Tierney at it Again

The "School Zone" blog from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes today that John Tierney's newest column is again about Milwaukee's voucher program. You may remember Tierney from these very pages last week.

Today, the hard work has already been done for me, on Tierney's column. The "School Zone" quotes and paraphrases extensively:

Tierney cites research that concluded that the voucher program was having a positive effect on Milwaukee Public Schools, and he quotes MPS school board president Ken Johnson--who supports vouchers--saying that school choice had helped lead to a system in which people at individual MPS schools select new teachers, which reduced "the dance of the lemons" in which bad teachers transferred from school to school.

Tierney writes, "While critics complain that there still isn't definitive evidence that voucher students are doing better overall in their new schools, the results so far in Milwaukee and other cities are more than enough to declare vouchers a success."

He points out that spending per student on voucher students is much less than on MPS students and quotes Denise Pitchford, principal of CEO Leadership Academy, a high school in the program, saying that she accepted lower pay to work at the school than she was previously making in MPS. "It represented less money but a better opportunity," Pitchford said. Tierney used that phrase to summarize the whole voucher program.

Then Media Matters for America debunks a big chunk of the Tierney's argument:

New York Times columnist John Tierney, in his March 7 column (subscription required), misrepresented the findings of a study conducted by Harvard researcher Rajashri Chakrabarti on school vouchers in Milwaukee, claiming that Chakrabarti's study showed "that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program." In fact, Chakrabarti's 2005 study, which compared school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Florida, questioned whether the Milwaukee voucher program actually had an effect on public schools. [. . .]

Chakrabarti's study, however, found that the Milwaukee program was deficient to voucher programs in Florida, and that "the results in Milwaukee are mixed" in terms of improving performance in nearby public schools. Chakrabarti concluded:

The Milwaukee program, on the other hand, is a "voucher shock" program with a sudden government announcement that all low income public school students would be eligible for vouchers. In the context of an equilibrium theory of public school and household behavior, this paper argues that the Florida-type program should bring about an unambiguous improvement in public school performance and this improvement should exceed the improvement (if any) in the Milwaukee-type program.

And then Greg Anrig at TPM Café finishes the debunking by citing a number of things that readers of this blog will already be familiar with. These include Tierney's canard that voucher schools are easier to close (Anrig must read me, since he notes that the "schools closed in Milwaukee [. . .] were the result of outside intervention or financial malfeasance, not parents voting by their feet"). And with the lack of real results reporting that comes with the new compromise bill, expect more outside intervention and less "market" action by parents, who should be doing the real work of choice.

Once again, non-Milwaukeean Tierney ignores what is actually going on in Milwaukee--including looking at the Journal Sentinel's own even handed reporting on the voucher program--in favor of retyped press releases and pablum from Ken Johnson, who seems more interested in making vouchers succeed than in doing his job on the school board.

McIlheran Watch: He only sees out of his right eye

The bad thing about Patrick McIlheran's having a blog is that now there's daily wingnuttery to combat (though still no Saturdays! and his posts are less than 700 words, which either makes it easy for me or just means it's higly conentrated wingnuttery). Today, he takes another swipe at those radical 1960s (live in the past, much?) in discussing the Supreme Court decision yesterday that said, basically, if a university accepts federal money, it can't bar military recruiters.

Academic opposition to the recruiters was about more than the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the barracks. It was about the 1960s. [. . .] The lawsuit began--in trying to overturn the discreet deliberate ignorance of service members' sex habits--by trying to make an active acceptance of homosexuality in the military part of the normalization of homosexuality in American culture. It ended up, instead, by putting in doubt the ability of colleges to maintain their Vietnam-era disdain for ROTC.

It continues to amaze me that the right-wing media's message hasn't changed in 35 years.

It does not surprise me that P-Mac then approvingly links to three conservative bloggers' takes on the case, making it seem--at least to those familiar with the idea that the blogsphere might have two sides--that the conservatives feel smugly victorious in their triumph over liberal academe. He neglects to mention (or fails to notice) that the decidedly liberal Daily Kos--the biggest blog on the planet--had a front-page post called SCOTUS Gets it Right on Military Recruiting . . .

(Another) Misleading Editorial on Vouchers

. . . in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I know, I know--try not to look so shocked.

Today they opine on accountability in voucher schools under the bad-deal compromise legislation expected to become law any minute now. I will leave aside their accreditation statistics--which I question--because I'm working (slooooowly) on a more comprehensive post about accrediation and the MPCP. Instead, I'll just hit two points. One:

[T]he hubbub over the cap has obscured a huge breakthrough on academic accountability. Lack of such accountability has been the program's major drawback; partisan politics has heretofore blocked a solution.

I suppose "partisan politics" is an ambiguous enough phrase that it may not mean what they probably mean. There is a bad meme out there, popping up like whack-a-mole on a regular basis, that about Jim Doyle's having vetoed a "study" of voucher schools back in 2003. As I noted here, Doyle did indeed veto a bill, but it would not have provided any meaningful accountability. Aside from being funded solely by pro-voucher interests, the bill study would not have offered parents any information about the schools their children actually attend.

The same problem exists in the new law. The editorial board doesn't get that. They write,

[T]he bill requires that voucher schools administer standardized tests in reading, math and science in the fourth, eighth and 10th grades, just as the state's public schools must do. The voucher schools must give the results to the Legislative Audit Bureau for periodic analyses and to the School Choice Demonstration Project at Georgetown University, which is preparing to do a long-term study of the program. [. . .A]s part of the long-term study, a representative sample of voucher students will take the state tests.

Overwhelmingly, by the way, voucher schools already administer standardized tests. Now, the results will become public.

This legislation mustn't be the final word on academic accountability. The schools could use more transparency on such matters as truancy and graduation rates, for instance. But this measure should help the public take a good snapshot of the academic performance of voucher schools.

This is misleading in several ways. For one, it is not clear that the results would be "public." The bill says only that the Legislative Audit Bureau is to "review and analyze the standardized test score data received from the School Choice Denonstration Project [and] shall report to the legislature the results of the standardized tests administered." It is not clear that this would be anything more than program-wide averages, since the rest of the section of the bill (119.23(7)(e)2) is all about reporting the state-test sample results. There is no requirement that results be made available to the press or even to the parents of the children tested! As I have maintained all along, none of this is useful to parents, who may be trying to decide between a public school--about which all kinds of data are available--and a voucher school, about which they may not be able to learn anything.

For two, the language of the bill actually sounds like schools, except those "sample" students, will be precluded from giving the state tests at all. The bill calls for "a nationally normed standardized test." The WKCE, our state test, is technically a criterion referenced test built specifically for Wisconsin, not a nationally normed test. I'm curious to see how that one plays out.

For three, the "snapshot" of performance will be far less complete than what public schools provide, as it should go beyond the editorial's resonable calls for graduation rate and truancy reporting. Public schools, of course, now test all grades 3-8 plus 10; besides this, public schools are required to break down the data they collect by race, sex, socioeconomic status, special-education status, English language learner status, and more. Aside from the "sample" students, which will, I hope, be carefully selected to be representative, there will be no way to tell if the voucher program is actually helping those it was designed to help--poor minority students.

I do not like the test, test, test mentality associated with No Child Left Behind, but it makes no sense to me that the rigorous collecting and reporting of performance data demanded of public schools is so consistently rejected for these private schools which take our tax dollars just as eagerly. Even with the passage of this bill, which takes some baby steps in the direction of accountability, voucher schools will largely remain a black hole for any parent or taxpayer wishing to know whether the investment of time or money was worth it.

Milwaukee Voucher Prediction Thread

Just as a reminder, if you have appreciated my coverage and commentary on the Milwaukee school voucher issue, please help me on my quest to be a Koufax Award finalist. Click here and type folkbum's rambles and rants in the comment box. Thanks!

I never made any Oscar predictions, and, given that the only movie that won anything that I had actually seen was the penguin one, that seems smart. However, I feel much more confident in making some predictions about what will happen to the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program next year, having read the compromise bill and considered its implications. And with the legislature and Governor Doyle set to make it official any second now, I figured I'd look into the ol' crystal ball.

So, bookmark this one, and when the full scope of what happens under the cap is clear, you can look back and see whether or not I was right about all of this:

One prediction I wanted to make was that the calls would start coming for ann unlimited, state-wide system of vouchers. Sadly, Republican state rep. Robin Vos has already started the clamoring; Seth has the details about how Vos beat me to the wire. But to the rest of the predictions:

1. I will start by putting the over-under at 1750 students as the increase in the number of participating students. That's higher than recent years' increases, and much higher than the Public Policy Forum had otherwise predicted for this fall.. It's nowhere near the 15,000 seats schools said they thought they could fill.
   
