Author: Robert I. Grundfest

Let’s think this through. Somebody has to, right?

President Trump ordered the killing of Major General Qassim Suleimani in order to “stop a war” and because other Iranian attacks on United States forces were “imminent.” As of this moment, neither the president nor any military or intelligence officials is being specific about Iranian operations. We’re only getting the “just not the facts ma’am” embellished by wild numbers (Suleimani was responsible of millions of deaths? Did I miss a war?) and general accusations that are a core component of the president’s pronouncements.

Of course, the Iranian’s are incensed by his breach of their sovereignty, but I can’t be too sympathetic given the thousands of people who’ve been killed by their attacks, either directly or through proxies across the Middle East.

The issue, though, is whether this official assassination will change anything. General Suleimani was not the head of some terrorist organization or rogue state that depended on his will or knowledge. He was part of a bureaucracy that had a plan behind it. Killing him will not stop that plan or the policies that undergird it. The Quds force will still be strong. Iranian weapons will still fire live ammunition. Iran’s leadership will still hold sway over the areas they have now in Syria and Iraq. There are likely to be other generals or military leaders in Iran who can step in and run the military. Maybe they won’t be quite as forceful or effective or feared, but run the military they will. After all, we’ve had hundreds of terrorist attacks since the killings of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

For comparison, just think about what would happen if anyone in the Trump Administration died. Policy, mostly bad, would continue with another cabinet member. It’s the same with Iran.

The end result is that President Trump made a terrible decision to abrogate the treaty with Iran negotiated by the Obama Administration. Iran was following it, and the United States could have used it as leverage to continue to put pressure on Iranian misdeeds. It also would make our allies who signed the treaty more confident that the president would honor our agreements. Breaking the treaty has led to Iran starting up its nuclear program and continuing to wreak havoc on regional neighbors. Now we’ve killed one of their major players. Does anybody other than the president believe that this will lead to Iran making nice with…anyone?

And does this action make Israel more secure? Our troops in Iraq more secure? American diplomats and government employees more secure? Will it bring Iran back to any shaped bargaining table to negotiate with a president who has shown  that he can’t be trusted?

If the president really wanted to hurt Iran and other oil-based economies, he would recognize global warming for the threat that it is and work on transitioning our economy from oil and coal to one based on renewable fuels. Instead, he is doing the opposite, making it easier for industries to pollute and for construction projects to begin without concern over whether they will worsen the climate.

Most of what the president has done in foreign policy has turned out badly. The other buddy dictators he likes continue to play him because they know he loves flattery and believes that what he says will actually come to pass. He “fell in love” with Kim Jong-Un. He believes Vladimir Putin over his own CIA and intelligence services. He’s a friend with Xi Jinping. His belief in a conspiracy theory regarding Ukraine got him impeached.

Now he’s provoked Iran, and they will reciprocate. Then what?

Did anybody think about that?

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

The end of another year is at hand, but not another decade. They end with zero and begin with one.

Yes, I am one of those kinds of people.

In 2020 I will try to contribute more positive solutions to the issues of the day, which means that I will be writing less and doing more.

I will, of course, be involved in the campaign on a local and national basis, and I will do all that I can to counteract those who are propagating lies, propaganda, hatred, discrimination, and blame.

I will try to provide reasonable arguments at a time when too many people in this country and around the world seem to believe that reason is suspect.

I will try my best to me more loving, more kind, more caring, more supportive, more practical, more pragmatic, and more funny. These are values I have tried to live by. Sometimes I’ve been successful and sometimes not, but I will be especially mindful of how my actions affect others.

I will do my best on the job, with my family and friends, and will be more helpful to those in need.

If I can accomplish all of that, I think I can make my own corner of the world a bit brighter, a bit more informed, a bit more civilized, a bit more hopeful, and a place where those who come in contact with me can be more secure, more comfortable challenging themselves, more daring in their actions to promote love and peace, and happier, on balance, than they were before.

And if I can lose weight along the way, then victory will be mine.

These I resolve.

You?

Happy New Year.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

With all due respect, and honestly, I don’t believe I will ever have any respect for the president or his family, I would like to be left out of any schemes to force people to respect Jews or Israel. I have been a victim of antisemitism and all of its hateful, noxious ignorance, but the last thing I ever want to be is part of any law that identified Judaism as a nationality. It will open the door to even worse, as this article illustrates.

