Skip to Content

Dick Yarbrough: Ten reasons to vote ‘no’ on the charter school amendment

A couple of points, follow the read more link for the rest:

 

Eight: The Legislature has deliberately starved public schools financially and as a result, 67 percent of the schools systems in Georgia do not have the funds to provide 180 days of instruction as required by Georgia law. According to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, Georgia’s funding for K-12 public education is at its lowest level on a per-pupil basis in 10 years. Legislators like to wring their hands about “failing schools.” If the schools are failing, the politicians need to look in the mirror. It is their fault; not the schools.


Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/10/30/2230804/ten-reasons-to-vote-no-on-the.html#storylink=cpy
 
Ten: I support charter schools, as do most educators. But this amendment isn’t about charter schools. It is about money. Lots and lots of money from for-profit education company lobbyists in a state with the weakest ethics laws in the nation. That’s reason enough that the amendment needs to be defeated.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/10/30/2230804/ten-reasons-to-vote-no-on-the.html#storylink=cpy

 

Ten: I support charter schools, as do most educators. But this amendment isn’t about charter schools. It is about money. Lots and lots of money from for-profit education company lobbyists in a state with the weakest ethics laws in the nation. That’s reason enough that the amendment needs to be defeated.


Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/10/30/2230804/ten-reasons-to-vote-no-on-the.html#storylink=cpy
 

Why Sandy Has Meteorologists Scared in Four Images

The talk is of Franken-Storms. And Sandy's arrival on the scene a week before the election ought to give pause to every environmental apologist for the Drill Baby Drill politics of the Democrat incumbent who has refrained from mentioning Global Warming while he competes in the constrained debate permitted by the corporate contributors over who can tap more of the off-shore, hydro-fracked, dirty coal and even more dangerous nuclear energy resources beneath our soil and off our beaches.

Follow the Read More link to see the images which have meteorologists frightened, New York City flooded without power and transit systems closed.

The progressive case against Obama

 

Bottom line: The president is complicit in creating an increasingly unequal -- and unjust -- society

A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.

There are many good arguments against Obama, even if the Republicans cannot seem to muster any. The civil liberties/antiwar case was made eloquently a few weeks ago by libertarian Conor Friedersdorf, who wrote a well-cited blog post on why he could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama. While his arguments have tremendous merit, there is an equally powerful case against Obama on the grounds of economic and social equity. That case needs to be made. For those who don’t know me, here is a brief, relevant background:  I have a long history in Democratic and liberal politics. I have worked for several Democratic candidates and affiliated groups, I have personally raised millions of dollars for Democrats online, I was an early advisor to Actblue (which has processed over $300 million to Democratic candidates). I have worked in Congress (mostly on the Dodd-Frank financial reform package), and I was a producer at MSNBC. Furthermore, I aggressively opposed Nader-style challenges until 2008.

Voting Green in a Swing State

by B. SIDNEY SMITH
 

I live in a purple part of the country (Virginia) and move in academic circles, so of course I know many, many people who will be voting for Obama. It is impossible to know, but if I sodomized the Easter Bunny in front of their children the look on my Obama-voter friends’ faces could scarcely be much different than the look they get when I say I am voting for Jill Stein.

 
“But this is a swing state…you have to vote for Obama…what if Romney wins?!?
The pain in their voices tugs at my sympathies; their fear is very real. I want to reassure them, but I was cured a few presidential elections ago. I won’t be drinking from that cup again.
 
At first they assume I don’t understand what’s at stake. They tell me about the Romney/Ryan agenda. They tell me about Obamacare. They tell me about DOMA and the Fair Pay Act. But the conversation wanes when I am not only unsurprised by the information but able to supply amplifications and corrections. I’ve read the (detailed summary of) the Affordable Care Act. I know about Romney’s probable agenda. I even know the age and bodily afflictions of key members of the Supreme Court. In short, I know what’s at stake.

No Papers No Fear Posters image container

Why I am voting no on Amendment 1

 

So, basically, the text itself demeans anyone who dare vote against it as someone who is against smarter kids and more involved parents, not to mention that such a voter must be against charter schools per se.  But the facts are far less clear.  As I will explain below, this Amendment does not do what it says it will do, but is rather using empty platitudes to convince the uneducated voter to vote for it.  Such tactics are dangerous.  With this logic, the text of an amendment banning abortion would say “Provides for healthier, happier babies by ensuring birth.”  It’s just not true.

Amendment 1 is a thinly-veiled attempt for out of state companies to profit off of Georgia students, without any regard to how well-educated they are.

Read more for the full story.

 

The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell -- Rewrite Third Party Candidates Debate 2012

As O'Donnell puts it: "Having spent my lifetime in states irrelevant to the electoral college, I have mostly voted for third party candidates for president, and I was always told I was wasting my vote. When I voted for Democrats for presidents who lost, I was never told I was wasting my vote. I have actually voted for the winner of the presidency exactly once, so please don’t try to tell me that voting for a candidate who loses is wasting a vote in a democracy. If you live in a battleground state, voting for a third party candidate can be a bit dicier."

But of course all concerned know that the Republicans will take Georgia and that a Georgia vote for either corporate party will not change the Electoral College outcome and will in fact be wasted.

Jill Stein Advances to final US presidential third-party debate

Greens Urged to Act Tonight to Keep Stein in Debates

Today Cheri Honkala, Green Party VP nominee said: "We need you to vote online right now to send Jill to the next Free&Equal third-party debate in Washington, D.C."

Free&Equal organized last night's debate to which they invited the Presidential Candidates who had met the criteria traditionally used by the League of Women Voters. Next week, Free&Equal will hold a follow-up debate between the two candidates who garner the most votes in an online poll, which closes at 10:30 pm Eastern this evening.

"Time is short, momentum is building and with your help we can keep our Green Presidential nominee in front of the American public in next week's debate," said Bruce Dixon, Chairman of the Georgia Green Party. Anyone with access to a browser and an email address can participate by going to: http://freeandequal.org/vote/.

Obama Has Promoted An Anti-Climate Change Agenda

 

Mark Dunlea

 

Environmental groups have been complaining in the media that the words "climate change" were not mentioned in the recent Presidential debates.

What the environmental groups should be complaining about is what Obama and Romney have said about climate change.

And they should be concerned enough about climate change to publicize that there is a national Presidential candidate talking about climate change, the Green Party's Jill Stein.   The Green New Deal, the cornerstone of her campaign, calls for a massive investment in renewable energy and sustainability, an investment that also creates a public jobs program to put the 25 million un- and under-employed Americans to work.

    .    .    .    

Climate change advocates defend their silence on Stein's position by arguing that she has no chance of winning - though she is on the ballot in enough states to be elected. It is the Catch 22 dilemma. But the lesser-of-two-evils strategy allows the Democrats to ignore issues such as climate change, the environment, poverty, hunger, etc. The best that climate change activists can hope for is that Obama has been lying to the American people about his energy policies.

Syndicate content