2. The right will trumpet the bigger-than-expected increase as further signs of the voucher program's "success." This will be part of the long-standing tradition of defining participation as success, despite a general lack of evidence about the quality of the schools. See, for example, this guy, who glosses completely over any questions of quality in declaring that school choice is somehow good for the economy.
   
3. A significant portion of the increase--I'm going to guess at least 1000, if not a full 2/3--will be moderate-income white students. Changes in the law will allow many currently ineligible students to slip right into the program without even having to change schools. The new law is even ambiguous enough that non-Milwaukee resident students may be able to attend voucher schools.
   
4. The "samples" of test scores provided to the Legislative Audit Bureau will show that the sample students do as well or better than average MPS students. However, the law provides for no mechanism to offer any information on any individual voucher school. Parents will remain in the dark about whether any particular school is as good as the voucher program as a whole.
   
5. The "funding flaw"--the flaw that both takes tens of millions away from the Milwaukee Public Schools and sticks Milwaukee residents with the bill--will not be resolved in the budget negotiated next year. There will be no impetus, whether Doyle is re-elected or not, to address it, and the "stick-it-to-Milwaukee" attitude will continue unabated.

Feel free to add your own predictions in the comments.

More on the Airport Mutiny

Mutiny, piracy, whatever you want to call it: No one--seriously, I have yet to read a defense of the idea, if anyone has one you want to shoot my way--is happy with the idea of turning Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport over to a private board. Here's some more on the issue from Bay Viewan Bill Sell:

The airport is well managed by Milwaukee County. There have been no reports of poor management--on the contrary, airport director C. Barry Bateman is given high marks for managing this largest airport in the state, without using property tax money to do so.

Why should this change? Why privatize our airport? The Airport District bill solves no problem, and cuts out the public by putting the power of eminent domain in the hands of a seven person management politically insulated from the public.

Thankfully the Milwaukee County Board and the Mayor’s office are resisting this misguided proposal. The County Executive, however, is supportive of the change, which increases his personal power over the airport. Scott Walker’s appointive power under this law would grace his campaign for governor at a time when he is spending money to explain to out-state Wisconsin who he is.

What The Airport District Bill Does
Plale’s bill defines Wisconsin’s public airports into two new categories: (a) large (only GMIA!)—”in excess of 2 million scheduled passenger enplanements” per year [229.861 (1) (a)]; and (b) all the other airports [229.861 (1) (b)]. GMIA has about 3.5 million passenger enplanements per year; Dane County about 1 million. (“Enplanements” are passengers departing.) [. . .]

The bill takes the assets of Mitchell Field away from Milwaukee County “without financial consideration other than the assumption of liabilities and obligations.” [229.865 (1) (a) emphasis added] There is no provision in this bill for Milwaukee County consent. [. . .] While taking Mitchell Field from the County, the bill allows all other counties or municipalities to sell their airports. The transfer of jurisdiction “may take the form of a sale, lease, or other conveyance and may be with or without financial consideration.” [. . .] GMIA assets would be turned over free of charge to an unelected district board. The bill requires no consent of the Milwaukee County Board. The drafting of the bill was, apparently, a surprise to local officials.

For out-state airports this bill is an opportunity for cash. This cash-out opportunity is tactical, lining up other airport managements in favor a bill to wrest control of GMIA--a kind of legislative mobbing, or ganging up. Anti-Milwaukee strategy is not new, either, but when Senator Plale--who represents a hunk of Milwaukee--rides currents of anti-Milwaukee fever (as he has at other times, too), a Milwaukee voter must wonder what--or whether--is he thinking?

As I said, no one is presenting justifications for this bill, this taking of the airport from the people of Milwaukee County and putting it in the hands of an unelected board with no compensation.

It wasn't that long ago that the buzz was about demanding that tech college boards start being elected instead of appointed; why on earth would anyone think that turning over an operation the size of Mitchell International to an appointed board is a good idea?

Blog Summit, take two

As I noted yesterday, the WisPolitics/ WisOpinion people are holding their first annual Blog Summit in a couple of weeks. The revised schedule is now available, and it does, in fact, include your humble folkbum:

Two more leading Wisconsin bloggers have been added to the March 18 inaugural WisPolitics/WisOpinion Blog Summit to talk about the blogging phenomenon.

Panelists Owen Robinson of Boots & Sabers and Jay Bullock of folkbum's rambles and rants, joined by other citizen bloggers, will discuss ``Why blog? Defining the phenomenon from a citizen bloggers'  perspective'' as part of an afternoon program focusing on the impact of blogs on politics and government in Wisconsin

The event also will feature the 2005 Wisconsin blogger of the year award.

The summit is set for Saturday, March 18 from 1 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. at the Country Springs Hotel in Waukesha. It is sponsored by AT&T Wisconsin, WisPolitics, WisOpinion and others. Attendance is free and open to all interested parties, but attendees must register in advance by contacting John Link at link@wispolitics.com

Other participants include:
• Ann Althouse, a nationally recognized blogger and UW-Madison law school faculty member. She will deliver the summit's keynote address.
• Charlie Sykes, Milwaukee WTMJ-AM morning radio host and leading conservative voice.
• Ed Garvey, Madison attorney and former Democratic candidate for governor and U.S. senator, who blogs from the liberal side at FightingBob.com
• Brian Fraley, a GOP strategist, who blogs about politics.
• State Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, who has his own blog.
• Jessica McBride, UW-Milwaukee journalism instructor, radio talk show host and conservative media blogger.
• UW-Madison political scientist Ken Mayer.
• John McAdams, blogger and Marquette professor of political science.
• And Jennifer L. Peterson, attorney in the Madison office LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn, who will address the legalities of blogging.

The program includes two addresses and three panel discussions as well as the award presentation. For a tentative schedule, click here: http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=56125 To register, contact: link@wispolitics.com

So there you go--and you had, in fact, better go there. I will be taking attendance!

Also, as long as I have you thinking about state politics and me, here's another reminder that I'm counting on you, my readers, to support me in my quest for a Koufax Award for Best State or Local Blogger! I have slipped out of first place and I'm now, best as I can tell, somewhere around tenth. Voting is open only for a limited time!

METRA in Milwaukee

I had a dream last night--don't ask me why--that Milwaukee had a subway system, although instead of really being a subway, it was more like a roller coaster that ran through downtown and all around the area. Not exactly the same thing.

Back in reality, I see Mayor Tom Barrett has the idea of expanding the METRA rail service, which is slated to stop at the Amtrak station downtown, out to Miller Park and State Fair Park. Seems like the perfect way to get more people to these places with less need for parking at the venues. Now Chicagoans who want to go see a game at Miller park have to navigate the maze of under-construction freeways, adding to Milwaukee's congestion. The traffic around State Fair Park during the fair is awful, and trying to park anywhere nearby is a real bear. If I could hop on a train to get to State Fair, or the Brewers, or Summerfest, I'd consider it more than I do now.

It also seems like the existing tacks and METRA's willingness to invest in Southeastern Wisconsin make the plan a natural fit.

Pre-School

I'm looking forward to the rest of this series. I wonder, though, if it will change any of the minds in Madison who don't see pre-school as one of the keys to making education better in poor areas. Short of making poverty itself disappear, high-quality early-childhood education is one of the best things we can do.

On the other hand, the kids in the accompanying story remind me too much of my high school students. I don't relish wating ten years to see the benefits . . .

They are uniters, not dividers

They being Republican state rep. Jeff Stone and Democratic state sen. Jeff Plale, who are trying to wrest control of Milwaukee County's Mitchell International Airport out of the hands of the people and place it in the hands of a private body.

They have managed to upset bloggers on both the left and the right. I also am against the idea, seeing no need to change the way things are working. Having been through Mitchell more times in the past year than ever before, I remain convinced that the place is running pretty smoothly. The place is not in debt; renovations are proceeding apace. Even the TSA lines are reasonable at peak hours. I really have no idea what kind of benefit Stone and Plale think they're going to get out of this.

Thompson v. Doyle? I would pay to see that

Now, I did get new glasses today, so I can't be entirely sure that I'm reading this right:

According to [former Governor Tommy] Thompson, people such as Elizabeth Dole, the GOP senator from North Carolina who now leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have urged him to run this fall against Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl, who is seeking a fourth term but has yet to draw a Republican opponent.