I have spent the better part of my educational career teaching students that Judaism is a religion with beliefs and rituals that are tied to the monotheistic God of the Torah, and not an “other” or separate nation or culture that is different from the countries in which Jews live. The historical record is full of rulers and nations who took great care in isolating and targeting Jews as a means of propping up their rule and blaming Jews for every misfortune suffered by the ruling or cultural majority.

Naturally, this designation would appeal to an ignorant nationalist who wants to score political points and make antisemitic remarks while hiding behind the fact that his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. The president has made it clear that he believes that the right wing hate groups who are notoriously antisemitic are equal to other groups who are fighting for civil rights and equal treatment. And of course this is the man who said that Jews who vote Democratic are being disloyal.

I don’t want to be a separate nation. I don’t want to be associated with either the right wing nationalists here or in Netanyahu’s Likud Party. I don’t want to be a protected minority in Donald Trump’s America. I’ve seen how that works out.

They way to defeat antisemitism and BDS and anti-Israel sentiment is to actually have a foreign policy that respects Palestinian demands for its own state. Otherwise, there will be no peace, only  suppression and denial of rights, such as the right to speak out against issues in the press, on college campuses, and in capital cities around the world.

Like everyone else, I would like to live in a world where people respect each others’ views and can speak to others intelligently, but I know that this is not reality. The best way to fight speech is with speech, not denigration and denial of justice.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

I like the Common Core Curriculum Standards. And you should too. Because they make sense. After all, how can you argue with teaching students how to:

Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.

Provide reasons that are supported by facts and details.

Distinguish among facts, reasoned judgment based on research findings, and speculation in a text.

Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract rational numbers.

These are all standards that students should meet, and should be able to meet given a classroom with a qualified, committed teacher and learning resources supplied by a school district. Teachers should be able to incorporate the standards into their lesson plans and evaluate the extent that students have learned them using authentic assessments.

What’s the problem? According to this article, plenty. The more you delve into the details, though, the more these problems become solvable. They require change and a shift in thinking, but they are solvable.

I’ve been using a curriculum that relies on the Common Core Standards for about five years. It’s a sensible combination of content and academic skills, and it requires that students analyze texts, account for variations in interpretation, tone, use of sources, point-of-view, and emphasis, and asks students to write cogent, articulate responses and essays in response to sophisticated prompts. That’s exactly what the United States education system should want from its students.

What happened? The Common Core got caught up in the debate over local vs. federal control of education standards. The conservatives don’t like the standards because they say that they trample on the right of states and local communities to set standards, since education is not a federal constitutional responsibility. The liberals didn’t like it because it created standardized tests that forced school districts to cast aside instruction in all but language arts and math. Parents couldn’t help their children with their homework because it relied on new strategies. Publishers and school districts didn’t release new materials or train teachers in how to adapt to the new standards.

Ugly.

The good news is that the Common Core Standards are slowly making their way into the classroom, and are taking hold. Most states have renamed the standards and now have access to classroom materials that explain to students and parents how they work. The standards are also part of the Advanced Placement courses. More students are being exposed to the standards from the beginning of their education rather than having to shift to them in the middle of their schooling.

It will take time, but if states and districts continue to commit resources and energy to the standards, then we should see more improvement in student assessments in the coming years. We know we can do this because when teachers are given the right training and support, then students will achieve. Even in Mississippi.  Yes, Mississippi.

Of course, the bigger issue in education is that achievement is tied to the relative wealth of the community in which a family lives. And while Mississippi has made great strides, there is simply no reason why wealth and money should determine the quality of a child’s education. This is why the Common Core is so valuable; it virtually eliminates local standards that might be less rigorous than what students need to meet in order to become educated citizens. 

The next step is to ensure that all schools across the country have the resources they need and teachers who are trained and supported, both economically and technically. 

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

I’ve heard many commentators make the point that Donald Trump was elected to shake up the system or to challenges the establishment or, in his words, to drain the swamp.

This opinion piece is just one more example whereby his apologists attempt to tell the majority of voters in this country, you know, the ones who voted against him, that Trump should be given the benefit of his victory to enact whatever policies he wants. Please don’t impeach him; he’s only doing what he was elected to do.

This is an argument?

