers. 
The New York City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn have also been working on a new rental support program similar to one called Advantage, which helped 25,000 families get permanent housing over a four-year period. Mr. Cuomo cut the state’s $65 million annual contribution to the Advantage program in 2011, which resulted in a loss of $27 million in matching federal funds.
The Bloomberg administration also decided to cancel the city’s $48 million annual contribution, arguing that the city could not afford to pay for the program on its own. The governor and Mr. Bloomberg should restore the state and city funds for an Advantage-like program and reapply for more federal money.

Cuomo and Bloomberg are too busy looking for ways to cut taxes on corporations and Wall Street banks to address this crisis in the city's streets.

And back in August, Bloomberg complained that people stayed in the shelter system too long because  “it is a much more pleasurable experience” than in the past - a statement that drew howls of criticism from advocates for the homeless:

Advocates for the homeless, who consider the Bloomberg’s administration record on homelessness to be one of the top failures of his 11.5-year tenure at City Hall, quickly lambasted the mayor for his remarks.

“The Mayor’s assertion that homeless New Yorkers are staying in shelters longer because they are ‘much more pleasurable’ is shocking and offensive,” said Mary Brosnahan, executive director of the Coalition for the Homelessness, in an emailed statement.

“Mayor Bloomberg systematically closed every single path to affordable housing once available to homeless families with vulnerable children,” she said. “His failed policies are the major factor leading to the record shelter population this summer.  Blaming homeless families and suggesting they are luxuriating in ‘pleasurable’ accommodations shows just how badly the mayor is out of touch.”

An overloaded shelter system, 65% of homeless children turned away from the shelters every night because there's no room, people stuck in the system because they have no way to get out and the highest number of homeless people living on city streets since the Great Depression - that's Bloomberg's legacy as mayor.

Henry Buhl Illegal Planters Protested Prince St. Goal to Evict Veteran ...

To contact us Click HERE





http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2012/07/henry-buhls-economic-racist-planters.html
Mike Bloomberg took 2 Viet Nam Vets to lunch for alerting the NYPD to the fact their was a bomb in Times Square.  
In Soho a few rich white folks want Veteran Vendors ticketed and wiped off the street.
People real estate corrupt dealings and tech contracts are Bloomberg's disasters for the People of NYC.

Andrew Cuomo Shelly Silver JCOPE Keeps Jobs Despite Vito Lopez Grope-Gate Exposing Dirty Albany

To contact us Click HERE
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Under-scrutiny-JCOPE-speaks-3854799.php
JCOPE under scrutiny speaks....   JCOPE trying to save their phony jobs?  How many other jobs Albany to City Hall are phony --- how many top people in legal system playing dumb deaf blind to protect corruption and their big salaries?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/albany_ethics_again_PvddUF6bCoyW3xuaBhhfmN

Albany and lack of ethics and who's our governor....?
a) flim flam man -- cuomo lied and said he would clean-up Albany but we should have know from the Steve Rattner deal with Rattner paid to not go to jail, pleaded the 5th 64 times, paid to not plead guilty and than Mike Bloomberg helped pick up the bill with a nice fat pay check for his BFF (also owner of NYT BF and NYDN)  Rattner gets jobs op ed pieces NYT, Financial Times and show on Bloomberg's ken doll Charlie Rose - Bloomberg owns Rose like he owns Koch along with Rudin's who rent to Koch for next to nothing.

http://misogynistnyc.blogspot.com/2012/09/andrew-cuomo-dave-patersons-radio-show.html
Than Cuomo made sure Paterson did not go to jail for witness tampering and uses the WOR so he could use the radio show to sent Ravi a message -- resign from JCOPE. Cuomo payback and for covering up for silencing a victim of spousal abuse

b) Closet Richard Nixon like Mike Bloomberg -- control freak supreme even has staff create file on critics
c) Cuomo lied and filled jobs with cronies -- went back on his world.
d) all of the above -- voted for him never again.

Cuomo a father of daughters protects Paterson and compares using tax payer money to settle sex harassment to car accidents.

Cuomo doesn't care that secret tax payer money used either does AG or comptroller -- welcome to misogynist Albany NY Politics -- female club members called feminist trail blazers from Albany to city hall.
http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2012/08/andrew-cuomo-resign-he-compared-tax.html
Christine Quinn invited Lopez to her wedding for what delivering an illegal third term.  She and Cuomo shunted a fortune in tax payer money to Lopez via his senior center that they knew had a DOI file thicker than a phone book?

http://politicker.com/2012/09/cuomo-shelly-silvers-secret-deal-with-vito-lopez-was-anything-but/
Cuomo Sheldon Vito Lopez Misogynist Albany Boy's Club cover-ups Albany knew and every top player involved -- top women protecting Shelly, Cuomo, comptroller and AG -- all silent.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/nyregion/stu-loeser-hired-to-aid-sheldon-silver-in-assembly-scandal.html?_r=3&ref=nyregion



http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/154595/your-daily-batra-new-york-has-tasted-steamrolling/
Between the lessons of Kristalnacht and what the Jesuits taught me of “never on bent knee,” I left, and then, as I wrote yesterday to Gov. Cuomo, I resigned an additional board, NYS IOLA, in rebuke of ignoble David Paterson, as he is no Basil Paterson, who is a true gentleman.

Mike Bloomberg and other silent because Vito Lopez blackmail threat?  http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/search?q=vito+lopez+blackmailing+
Lopez has the goods and can run Brooklyn from jail!

Sam Zherka sues Janet DiFiore's chief of investigations; says he double-dipped STAR tax deduction

http://www.lohud.com/article/20120814/NEWS/308140037/Sam-Zherka-sues-Janet-DiFiore-s-chief-investigations-says-he-double-dipped-STAR-tax-deduction
http://www.lohud.com/article/20120802/NEWS02/308020054/Westchester-fraud-unit-taken-off-D-Janet-DiFiore-case-ex-nanny-plans-defamation-suit


http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/2012/09/citytime-secrets-buried-ny-political.html
New York State and City run by political crime families all legal all tax payer money funded -- whoppeee!
Bill Hammond says JCOPE must go!http://mayorbloombergkingofnewyork.blogspot.com/2012/09/andrew-cuomo-jcope-must-go-andy_11.html



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/rivals_blast_no_show_naomi_at_debate_mgYURLcFVshorw7KD594nJ?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Bronx


Where was her newest boy toy assistant to help her with her no show problems?

Do you realize the people that supposed representative us do not and vote for greed and stupidity and not the People of NY State and City........

We no longer live in a democracy but a State and City KOed by Greed and Stupidity!

Dont' forget Charles Hynes as usual had to recuse himself -- he loves Vito Lopez and his daughter worked for Lopez.  Lopez a saint.  Welcome to the family!
http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheldon-silver-under-investigation.html

http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2012/09/joe-crowley-decade-ago-exposed-jack.html

Crowley Family Queens  legalized mobsters?
http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2012/09/joe-crowley-decade-ago-exposed-jack.html
Bronx Diaz Rivera?
So many don't forget Arroyo family robbing and raping tax payers?
So many others list so long...
Christine Quinn has how many on her staff and Mike Bloomberg the worst...he should reimburse tax payers for putting his campaign staff on tax payer's dole.  He ain't going to The White House...maybe jail CityTime ECTP -- no to rich to go to jail like Rattner -- he protected Rattner because he identifies with him.