Thompson said he was more inclined to try to oust [current Governor Jim] Doyle and return to the job he held for 14 years, longer than any governor in state history. Two Republicans, U.S. Rep. Mark Green and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, already are vying to go mano a mano against Doyle. Thompson, in answer to a question, said he had not discussed his potential candidacy with the two. Nor, he says, does his interest reflect on how he imagines they would do.

To hear him tell it, it's vox populi fueling his gubernatorial ambitions. "Walking through the airports in Milwaukee and Madison and La Crosse and Green Bay, people are saying, 'Please come back and run for governor. We need you back to right the ship of state,' " he said.

Let me get this straight: Governor Doyle comes in to office in 2003 facing a $2.8 billion deficit and balanced the budget without significant tax increases and without a tobacco settlement to cash in. Now the man who is primarily responsible for that deficit wants to jump in and face Doyle down? I'd love to see that debate, since the answer to every question posed to Doyle would just be, "How big will the deficit be next time, Tommy?"

Also, I think it's important to note that Katherine M. Skiba's only source for this article--including the vox populi hogwash--is Tommy Thompson himself. "Yeah, yeah," he says, "everbody wants me ta run for sumpin'. They loves them some Tommy."

If it comes down to a vote between the guy who left the mess or the guy who cleaned it up, we'll see who loves them some Tommy, I tell you what.

WisPolitics.com Blog Summit

WisPolitics.com/ WisOpinion.com is planning a Blog Summit in two weeks, for Saturday, March 18, from 1 to 3 PM at the Country Springs Hotel in Waukesha. Admission is free, but you have to register in advance by email.

There's a link in that press release to the tentative agenda. That agenda will change in the near future to add . . . well . . . me. And, I hope, a few other non-"professional" bloggers who aren't using blogging as an extension of what they already do for a living. This addition comes after some reasonable critiques of the original all-pro line-up from the right half of the Cheddarsphere. Thanks to those guys for taking this summit seriously enough to critique it, and thanks to the WisPolitics/ WisOpinion folks for listening and adding some of us little folk.

I look forward to seeing everybody there! (Did I mention it's free?)

Koufax Award

As I mentioned a few weeks back, I have been nominated for a Koufax award for Best State or Local Blog. This time I did not even nominate myself!

The Koufaxes, if you don't know, are the premier liberal (Sandy Koufax was a lefty pitcher) blog awards. Period. You can talk about your Bloggies or your Oscars or whatever the heck else is out there, but winnig a Koufax is something special.

The current round of voting is for the semi-finals is every category. The top 6-10 vote getters in each category advance to the finals in a week or two. My category seems to be one of the least-heavily populated; consider, for example, the 300 or so nominees in Most Deserving of Wider Recognition!

Also, I know I mentioned it last time, the folks at Wampum who put this on every year could really use your help; click on the "Make a Donation" button and show your appreciation.

And then go vote for me! (I'm currently tied for first, with three votes cast.)

folkbum approved!

Best. Eraser. Ever.

I'm hoping for an endorsement contract.

The first step is admitting you have a problem

And folkbum's rambles and rants alumnus Tim Schilke takes that step:

Now that I finally recognize my addiction and the harm it has done to my country and to the world, I’ve decided to follow a 12-step program toward recovery. Traditionally, the first step is for me to admit that I am powerless over my addiction, and that my life has become unmanageable. I can admit that now. Although in my situation, unsustainable is a much better word. [. . .]

The second step of 12 requires me to believe that a power greater than myself can restore me to a state of sanity. Fortunately, my sanity was restored last week, when President Bush visited Milwaukee to remind me of my addiction.

What is he addicted to? And how can Bush help him? You'll have to read the rest to find out.

Friday Random Ten

The Cover Me Edition

1. "Crocodile Man" Chris Smither from Live at McCabe's, covering Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer
2. "If Not for You" Bill Camplin from Project One, covering Bob Dylan
3. "If I Were" Peter Mulvey from Glencree, covering Pamela Means
4. "Hallelujah" Jeff Buckley from Grace, covering Leonard Cohen
5. "Everybody Knows this is Nowhere" Dar Williams from My Better Self, covering Neil Young
6. "You Stay Here" Willy Porter from High Wire Live, covering Richard Shindell
7. "Killing the Blues" Shawn Colvin from Cover Girl, covering Roly Salley
8. "The Only Way" Ellis Paul and Vance Gilbert from Side of the Road, covering Mark Erelli
9. "Little Martha" Leo Kottke from Live, covering The Allman Brothers Band
10. "The River, Where She Sleeps" Darryl Purpose from A Crooked Line, covering Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer

Earl Hickey announces opposition to the TP Act

Well, kind of.

Tonight's episode of "My Name is Earl"--which you should be watching, if you're not, by the way, because it's really quite good--involved Earl's growing to believe that the government was good for nothing. After a series of hilarious hijinks stemming from Earl's desire to pay $500 in taxes he believes he owes the government (which he tries to pay at the "Government Offices" building), Earl and his brother end up dangling from ropes inside an empty water tower.

You'll just have to trust me on this.

Oh, and I should add a spoiler warning, although it would be pretty hard not to figure out that NBC wouldn't leave the title character and his brother to bake to death in a water tower.

After three days or so stuck there in the water tower, just as Earl is finishing a rant against the government, he looks up to see a diverse and representative sample of government employees looking down at him through the hole in the top, asking, "Are you fellas all right?"

And, indeed, they were, because government worked for them: The police, the public works people, the fire department--all of them came together to rescue Earl and his brother.

After paying for the fines he and his brother incurred for trespassing--the equivalent of what Earl thought he owed in taxes--Earl offers to pay the many-times-greater cost of rescuing the two of them. But, Earl notes, it turns out that rescuing is free for taxpayers.

And that, in essence, is what I believe the function of government is--it's there to rescue you, for free, when you need it. Some people (not naming names here, but his last name rhymes with Rothman) have decided that tying the hands of government is more important than making sure government has the flexibilty, resources, and ability to rescue the Earls in water towers when necessary. That Earl someday could be me, or you, or your parents, or your neighbors. But this Taxpayer Protection Amendment--the Bride of TABOR to some; the TP Act to me--is all about taking that away.

Earl Hickey knows: Paying your taxes is good karma. Rescuing people who need it--metaphorically and literally--should not play second fiddle to tax-hell fearmongering.

Mark Pocan recounts the "debate" on the Hate Amendment

Rick Esenberg tells me I shouldn't call it the Hate Amendment, but I do, and will continue to. Later I may explain why I call it that instead of the more cumbersome amendment to ban gay marriage, civil unions, and any "substantially similar" legal arrangement amendment.

I also put "debate" in quotation marks, since only two people seemed to speak in favor of the bill:

The only Republicans to debate the merits of the measure were the author, Rep. Mark Gundrum, and Rep. Eugene Hahn. Hahn’s debate centered on the need to follow the Bible – or as he stated, the B-I-B-L-E. He spelled it out as to not say the word aloud.

Gundrum, for his part, briefly answered a few questions about the bill, but finally let a little of the real conservative red meat on this issue out as he talked about his fear of multiple people getting married in the Netherlands. He also heard there were “polyamorists” in Wisconsin.

So there ya go. Read the rest, as it includes a nice moment courtesy of Milwaukee's Jon Richards, and some pretty scary stuff about John Gard.

McIlheran Watch: I'm just suprised he drove a foreign car

But now he has a minivan. Boo, hoo.

For the visual learners in class

Credit to Barabara O'Brien, who has encapsulated in a flow chart everything that's wrong with Bush Administration policy.

Glenn Greenwald, writing unrelatedly, provides an explanation in words:

For the last couple of years, the tactic of war proponents was to simply deny reality and pretend that the disaster in Iraq was just fiction, nothing more than the invention of an American-hating media. That little tactic isn’t working any longer. All but the hardest-core Bush loyalists have abandoned this war long ago. And anyone with eyes can see that our Iraqi project is a disaster – at best, it will achieve nothing in exchange for the incalculable costs our country has endured and will have to pay for a long time to come. At worst, it will ensure the opposite of our goals.

Finally forced to accept the reality of their failure, war proponents have only two choices left: (a) admit their error and accept personal responsibility for their horrendous lack of judgment and foresight, or (b) blame others for their failure while insisting, in the face of a tidal wave of evidence, that they were right all along. Guess which option these Shining Beacons of Personal Responsibility are embracing? [. . .]