I will say from the outset that I do agree with some of the premises of the article because we have elected a class of officials who have enacted policies that enrich themselves and their businesses, foundations, universities, and foreign cronies. Hunter Biden should never have gotten the position with Burisma. We have reenacted the Gilded Age and defended it by elevating money to the point that it’s become the point of the discussion.

Box office receipts lead the Monday morning news. Salaries for athletes, performers, CEOs and hedge fund managers are defended as what the market will bear, or that their talents are so specialized, that they are worth the (m)(b)illions Stock market programs lead the ratings. And we have, to use a timely phrase, bought the goods. Literally. We are in an unending war in Iraq because George W. Bush decided to lie about the threat it posed to the country. It poses a threat now, but only because of his policies. President Obama never confronted Syria over its use of chemical weapons. The middle of the country was left to rot and ruin while international trade took jobs from the working class.

Donald Trump was elected to clean all this up, and in some ways he’s tried to do that. The problem is that his methods and policies are informed by conspiracy theories, FOX News hosts who know he’s watching and feed him a steady diet of fear for him to tweet to the general public, and his own wide, bloated, unending ignorance of the law, the constitution, and basic manners. So when I read the article above, I saw the point that Mr. McCarthy was trying to make. The problem is that the course Donald Trump has followed has been disastrous for the country, and now for him.

To address a few of McCarthy’s points, Mr. Trump is more than crude. He uses vile, divisive language that attacks people and calls them unfit, traitorous and dangerous simply for disagreeing with him.

He is being impeached not for doing something analogous to Vice President Biden’s asking the Ukrainian President to investigate corruption in his own administration, but because Trump believed in a debunked conspiracy theory and wanted Biden investigated to help Trump get elected.

There might not be direct evidence of Trump working with Vladimir Putin, but the effect of Trump’s policies and pronouncements have benefited Putin handsomely, from taking his word that Russia didn’t interfere in the 2016 election to denying Ukraine aid to fight the Russians.

Donald Trump might have been elected to transform America’s foreign policy, but he has done nothing of the sort, except to make it worse. Our allies don’t trust us, he’s made decisions in a moment based on faulty information, and refuses to think about the long-term effects of his actions. When Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, Racep Tayyip Erdogan, and Xi Jinping have all played you, you’re not making anything better. Remember that we sold out the Kurds so we could keep the oil, at a time when the last thing the world needs is more oil. Isn’t that where our foreign policy went awry in the first place? In 1919?

And now the president is putting himself in the middle of the military justice system, going beyond his powers as Commander-in-Chief to act as both judge and jury. Please tell me how that helps the country.

If a minority of the country’s voters want a president who bathes in conspiracy and wants to bend the law to his own benefit, then they should vote for that. It doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing or the moral thing or the legal thing. Because its isn’t.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

It began with conspiracy theories and it might well end because of conspiracy theories.

And Pete, Joe, Elizabeth, Bernie, Amy and all the rest. As in more presidential election years, I would like to take the best policies of all the candidates and roll them into one person. Perhaps in a few years we’ll be able to do that, but for now we are limited by scientific laws, or at least the ones that rational people still adhere to. And truth be told, I will likely vote for a rusty nail if the Democrats nominate one, rather than vote for a president who uses vile language and is more comfortable with fear, blame, and fiction than he is with the truth and actually running the country.

But back to the nominees.

I am at the point now where I don’t believe the Democrats should nominate Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. If last week’s elections told us anything (again), it’s that the vast middle of American voters truly wants a president who will reflect policies that will make their lives easier or more productive. They don’t want fear and attacks from the right, so why would they want them from the left?

I understand what Sanders and Warren are saying, and in I completely agree that our culture has been too tolerant of social and economic inequality and that we need to fix the problems that are associated with them. Moving too far to the left will not attract the people the Democrats need to win in November.

What about Mike?

I think Mike Bloomberg has some very strong strengths in terms of his style, his ideas, his record, and the fact that he used to be a moderate Republican and is now a moderate Democrat. He certainly has his weaknesses: Stop and Frisk, being a billionaire, being a technocrat, and his policy on guns, which will not be popular with people he’ll need to win over.

The key will be how Mr. Bloomberg communicates his message and how he will address those on the left who are suspicious of his moderation and his wealth. It would be a great sign if he were to actually and forcefully come out against the carried interest rule, which would send the message that the very wealthy need to pay their fair share. It’s a better message than soaking the rich, and it would raise needed revenue to pay for health care and education.