Those who insisted on this war, who started it, who prosecuted it, who controlled every single facet of its operation – they have no blame at all for the failure of this war. Nope. They were right all along about everything. It all would have worked had war critics just kept their mouths shut. The ones who are to blame are the ones who never believed in this war, who control no aspect of the government, who were unable to influence even a single aspect of the war, who were shunned, mocked and ridiculed, and who have been out of power since the war began. They are the ones to blame. They caused this war to fail.

They make decisions in a bubble, smear anyone who dares to question them, and then blame the powerless for failure of policies. This is fundamental; there is no adminsitration policy--from Medicare D to the Dubai Ports World deal--that does not fit this pattern.

Vouchers: A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing

I don't expect everyone to follow the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program as closely as I do. There are people who know more than I, of course (some of whom comment here occasionally), and I freely acknowledge that. But I try never to sound insane (much) (anymore). Bloggers who don't know what they're talking about, and who do sound insane, bother me, but I find it's par for the course. When people who don't know what they're talking about have a national forum, though, that's just unacceptable.

As an example of the former, consider the blogger Cantankerous at Ask Me Later. She apparently didn't like my assertion of a few weeks back that the so-called Jim Doyle "blink" was as phony as the cap "crisis." She calls my post a joke. Her disagreement with me in and of itself is not the insanity, but rather the bizarre stuff she starts making up during the conversation below in the comments (crazy stuff in bold for easy reference):

Pardon me but you keep referring to the accountability measures in the just reached compromise as the same accountability measures previously offered by Governor Doyle. This is complete Hog Wash (I love that phrase).

The accountability measures championed by Governor Doyle and his handlers in the Teacher's Unions in the past demanded that choice schools be accredited by MPS AND adhere to the same teaching standards adopted by MPS. So much for CHOICE!!!

The new accountability measures are not only palatable but what many TRUE choice advocates had long championed. The main difference is MPS doesn't do the curriculum accrediation, instead respected educational organizations like Howard Fuller's Institute for the Transformation of Learning review the schools teaching methods and decide if they should gain choice status. [. . .]

The only time Doyle said he would consider lifting the cap was if any choice student that left an MPS school also counted on the MPS roles...basically double-dipping the taxpayers to the tune of $18,000 per choice student.

I respond there (mostly by referring to my previous posts on accountability and funding), so I won't take the time to re-refute the insanity here, but this comment fits in perfectly with the thesis I advanced in the "blink" post: Cantankerous has convinced herself of some utter nonsense about Doyle's past offers to raise the cap (perhaps confusing MPS's role as a chartering agency in the mess) and so sees a much bigger move on Doyle's part to make the compromise happen. The crazy nonsense isn't even fully apparent until enough layers get pulled back in the comments section; that's how deeply some on the right have internalized an entire series of lies about the issue.

But Cantankerous is an amateur (as am I--that's not a value judgment). John Tierney is not. At least, he gets paid to write his insane ravings. Last week his New York Times column was about the Milwaukee voucher doings. It was hidden behind the NYT Select subscription wall, of course, but I got a glimpse of it through this post at Steve Benen's Carpetbagger Report (someone in the comments there was kind enough to link to me as doing a "good job" on the voucher issue--thanks, Dave, whoever you are!). It's worth noting Benen's response to Tierney, which is what I saw before I saw the Tierney itself:

First, describing Milwaukee's voucher program as "successful" is more than a little dubious. [ A rehashing of recent voucher school scandals and links to the Journal Sentinel series on vouchers omitted because you know all this already, loyal readers.]

Secondly, Tierney insists that African-American families love vouchers so much, they will inevitably turn on the Democratic Party. As proof, Tierney points to … nothing in particular. [. . .] Where is the overwhelming demand that Tierney sees in the African-American community? It doesn't appear to exist. Indeed, the nation's largest civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, all strongly oppose vouchers. [. . .] While all voters in California rejected the voucher plan by a 2-to-1 margin, an exit poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times showed that black voters opposed the plan by an even bigger margin--68% to 32%.

In Michigan, all voters opposed a similar statewide plan by a margin of 69% to 31%. According to an exit poll by the Detroit News, blacks statewide rejected the proposal by an even wider margin, voting it down 4 to 1. In the city of Detroit, voters rejected the scheme 72% to 28%.

Lucky for me, Tierney's op-ed escaped the NYT Select wall and landed on my front porch Sunday, since the pro-voucher editorial board down to the newspaper never misses a chance to run a pro-voucher op-ed. (To be fair, Sunday's op-eds did include a pro-public school--though carefully not anti-voucher--piece by MPS's superintendent.) The column was not worth the wait, and was, in many ways, a warming over of arguments covered a month ago by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal. It is full of inaccuracies and distortions like these:

Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, looks like public enemy No. 1 for African-American schoolchildren. [As opposed to, say, asthma? violence? poverty? patronizing newspaper columnists?]

So the state announced a rationing plan on Monday that would deny vouchers next year to thousands of students, many of them already using vouchers to attend private schools. [. . .] The governor and the Republicans have negotiated a last-minute deal--expected to be enacted shortly--to stave off the rationing plan by allotting extra vouchers. That would spare the Democrats from the immediate prospect of kicking black children out of private schools. [Remind me again: Who wanted to kick kids out of private schools?]

How long will blacks vote for a party that opposes the voucher programs they strongly favor? And how can Democratic leaders keep preaching their devotion to public schools while sending their own children to private schools, as Doyle did? He's what I call a LYPSY, an acronym for Let Your People Stay.

See what I mean about insane? Tierney is another one of those--like Milwaukee's own Charlie Sykes, for example--white guys who feels the need to tell blacks what to think; not even in my insanest days to I go that far. Howard Fuller, an actual African American, provides the voice of reason and moderation in Tierney's column: "Howard Fuller, a prominent advocate for vouchers as well as a former superintendent of Milwaukee's public schools, told me he hadn't seen the popularity of the voucher program translate into much affection for Republicans among his fellow African-Americans, especially his civil rights comrades."

As white as Tierney may be, he is in the New York Times, after all, and a lot of people read that paper, including some African Americans, like Star Parker, a conservative Christian activist who occasionally writes for the right-wing TownHall.com. She uses Tierney's op-ed as a springboard for her own column:

I was aghast to read Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle's response to a question from The New York Times columnist John Tierney, "How long will blacks vote for a party that opposes the voucher programs they strongly favor?" Doyle's response: "I don't think this is an issue that moves voters." [. . .]

I think hope for the future of America's black community hinges on education and whether we can succeed in getting school choice implemented nationally. [. . .] I suggest that no black American cast a vote for any candidate of either party that does not support school choice.

That's the opening and closing of her column; in between, Parker cites a lot of gruesome statistics about endemic poverty and the correlations among poverty, employment, and education. But rather than suggesting, as I have often, that a solution to education challenges amid urban poverty lies in addressing the poverty part of the equation, she decides the problem is that public schools don't teach the right "values." She writes, "Politicians who pay lip service to the growing gap in incomes and the plight of our growing poor, black population must appreciate that this problem is first and foremost a crisis of freedom and values." I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that, beyond slowly shaking my head.

Here again we see the problem of a little learning being dangerous: Tierney, undoubtedly working from the same talking points that supplied John Fund with material for his op-ed, was willing at least to make a few calls. But he still relies on shaky or specious second-hand arguments about the program. Parker picks these up, making it now third hand, and demands more "freedom" for poor African Americans to access "values." And both make the explicitly partisan political connection to voting against Democrats. The problem is, as I discussed here yesterday, the deal to raise the caps will almost certainly benefit moderate-income white families more than the poor African American families these columnists think they're saving (by trying to turn them Republican). Neither columnist, writing from New York or Los Angeles, acknowledges what Farrell, Pumphrey, and Mathews have seen with their own eyes: "[State Rep. Polly] Williams knows from her own field visits, as do we, that many, not all, of these schools--unfortunately a large number founded and headed by African-Americans--offer little of educational value." The facts bear this out, and demands for serious accountability have been ignored in the deal brokered by Doyle and Assembly Speaker John Gard.

Benen, quoted above, notes the defeat of voucher programs on the ballots in Michigan and California. I have often wondered what the result of such a ballot question would be here in Wisconsin, and, more specifically, in Milwaukee. Farrell, Pumphrey, and Mathews begin to answer that question anecdotally, writing that their informal poll of key Milwaukee figures shows a lack of support for the program if it remains unaccountable. It's notable that State Rep. Chris Sinicki, who helped broker the deal, is just about the only Milwaukeean (and Democrat generally) supporting it, aside from vocally pro-voucher Rep. Jason Fields (another source for Tierney). Perhaps that should be Mayor Tom Barrett's next step in his quixotic quest--ask the people of Milwaukee what we actually think. Maybe then those of little learning will stop telling us what we should think.

Malpractice Malpractice

With news in the last week or so that the Wisconsin GOP is going to try capping malpractice lawsuit awards again, I thought perhaps the many GOP legislators who read my blog (please allow me some of my delusions) would be interested in some notes about medical malpractice I've seen in the last few days.

I'll start with the great news that the "malpractice crisis" seems to be over, if there ever was one (pretty graph included). There's also Ezra Klein's reminder that "average malpractice awards domestically are lower than in Canada, the UK, or Australia [. . .], and the whole malpractice 'industry' amounts to less than one half of one percent of spending." Saving even, say, 25% on malpractice would result in savings somewhere south of 13 cents per every ten thousand dollars spent, and we'd still be spending twice as much for our health care than countries without award caps. An organization the size of the Milwaukee Public Schools--one of the largest employers in the state--would save less than $1000 a year on their health care costs; is this really the way to save money for the taxpayer or health care consumer?

I also found Kate Steadman's Health Policy blog and her series looking at Tom Baker's recent book on the malpractice "myth." That whole page is worth a read, and can educate my GOP friends on all aspects of how their malpractice malpractice will not actually solve any real problems.

Peter DiGaudio owes me $1000

Tucked in behind his wishing death upon liberal celebrities (is that "the job the Mainstream Media used to do"?), and buried in a long ranting post about those horrible liberals, is this:

No one ever said Iraq was tied to 9/11 and I have a standing offer of $1,000 cash to anyone who can produce a quote from President Bush or any official who ever said that.

I know, I know--you're all clamoring for the cash prize, but I'm claiming it first. We can start here, when Bush said "The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.” Bush said that just a week or so after he said, "We went to war because we were attacked." This was less than a year ago.

And then there's Dick Cheney, who said, famously, in direct response to the question "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" that it's "been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." Cheney, of course, later denied having said that (despite the White House web site transcript), leading to one of my favorite "Daily Show" moments ever.

More? You want more? Here's one list, with, among others, classics like Tom Ridge's "Well...Iraq was not the first stage of the war. The first was on September 11." Here's a second list. And who can forget that "Mission Accomplished" moment when Bush said "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001"? Here's a good Christian Science Monitor article from around the beginning of the Iraq war that traces many of the ways the administration linked 9/11 and Iraq.

That ought to be enough to satisfy the requirements, eh? I'll just assume my check is in the mail.

The voucher cap deal not so much a deal

This is the proverbial pin to pop the proverbial bubble of all those who have gleefully imagined Governor Doyle standing in an equally proverbial schoolhouse door over the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program cap. Some people who know--from first-hand research, and a more careful analysis of the cap deal than I've had time to do so far--point out that the big benefit of the deal will not go to poor, African American students:

Lifting the enrollment cap by 7,500 will most significantly benefit white students, who already make up one-third of the school choice population.

Given the requirement that students no longer will have to be enrolled in MPS prior to receiving a voucher or will have had to have been already enrolled (as nonvoucher students) in an approved choice school, it will be easy for existing voucher schools, mostly Catholic and Lutheran, to simply flip their existing nonvoucher students into their choice program. Thus, they will not be encumbered by the need to engage in a major recruiting effort.

Moreover, since the income limit is proposed to increase from 175 percent of the poverty level (where it now stands) to 220 percent of the poverty level under the proposed deal, upper-working-class and lower-middle-class families will now be eligible to participate. For example, under the new proposal, a family of four earning more than $45,000 a year would now qualify for the voucher program. In addition, if that family's income rises to, let's say, $75,000 over any period of employment, the family would still maintain its eligibility.

With all of these changes to the existing legislation, vouchers would serve as a subsidy for private education rather than, as Speaker Gard says, "hope and opportunity" for the poor.

In Milwaukee, 75 percent of school-age black children have an annual median family income of less than $25,000. If this program were for their benefit, why would there be a need to raise the income cap at all?

They go on to note some more objections to the lack of real accountability measures in the deal. It's worth a complete read.

Michael Joyce dead at 63

While no one's death is ever timely, or deserved, there is an irony in realizing that Joyce's death comes at the start of a week that will see the Wisconsin legislature vote on two arch-conservative measures that he, unfortunately, helped catapult into mainstream politics.

The first of those two issues is, of course, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the system of vouchers that hurts the public schools and Milwuakee taxpayers:

Joyce led the Bradley Foundation to be the key financial supporter of building the private school voucher program in Milwaukee. The foundation largely paid for the legal battle that led to a state Supreme Court ruling in 1998 that allowed the program to expand and to include religious schools. It also funded thousands of scholarships for students while the battle was under way.

I have noted this seeming contradiction before, that conservatives (who decry activist judges and trial lawyers) and private organizations would back legal challenges to force the state to give money to private organizations. That's not the definition of conservative I learned in Mr. Eaton's American government class way back when. But the votes scheduled on the voucher cap deal this week come largely as a direct result of Joyce's legacy, not only in funding the expansion fight, but in funding groups like the American Education Reform Council (one of Howard Fuller's groups, now the Alliance for Choices in Education) and School Choice Wisconsin along with other pro-voucher bazillionnaires like the Wal-Mart heirs, and in buying legislators who support the cause of vouchers.

Joyce was also instrumental in shaping the debate on another subject--the ban on gay marriage and civil unions almost certain to pass the Assembly tomorrow. As my internet friend Mitch Gore noted in this encyclopedic hsitory of conservative philanthropy, Joyce was instrumental in creating groups like Empower America and Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise. The Bradley Foundation under his leadership and beyond, "with the largest assets of the conservative foundations, with its national connections and a sharply focused political agenda, plays a leading role in the conservative movement." Joyce's--and the Bradleys'--history with the anti-gay movement is long-standing and embarrassing for a city like Milwaukee, and a state (our motto is "Forwward!") like Wisconsin.

That will be $7.50, please

Actually, I don't know what the going rate is for Mayoral Joke Writer, but it really seems like I ought to get a little credit if Milwaukee's own Tom Barrett is using my material, right?

Actually, the article ends up mostly being about why the voucher cap deal may not go through anyway. I will repeat what I have said previously: Scrap this deal; real quick pass a bill that would restore DPI's original rationing plan--the one that protects current students and existing schools, the one Republicans and voucher supporters shot down last year; and go back to work on a comprehensive reform as part of the 2006-2008 biennial budget. That way, you can fix the tax fairness issue (and school funding issues statewide), address accreditation, boost SAGE, and all of that in a more comprehensive way.

Something sort of good about Sensenbrenner

For the most part, Sensenbrenner's take on gays is he's anti-marriage but pretty much live and let live when it comes to domestic partnerships; it's nice of him to offer second-class citizenship, don't you think? He has spewed some of the usual rhetoric about "the gay invasion" into Americans' marriages. Still, anti-gay initiatives have never taken center stage in his platforms. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but my research says no.

I know he helped pass the House statute to "protect" the rest of the U.S. from recognizing Massachusetts marriages.

Considering this, here's a scenario I'd like your opinion on. The right will take swift action here in Wisconsin, if the State Legislature passes its anti-rights bill targeting the lgbt community. It looks like it will win. And this time there won't be any gray areas, i.e. allowing basic civil rights such as domestic partner benefits. They want it all: no hospital visits, no inheritance rights, no d.p. arrangements, and certainly no adoptions.

They even came up with these nifty pink triangles for us to wear. You know, separate but equal.

What's going to be interesting in this election year is how Sensenbrenner will bring this state initiative into the fold of his reelection campaign. He certainly won't be able to ignore it. When I asked his staffer in D.C. for my article if he'd be running with this on his platform, I got the standard, "No comment."

The right is on the run this year, even if smug conservatives or cynical progressives don't want to admit it, and they'll try and sway voters their way using this tactic, just as they did in 2004. In addition to immigrants, gays will be on the right's whipping post. Sensenbrenner won't be able to ignore the issue, because he needs the right.

Is he really for this take-no-prisoners approach to the lgbt community?

Maybe they're correct about the 5th District being untouchable, and I'm in la-la land. But I think even WI Republican voters will ignore this hate-filled approach because they know they're not getting any return on investment from extremely high taxes. (Bryan Kennedy has a lot of information on that, bk2006.org) And those are just the people who are still working, or haven't been devastated by a serious illness in the family, or from chronic un- and under-employment.