It took 40 years for the country to move as far to the right as we are now. Moving back to the far left will not happen in this one election and nominating a candidate who promises to do that will, I think, be a great mistake. Change occurs slowly and Democrats need to respect the fact that many people like the Republican stances on immigration and foreign policy, but they don’t like the way Donald Trump is conducting those policies. The Democratic nominee has to be one who addresses those concerns and offers a more respectable, more responsible, more thoughtful response, as opposed to the disjointed, fearful, emotional screeds we hear daily from the White House.

Nominate a moderate who can talk about the day-to-day issues that concern most Americans in a way that assures them that Democrats will run the country in a fair, equitable manner. Run a hard-fought campaign and don’t be afraid to confront the president on his lies and his ignorance.

That’s the path to victory.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

We are at the point now where the Democratic candidates for president need to break out or go home. It looks like we will lose some key voices, such as Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, and Beto O’Rourke has already left the building. The November debate could also be the turning point for Andrew Yang and Julian Castro, though the latter had a late surge in fundraising which allowed him to qualify for the show.

Then there was the Iowa poll that showed Elizabeth Warren leading the pack, and a new national poll that shows Biden with a lead not just among Democrats, but a 12 point lead over the president. And it’s got FOX News written all over it. Another poll puts Biden in the lead, but with a smaller margin and some caveats about his policy positions and performance on the campaign trail.

This week also saw Warren give some details about what will likely be a $20 trillion dollar plan to pay for her Medicare for all health policy. Other estimates put the cost at $34 trillion because she seems to be overestimating just how efficient the government can run the program, but you get the idea. It’s going to be expensive and it redistributes the tax system so that the ultra wealthy pay a lot more.

Many people have criticized the plan because they say it will ultimately require middle class taxpayers to pay more too, but I’d like to see how much the middle class will save in health insurance premiums in return for tax increases. I’m thinking that those will turn out to be far less than the premiums, making it a net gain for most earners. Warren, and the press, need to publicize that aspect of her plan.

Pete Buttigieg is also rising in these polls and is fourth in both Iowa and nationally. He and Amy Klubichar are hoping they can build on their more moderate positions in the November debate and attract those who are wary of the Warren?Sanders left and the more jittery Biden supporters who are unsure that he can rise above his other debate performances.

November’s debate will be key because there are no debates in December, and then only a month before the voting begins, so each candidate will be looking for that signature moment, or to quell any concerns from past debates.  In the end, this election will come down to the Midwestern states that the president won in 2016, and possibly North Carolina. Texas is still a long-shot.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

I realize that the country is going to get precious little in terms of public education out of the know-nothings who are presently in charge, and the chief of that group, Betsy DeVos, has unfortunately stayed on while other cabinet members have fallen away due to having some common sense or scandals that in previous administrations wouldn’t allow them to be unattended in Lafayette Park, much less have an office in the White House.

And honestly, I can’t say that I supported President Obama’s approach to education because it relied far too heavily on punishing teachers for student test scores that might be influenced by some minor inconveniences like poverty, divorce, disease, hunger, or emotional problems. At least, though, Obama had some understanding of the importance of the public school system. DeVos and Trump are happy to let the system atrophy on the alter of private enterprise and competition, without seeing that every school, no matter where it is located, must provide a thorough, excellent, modern education for the children who attend.

With the budget deficit reaching $1 trillion dollars, I can’t imagine that there will be any new federal spending on education, and the states are constrained by their requirements to balance their budgets. Yes teachers education professionals continue to strike, not just over pay, but over the health of their students. This article details many of the demands that these professionals are making, and in many cases they’re not about salary.

One of the most troubling facts is that only 39% of schools employs a full-time nurse. That’s shockingly low, even if there’s a part-time person or a nurse on call. All schools should have a full-time nurse because you never know when a child will need one, and any delay can result in a tragedy. The same is true for school psychologists and an adequate number of guidance counselors. More and more children now rely on these vital resources, yet districts are not providing them in numbers to meet the demand.

The political winds have shifted back to the states on education after a robust era that began with George W. Bush. The result is less federal influence and more local control. This is generally how we’ve run education for most of our history, but with local control come local constraints, and most of those are fiscal. This means that school districts that struggle to raise funds will continue to do so and will not be able to adapt to the changing needs of their constituents.