I forecast Republican burnout at the polls. Even among people who secretly hate gays.

This was the teacher's fault

Just jumping in (I'm not officially back yet) to remind everyone--including my colleagues!--that this is why teachers should never, ever leave a classroom full of students unattended. It's school board policy for a reason.

That is all.

Ok, "HOW to make Senselessbrenner lose"?

I'll go first, before changing subjects. I want this guy OUT of Congress, so when the Dems take back the House we can begin impeachment of George Bush. Through Constitutional means, of course. Those papers have to start in the House Judiciary Committee, before being introduced on the floor and then make their way to the Senate. As we know committee chairs control committee schedules. Right now we have that brick wall of a human being in that position, named James Sensenbrenner.
Plus as Jay said, he's just mean. The list is long and if you read this blog, you know it.

Now, HOW can Bryan Kennedy win? I think he and his people should try and recruit resources and money from progressive groups across the country, along with Wisconsin fundraising.

They're already trying that, I'm sure. I'd like to see BK's name out in the blogosphere and in progressive publications.

Jay's sub. For the weekend

Hello folkbums,

Jay handed over the reins to me this weekend. I interviewed him for a recent article on Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner. It's posted on my own blog, race2006.blogspot.com.

I also host another blog on cancer politics and the cronyism that goes on within "charities." It's runfromthecureforcancer.blogspot.com.

My name is Mary Ann Swissler. I live here in Madison.

So blog away. To get us going how about a topic? I've only lived here since Sept. 2004 (have visited since '94), so you probably know more about Sensenbrenner than me.
To me, he's an exact clone of too many other people in government, in pharmaceutical lobbying and nonprofits, and in the news: Might is right.

Tell me why you'd like to see him lose this November 2006's election.

Friday Random Ten

The Actually Random (for once) Edition

1. "Beast in Me" Martin Sexton from Live at Gathering Of The Vibes 07/17/2004
2. "Much at All" Susan Werner from Last of the Good Straight Girls
3. "Old Man" Neil Young from Harvest
4. "This is Me" Girlyman from Little Star
5. "Cherry Tree" 10,000 Merchants from In My Tribe
6. "Drunken Sailor" Great Big Sea from Great Big Sea
7. "Are You Happy Now?" Richard Shindell from Courier
8. "Clap Hands" Peter Mulvey from Deep Blue
9. "Crazy Dog" Sons of the Never Wrong from Nuthatch Suite
10. "Icicles" Patty Griffin from Impossible Dream

Time Out

Sarah and I will be out of town this weekend for a wedding. But the bloggy goodness won't stop, nosiree. Stepping in will be Milwaukee-area freelance writer Mary Ann Swissler. Be nice; as I tell my students when there will be a substitute, all points are double when the sub is here!

The Hate Amendment, coming soon

I do hope all of you are following the news from the Action Wisconsin team and their No on the Amendment! blog. The Assembly seems poised to vote on the amendment to write the ban on gay marriage into the state Constitution next Tuesday (this would be a good time to call your Assemblyperson).

They also have had a number of interesting articles up profiling real people, and a new series profiling the real scary people, including Channel 30 fixture (Makes Me) Ralph Ovadal and the Wisconsin Marriage Defenders.

Bloggers on trees

Dead ones, anyway. Waukesha-an (Waukesha-ite? Waukeshotan?) Ozaukeean and former contributor to this very blog Tim Schilke is now author of a weekly column in the Waukesha Freeman. His debut is here, on the right's reaction to the car-seat law. Go read.

I'm still waiting for my call from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . . .

McIlheran Watch: "Deal"ing from the bottom of the barrel

Unsurprisingly, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's resident alien--as in, I don't know what color the skies are on the planet he's from--is opining on last week's voucher-school cap deal. What is surprising is that he's opted not to use his tired formula of (1) bad joke, (2) lie or misrepresentation, and (3) Republican talking point. He left out (1). Watch:

The choice program started with all its burden borne by Milwaukee taxpayers. When the Legislature eased that, teachers unions told Wisconsin voters their Republican representatives were robbing them on behalf of undeserving Milwaukee. [(2)] Rep. Debi Towns, a Janesville Republican who heads the education committee, says she faced such advertising just last year, and Gard says he can't ask his caucus to be kicked again. [(3)]

(2) In 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the MPCP actually did cost all districts in the state, an idea dropped like the proverbial hot potato at the end of a biennium that saw $44.5 million in aid originally aimed at other districts redirected to Milwaukee's voucher schools. Today, the program's state costs are paid by two things: A chargeback of 45% of the cost (this year $42 million-ish) from MPS's equalization aid and an amount equivalent to 55% of the cost (this year, $44 million-ish) from the General Fund. No state school district loses money for this program except the Milwaukee Public Schools. (3) Gard is not willing to ask "his caucus" to take a hit, but is willing to let Milwaukee taxpayers suffer? And, again, his caucus would not take a hit, anyway.

[E]ven if 45% seems like a large share of the bill to Milwaukeeans, "we have districts across the state where local tax effort pretty much carries the ball." [(2)] The average district's figure is 41%, and it's between 80% and 90% in much of suburban Milwaukee. While Milwaukee's share is set by state formula and its poverty, its light load limits others' sympathy. Besides, that 45% buys Milwaukeeans a uniquely beneficial reform. [(3)]

(2) The state's equalization aid formula is a complicated set of rules that all add up to one simple idea: DPI does not try to create equal per-student spending per district, but they do try to ensure that individual taxpayers' burdens are roughly equitable. Small districts with high property values get less (or none); large districts with low property values get more. A district whose property-tax collections cover 90% of the cost of educating a student should be counting its blessings, not envying Milwaukee's "light load." (3) To suggest that Milwaukeeans ought to be happy to shell out $15 million this year (over $22 million if the cap is miraculously hit again next year) for students our public schools do not teach is a pretty cheap shot--and there is no evidence that the "reform" is worth that. At least, no one seems to be asking Milwaukee property tax payers (like me) if it is.

Without mandated tests, say critics, you can't tell [how valuable the reform is]. The deal would require some kind of standardized test. The issue was a ruse anyhow, since most choice schools already test. Want to know how a school's doing? Ask it to show results before sending your kid. [(2) (3)]

(2) The number of schools offering tests is decreasing, and the number who make their results public is pretty slim. The Public Policy Forum has noted for years in its annual reports that the results don't get into the hands of current or perspective parents. (3) Why should parents have to demand from voucher schools what MPS gives them automatically?

If you're only sending money via taxes, then ask: Has knowing test results done you any good at MPS? On state tests, only 25% to 40% of its 10th-graders show more than a rudimentary grasp of most subjects, and the trend is wavering, not rising. Such results are aggregates. [(2)] Education's true results are on a child-by-child basis. The old arguments about funding and why Johnny can't read are macroeconomics, but the tragedy of the real Johnny who can't read is on the micro level. [(3)]

(2) MPS test scores are indeed rising, as the graph at the right shows. Those are generally steady trendlines. I'm not defending the scores--I know they're low--but pointing out the lie. In addition, as McIlheran derides "aggregates," he fails to note that the Republican-desired "study" of the voucher program will produce little more than an "aggregate" result, too. (3) As I have noted before, I could go anecdote-for-anecdote against him. My fellow teacher Diane Hardy started to a little while back. Look, the plural of anecdote is not data. McIlheran has to resort to an anecdote--one about a child who seems to have spent all of five months in school, total, public and private--because there are no data, no reputable studies that show that this program is worth the extra money it costs me and everyone else in the city. There are no data to tell a parent whether the voucher school in her neighborhood is better than the public school.

McIlheran is so excited that the "market" for voucher students seems to be expanding, but not interested in making sure that the market is free, open, and transparent. But, given his propensity for dissembling and obfuscating, it shouldn't shock me that he likes it as it is.

Speaking of lies spin . . .

[Updated! See below!] One of my favorite bloggers once noted that part of her M.O. was to flit around blogs from the other side until something made her mad, and then to blog about that. It's not a bad M.O.

I was stuck waiting around for the doctor's office to call me back, not wanting to dig into the pile of rough drafts just yet, when I stumbled across this post from Peter DiGaudio, one of the Usual Suspects. Entitled "Empowering Terrorists," the post begins with that trademarked DiGaudio civility, with his calling the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee "Sen. Arlen 'Magic Bullet' Spector (RINO-Al Qaeda)." DiGaudio is upset that Specter would demand FISA judicial review for the president's program of warrantless and currently un-reviewed wiretaps being conducted on US citizens and other "US persons."

But what got me hopped up enough to blog it was these two paragraphs, which have to be two of the most densely-false paragraphs I've read in a long time:

So why propose anything that will make it even more difficult to track and monitor terrorist operatives? The FISA Act has no relevance in dealing with today's threats. With terrorists communicating via disposable cell phones, the 72 hours it would take to get a FISA court warrant would make it impossible to track and monitor those plotting the next 9/11.

The fact that usually sensible folks like former Rep. Bob Barr are opposed to this reflects poorly on the national media's deliberate misrepresentation of this program. Once again, this is not "domestic spying." My phone calls are not being monitored, nor are my e-mails, nor anything else.

You know, in my last post, I took Fred at RealDebate to task for missing facts and the calling people who opine based on those facts he doesn't have liars. Here, we have a perfect example of someone missing facts and substituting opinion instead. The violations are numerous:

• Specter's bill does not make anything "more difficult." Notice,

  Specter said his proposal would empower the court established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to review the National Security Agency's domestic anti-terrorist surveillance every 45 days to ensure it does not go beyond limits described by the administration. Currently, Bush himself reviews the program and signs off on its continuation every 45 days.

  There is nothing in the bill that requires FISA warrants for these currently warrentless wiretaps; there is nothing in the bill at all, really, except a provision that puts oversight of this program into the judicial branch instead of allowing the executive branch to oversee itself.
  
  
• FISA is not irrelevant, and is in fact quite flexible. It was amended with the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act to make it more responsive to modern telecommunications (see this page, for example). The court itself almost never rejects warrant applications, meaning that they must understand their "relevance." But it's DiGaudio's point here that is irrelevant: Specter's bill requires no warrants.
  
  
• It does not take 72 hours to get a warrant. Either the talk radio is lying to him, or DiGaudio is deliberately misreading the law: The 72 hours is the retroactive limit; the NSA can start spying right away on anyone it suspects, as long as they go to the court with their evidence later. Of course this is also irrelevant: Specter's bill requires no warrants.
  
  
• If I were trying to be funny, I would say that Bob Barr was never sensible . . . but I won't. Instead I will just point out that the last time a president was found to have broken the law (and Bush has admitted to bypassing FISA) Bob Barr led the charge for impeachment. Sounds consistent to me.
  
  
• I'm curious to know how DiGaudio thinks the media has misrepresented the story. If he means that they have presented uncomfortable (for him) facts like the ones I name here, then that's not misrepresentation at all. Clearly, DiGaudio is upset that people are saying things that contradict his world view; the only misrepresentation I see is DiGaudio's distortion of reality.
  
  
• Finally, I love how he asserts that since his calls are not being tapped (that he knows about), the program "is not 'domestic spying.' " Well, I wonder what he would call surveilling US citizens inside the United States? Giving puppies to the poor?

So there you go. Six sentences, six falsehoods.

The last time I noted the factual innacuracies and blatant spin at DiGaudio's place on this very topic, he offered no corrections, no anything. Let us see if this time he cleans up the untruths.

UPDATE: DiGaudio lets his imagination run wild, applying his falsehoods here to the story of three terror suspects in Ohio. He writes,

keep in mind that if Feingold, Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy, Sen. Depends (Patrick "Leaky" Leahy), the ACLU, and now even Arlen "Magic Bullet" Spector had their way, the tools used to capture these traitors plotting attacks inside our borders would not be made available to the fed, and consequently these terrorists would have escaped detection.

That's right: two of the tools used here were the warrantless wiretaps and surveillance and the Patriot Act.

Ahh . . . that DiGaudio civility. But that's not important: What's important is that he claims the feds used the warrantless wiretaps to catch the bad guys. This is not true. From the FOX News story he cites: "One official told FOX News that this investigation used all the tools, including FISA warrants. 'A lot of FISAs,' one source said, referring to the warrants obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." And besides (I say again), Specter's bill requires no warrants.

Fred wants to know about lies

In a post of folkbum-worthy length, RealDebate's Fred is complaining about lies:

I’ve had as much as I can take with the rhetoric coming from the left and the MSM in regards to the President, his Administration and anyone who has an R after their name. What we are hearing is a coordinated effort to distort the truth to the betterment of the Democratic party. They are being allowed to say pretty much anything they want because they are sick, tired and angry about being the minority.

Sometimes what you do not say is just as indicative of your lies as what you do say, we will look at this from a variety of issues and site examples of the lies coming from the left and the MSM.

First, I should tell Fred to check out Peter Daou, both from today and last week, as Daou seems pretty well convinced that the "MSM" is, in fact, rapidly spiraling the other way.

But Fred names a few specific cases. Rather than respond there, where the comments thread is already on tangents and growing relatively hostile, I thought I'd throw out some responses here.

• Fred: If you have read it once you have read it a thousand times. Undercover operative Valerie Plame. [. . .] This much we know. At the time of this “leak” Valerie Plame had not been undercover for at least six years. [. . .] What we find again and again is the Democratic Leadership and the Main Stream Media continue to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative, they also ignore the rest of the story about Plame’s lies and the lies of her husband Joseph Wilson.
  
  They lie to minimize the perception that the leak was an honest attempt to question the since proven side of the story that Joe Wilson’s story, and the way in which he got this assignment were less than on the up-and-up. The leak may [have been] non-intentional, it may [have] been in bad taste, but it was not of an undercover operative.
  
  Truth: (Hey, if Fred can do it, so can I.) Newsweek reports,

  Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

  As for the Wilson's story not being on the "up and up" thing, I don't know specifically what to respond to, so I'll just send Fred here and here for some debunking of the notion that Wilson was not truthful.
  
  
• Fred: It has been argued time and again that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. That in itself is a lie.
  
  First, every major intelligence operative in the world thought Iraq had WMD’s, practically every major Democrat has been heard bloviating from the floor of the House or Senate at some point in their career about Iraq’s WMD’s and how Iraq could not be allowed to keep them. Of course they do not say that anymore that they deem in politically a dangerous position to take. Now they are running from the debate screaming Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied, all the while expecting us to turn a blind eye to their positions.
  
  Truth: I've said it before and I'll say it again: The argument about Bush and the WMD intelligence is not that no one but him believed there were WMDs; it's that by the time Bush was making his case to the 'Merkin people, the was new and credible intelligence to suggest that the WMD threat was not what we once believed it to be. The administration chose not to include the new information when it reported to Congress and the UN and other places about what Saddam supposedly had. For example, "It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House." The intelligence presented was flawed--Bush admitted it--but the greater problem is that they knew about the flaws at the time.
  
  
• Fred: I have said from the start of this that [Abramoff] will be a largely Republican scandal, however many Democrats will also be pulled into this. That is a fair statement, you will read no such thing in the MSM or hear it from any Democrat. They think this is a purely Republican scandal. Why? Because it fits their template. Just go ahead and ignore the Senate Minority leader he is nobody..... Right? Not if you are trying to perpetuate a lie of your own.
  
  Truth: What's the grand total of Democrats indicted so far? Zero. Republicans? Two. Even after the AP did its best to smear Harry Reid, for example, there is no there there.
  
  
• Fred: I stopped talking about [domestic spying] at RDW because the lefties were driving me nuts. They have the President tried convicted and impeached on this. The fact of the matter is we do not even know everything on this. You can not believe them though, vetting the facts and determining where powers lie they do not have time for. You see they have an election to win in November, no time for legality, just time to slime. This case is going to take years through the courts because the issue is not really about domestic spying it is about Presidential authority. As usual the left want all of that when they have the office and none of it when they do not. Does this necessarily show a lie, no. This does show an outrageous spin, and the MSM is going with it 100%.
  
  Truth: The president has admitted to breaking a law. Last time that happened, we had an impeachment trial. I'm not advocating for one here, but you can see how there would be a bit of an issue. Fred seems to be saying that the FISA law is unconstitutional, a claim that the administration just isn't making in court the way Fred seems to want them to. Republicans--like our own F. Jim--don't seem interested in holding hearings to really learn "everything." Their spin, in fact, seems to be kind of like sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't see even the other Republicans expressing doubts about whether the program--spying on citizens without a warrant--is appropriate.

I didn't touch all of Fred's points--time and space limitations, and so on--but he also needs to recognize that even if reasonable people can disagree here about what the facts in evidence may mean, no one can argue that they are facts. There will be spin a-plenty from both sides, but to suggest that facts are the same is spin is ridiculous.

As predicted, sun rises today

Or something like that.

Alan Borsuk reports that, as predicted, the Department of Public Instruction's rationing plan for Milwaukee voucher schools will hit established schools hardest. We all, you know, saw it coming.

You, too, can read DPI's information here, under the header of "Information on Prorate." What you'll find is that the rule DPI was forced to adopt (after groups like School Choice Wisconsin rejected a plan that would have prevented this) treats schools that are new and may never even open the same as schools that have been around for years and have hundreds of students enrolled. That means the 40 new schools, asking for 4627 students (including one school asking for more than 700 students!) are, in great part, skewing the process. There's also the matter of existing schools' wildly optimistic requests for more than 10,000 more students than they enrolled this year, as well. Don't we all remember that Public Policy Forum says there won't even be an increase of 1000 students this year?

Some of the overage is undoubtedly due to the panic that pro-voucher groups created by manufacturing the cap crisis in the first place--schools overestimated so that they wouldn't get burned by the rationing. The good schools didn't, so, like the good students who don't cheat on their vocabulary quizzes (first block, I'm looking at you!), they lose out.

Anyway, that will be the news tomorrow. Just thought you should know.

Headlines I wish I'd written

Pennsylvania firm buys Wisconsin Nipple

That is all.

McIlheran Watch: F. Jim is still wrong, and Pat is even wronger

I've been slacking on the McIlheran Watches lately, and for that I apologize. There's been other news to cover, and, you know, the job and things.

And again, this week, I'm farming out the work. This week's column gets taken on by Xoff. McIlheran is in full Sensenbrenner apologist mode, claiming that F. Jim was right to vote against relief aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina. "[T]he Democratic Party said at the time [. . . h]ow dare Sensenbrenner suggest Congress [. . .] try putting some safeguards on the next $33,000 per household?" Xoff notes that P-Mac is full of it:

One small problem with that analysis. Sensenbrenner said no such thing. He didn't offer any amendments or suggest any safeguards or oversight. He just voted no, knowing the bill would pass, and hoping he would be proven "right."

He is as reponsible as anyone for allowing the Bush administration to prove its incompetency.

And besides, had F. Jim voted for the measure, his "Mardi Gras Breakfast" last week would still have been in bad taste.

Go visit Bryan Kennedy. He's the best shot we have at F'ing F. Jim.

Accreditation

One of the provisions I like about the recent voucher cap deal is the requirement that all schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program be accredited through an independent accrediting agency. As to where the accreditation will come from, news reports are listing the North Central Association, which accredits pretty much all public schools and post-secondary institutions in the state; Wisconsin Religious and Independent Schools Accreditation, which accredits mostly religious schools; and Howard Fuller's Institue for Transformational Learning.

I have a call in to North Central to ask about whether they currently accredit any MPCP schools; their website is extremely throrough in detailing what a school needs to do for accreditation. As for WRISA, they currently accredit 30 of the 125 or so schools in the MPCP, with several others listed as being in "application." The information on their website is also relatively good about what it takes to achieve the accreditation. As for the ITL, well, to date, all they offer schools is help with the WRISA; their website offers no information on any accreditation through them at all.

So I'm trying to put together a small little project that would do a compare/contrast among the three, once I have all the information about what is involved in receiving accreditation from the three sources, how much each will cost, how long it lasts, and so on. I'm waiting, basically, for ITL. In an email today, I was told, they "will be glad to forward our documents to you as soon as the legislation is passed and our designation is official." So the compare/contrast will have to wait . . .

Another no-bid contract to Halliburton

This time, $42 billion. Waiting for F. Jim to criticize the potential waste, fraud, and abuse . . .

The Doyle "Blink": As Phony as the Cap "Crisis"

There's that old saw about two similar items being a coincidence, and three being a trend, you know? And so when news hit this past week of a potential deal to raise the cap on vouchers in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, I started seeing a trend in the right half of the Cheddarsphere: Doyle blinked! (Sometimes, Doyle caved!) Examples:

• Chip: Jim Doyle “blinked” in the standoff because the Democratic base in Milwaukee was starting to sweat this, big time.
  
• Fraley: Doyle blinks a lot.
  
• Esenberg: Doyle gets out of the school house door? Did Doyle cave on school choice?
  
• Patrick: Anything that pisses off the teachers unions is a good thing. The fact is Doyle caved.
  
• Binversie (at Owen's place): Read the Deal. Doyle got creamed.
  
• DiGaudio: DIAMOND JIM GETS OUT OF THE SCHOOHOUSE DOOR. Looks like there is a deal to increase the cap (not remove it) on Choice enrollment. Diamond Jim blinked and Milwaukee schoolchildren won.

To be fair, not all on the right like the deal (mostly because of the $25 million promised for SAGE funding), and not all are happy with John Gard's hand in making it happen. But those saying that Doyle "blinked" (or worse), like the ones above and the ones I probably just haven't seen yet, are lying. While I do not support this compromise, I can at least look at it objectively and see that Doyle is in no way the one who caved most to make this happen. Consider:

• For almost two solid years before last week, Doyle had been offering to raise the cap in exchange for things like more funding for MPS, or greater accountability in the choice schools. Though he personally opposes the program, he has always been willing to accommodate the needs of Milwaukee parents, students, and taxpayers. For those same two years, John Gard never once offered to sit at the table to work out a deal. Blinker? Gard.
  
  
• Doyle's November proposal to raise the cap included all of the following, which have either been signed into law already or have been promised by legislative leaders: An increase in SAGE funding; an increase in the enrollment cap in Racine's charter school program; accreditation for all voucher schools; required standardized testing in all voucher schools; changes to eligibility requirements to make it easier for families to stay in the program. Blinker? Gard.
  
  
• Doyle has always wanted to keep the enrollment cap limited, offering at first 18% and then 20% of MPS enrollment. The deal ends up at about 25%. Gard has always wanted--sent the bill to Doyle several times for a veto, in fact--100%, or, effectively, no cap at all. Blinker? Gard.
  
  
• Doyle wanted a "hold Milwaukee harmless" provision that would ease some of the extra bite felt by Milwaukee taxpayers due to the vouchers. He didn't get that one.

So how is it that the right Cheddarsphere can lie about Doyle's blinking like this? It's easy, actually: The right has spent the last couple of years creating a "crisis," and then, ever since the cap hit, they have been lying about Jim Doyle's role in that "crisis." By internalizing the previous lies--that Doyle wanted to "kill choice" and was "standing in the schoolhouse door"--they can now believe the lie that it was Doyle who "blinked."

The truth is that Republicans, in concert with their backers at pro-voucher organizations like School Choice Wisconsin, manufactured a "crisis." Gard's refusal to compromise with Doyle, plus SCW's rejection of DPI's plans to protect existing schools and current students, combined to make this issue, as one conservative commenter noted, "a very powerful campaign weapon." So they capitalized on it: In ad after ad, MMAC, ACE, and others blamed Doyle for creating the mess that might have kicked 4000 students out of their choice schools, rather than the real culprits. Bloggers repeated the lie ad nauseum that it was Doyle's fault that these families would suffer, that Doyle was opposed to raising the cap (never mind that he had produced written offers to do so). They even ran photoshopped pictures of Jim Doyle's head on the body of an anti-desegregationist governor blocking the literal schoolhouse door. These were all lies.

But they repeated the lies, and refused to listen to those of us on the left who pointed out that they had their facts completely wrong. It was a little bit like arguing against truthiness--the facts may change, as Colbert says, but their opinion doesn't.

This set them up perfectly for the phony "blink": If they believe, in error, that Doyle would never agree to raise the cap and, in fact, was trying to kill it (Doyle, being a "wholly owned subsidiary of WEAC," must want to kill it, right?), saw the deal as a cave on his part. Since they did not believe that Doyle had ever offered to compromise on the issue before (when, really, that was Gard), they saw Doyle as the one who flip-flopped.

And this is reflective, I think, of the way the right often works: Spread enough seed lies, and then you can reap them when needed. For example, when I say "Howard Dean," what's the first thing that comes to mind? If you said "wacky liberal," you might just be a conservative. In reality, Dean was to the right of almost all the other 2004 primary candidates, but his opposition to the Iraq War drove the narrative. Now whenever Dean makes a salient point of any kind, the right trots out the "wacky liberal" label and ignores him. (Or, sandwiched in between posts about how incivil the left is, posts more photoshopping.)

The same happened here. It's something Republicans do well (we Democrats don't like to lie), and if Howard Fuller and Brother Bob and a few others who actually think about children instead of campaigning hadn't dragged Gard to the table, they would have completely gotten away with it.