Remember that we’re talking about children. We must meet our obligations.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Given what we know about the president’s ability to sink lower and lower as the weeks pass, I am hesitant to say that we’ve reached rock bottom in his swampy, immoral, ill-informed, and ignorant administration, but we’re getting close.

This, of course, is not a soothing thought, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Republicans are rebuking him over his unconscionable sell-out of the Kurds, and every day there’s a new revelation in the tar pit of his Ukrainian outrage.

Mick Mulvaney admitted that the president tied American military support to Ukrainian acquiescence to investigating Joe Biden and the wayward computer server that the president believes holds the key to Democratic malfeasance in the 2016 election. Mick took back his words later in the day, but we can always roll the tape. And we have.

The president is going to be impeached. There’s no doubt about that. And there will be a trial in the Senate that even Mitch McConnell can’t ignore, simply because a majority of Americans believe there is evidence that the president did something wrong. As the weeks pass, there will be more evidence, and the old evidence is not going to go away because it’s been verified. So it can only get worse. How much worse is the key detail.

That Trump believes he’s doing a great job will be his undoing, because he obviously believes that he can do no wrong, make no wrong decision, or be held accountable for his actions. He believes that this is all a plot by the Democrats, or those government employees who don’t agree with him. Change American foreign policy with an off-hand comment? Write a letter that a high school junior would be embarrassed to send (and they’ve told me how embarrassed they would be to send such a letter)? Curse your way through a campaign rally? Ignore the Constitution?  Just another day at the White House.

And this business of holding the 2020 G7 summit meeting at Trump’s Doral Hotel in Miami? Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to tell the story, but he doesn’t care and probably doesn’t even see what the fuss might be. It’s Chris Christie on a closed beach. No conflict of interest here, my fellow Americans. It’s terrible.

Our allies are incredulous and are concerned about our trustworthiness and commitment to the stability of the world. We can sign as many bilateral trade agreements as the president wants, but that’s not going to solve the issue of our foreign policy. In fact, I see that as disadvantageous. Our strength, and the strength of democracy in the face of dictators and theocrats, is in our numbers and our alliances. These are under threat.

And have I mentioned that next year is an election? Get registered. Vote.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

With great thanks to Monty Python. I had no idea that you could read all of the episodes online.

But back to sport.

I was thinking the other day, after China rolled its collective ankle over a pro-Hong Kong tweet by a Houston Rockets executive, about the time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when athletes adopted Islamic names. I know, I know; how quaint, right? An athlete changing their name to match their religion today would yield precious little backlash on the social media.

Right.

I also remembered Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. And having the Australian who won the bronze sympathize with them. And Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And Ahmad Rashad. And the others. There was a significant backlash but in the end, sports enthusiasts generally accepted the changes.

Money changes everything. Remember when Micheal Jordan refused to get involved in the political debates of the 1980s and 90s? Or the relative peace within the Olympic movement after the fall of apartheid and the Soviet Union? Those days are now gone. Sports is a huge business, and having the Chinese buy stuff is every sports marketer’s dream. That’s why the tweet was a wake up call. The temperature lowered a bit at the end of the week, but this episode will not go away.

The athletes who now represent their sports grew up in the same political and social milieu as the rest of us, and they see themselves as more than just paid athletes. They are role models, ambassadors, social media stars and, yes, political animals. They speak out against police actions, injustice, sexism, economic inequality, and now, international affairs.

Well, at least the team executives do.

I also remember when American athletes protested the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. They were not labeled traitors. Carlos Delgado, who played for the Mets, and is not an American citizen, came under criticism for not coming out of the dugout for the national anthem. Sports radio provided lame attacks, but in the end, he didn’t change his behavior. Lebron James tweets back when the president attacks him.

And honestly, someone has to stand up to the Chinese. They have had an outsized influence on the world economy because sellers want to sell to a billion people. But when we are on the brink of a Chinese incursion into Hong Kong, someone also has to stand up for justice and democracy. It’s not going to come from the White House, so it might as well come from more famous people who have morals. I understand that some of the athletes want to keep their noses out of the fray. Self-preservation, higher salaries and all that.

If you want to stand up to a bully, though, you need to have the right argument. And we do.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest