Archive for September, 2012

September 26, 2012

These Are 10 Surprising Republican Actors & Singers

Hollywood is known for being overwhelming left-of-center. From celebrity-led fundraisers supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign to incendiary rhetoric aimed against Republicans, the majority of Hollywood doesn’t hide its liberal inclinations.

That being said, Tinseltown isn’t completely devoid of GOP enthusiasts. While they comprise a very silent minority, right-of-center celebrities exist – and some may even surprise you. While the following list is by no means a complete picture, it is a compilation of 10 of the most interesting and surprising actors and performers who reportedly consider themselves Republicans.

1. TONY DANZA

Actor Tony Danza is known for his popular role on the 1980s sitcom “Who’s the Boss?,” for his former talk show gig and for appearing in some popular feature films. But the New York City-born actor is also a Republican who may even have political ambitions of his own.

In fact, in a recent interview, he told The Wall Street Journal that he’s thought about running for NYC mayor:

“I’m of a certain age, and you see things, and you think maybe you could help,” Danza said. “You say: ‘Let me fix the city. Let me run for Mayor.’” […]

Danza declined to say which party he’d run for, adding that he’s never made a monetary contribution to a politician. “The country’s been hoodwinked into thinking we’re supposed to do that,” he said.

While he didn’t share his political persuasion, numerous outlets have reiterated his right-of-center views.

Actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tony Danza attend the ‘Premium Rush’ New York premiere at Regal Union Square on August 22, 2012 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images

2. SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR

When she’s not slaying vampires, Buffy (also known as Sarah Michelle Gellar) is apparently donating to charity and…being a Republican (allegedly). Gather news writes, “It’s probably no surprise that Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Sarah Michelle Gellar is Republican. She‘s all about what is right in the world and fixing whatever’s wrong.”

While she’s purportedly right-minded, Gellar is reportedly tight-lipped about her political affiliation.

Actress Sarah Michelle Gellar visits the SiriusXM Studios on February 7, 2012 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images

3. PATRICIA HEATON

From “Everybody Loves Raymond” to “The Middle,” actress Patricia Heaton has been a television fixture for over a decade. The outspoken actress has made her pro-life views known, as she has often come out to publicly support anti-abortion causes (although she has also been openly supportive of gay marriage).

The actress is a fan of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, too. In July, POLITICO reported:

Actress Patricia Heaton thinks Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is pretty great.

“Met Gov. Romney last nite – excellent human being,” the star of ABC’s “The Middle” tweeted on Tuesday.

Heaton is one of a few outspoken conservatives in Hollywood and regularly shares her political musings on Twitter.

While everyone may not love Heaton’s political views, she’s certainly a successful example of a political rarity in Hollywood.

Actress Patricia Heaton attends Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel’s 2012 ‘TCA Summer Press Tour’ on August 2, 2012 in Beverly Hills, California. Credit: Getty Image

4. ADAM SANDLER

Adam Sandler is a well-known comedian. He’s also a Republican who financially-supported 2008 presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Numerous media outlets have reported that Sandler is a registered GOPer. Like Heaton, he, too, has stated his support for gay marriage, a stance issue that tends to rile social conservatives.

Actor/executive producer Adam Sandler attends the screening of Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation’s ‘Hotel Transylvania’ at Pacific Theatre at The Grove on September 22, 2012 in Los Angeles, California.Credit: Getty Images

5. ANGIE HARMON

Angie Harmon is a Republican and she’s apparently not afraid to show it. The star of “Rizzoli & Isles” spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Naturally, she’s been more than open about her conservative views. In a 2011 interview, she spoke about the experience of “coming out” as a GOPer:

“Here’s the thing about that. When I quote, unquote came out I had no idea I was doing something that was detrimental to my career. It never occurred to me. I’m an American. I’m going to have an opinion as everybody else does and I was asked a question. The fact that it was turned into that I was a gay hating racist was just heartbreaking. It was really horrible. The fact that most of my close friends are gay. After I quote unquote came out as a Republican, one of my dearest gay friends said to me, ‘You’ve got to go on a T.V. show and tell everyone you like gay people.’ I was like, ‘Why?’ He was like, ‘Because you’re a Republican.’ I was like, ‘I’m sorry who’s stereotyping who?”

Interestingly, Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly made a guest appearance last season on ”Rizzoli & Isles.”

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA – JUNE 19: Angie Harmon arrives at Gilt Baby and Kids celebrates Wendy Bellissimo collection launch at Palihouse Holloway on June 19, 2012 in West Hollywood, California.Credit: WireImage

6. HEATHER LOCKLEAR

While there’s not much known about Heather Locklear and her Republicanism, the “Melrose Place” actress has been known, for years, to be right-of-center. Like Gellar, she’s tight-lipped about her views and hasn’t been quoted much speaking on-the-record about conservative values.

Zimio adds, “Heather Locklear has been known as a Republican for years, but is stubbornly quiet on the issue. She declined to participate in a 2004 documentary called ‘Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood,’ in which celebrity conservatives talked about being a cultural minority.”

Actress Heather Locklear (R) and Ava Locklear arrive at Summit Entertainment’s ‘The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1’ premiere at Nokia Theatre L.A. Live on November 14, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. Credit: Getty Images

7. JOAN RIVERS

Joan Rivers isn’t known for being a Hollywood sweetheart. That being said, the 79-year-old comedian and actress is, at least constitutionally-speaking, a Republican. New York Magazine has a few sentences that perfectly encapsulate her views:

Though she calls herself an independent and voted for Obama, she is constitutionally Republican. Friends with Nancy Reagan. Thinks we should just bomb the shit out of Iran. Ambivalent about feminism. Detests whining and victimhood and laziness. Hated Precious. “I got very annoyed,” she says. “I thought, Oh, get a job! Stand up and get a job!”

Despite voting for Obama, Rivers has agreed that his policies are unfair to the wealthy, telling POLITICO, “I think if I work very hard, I should be able to gather the fruits of my labor. And I think if you’re not about to work, you should get minimal and leave me alone. I think if you don’t wear a helmet and you fall off your bike, you pay for the doctor.”

Comedian Joan Rivers arrives to Us Weekly’s 25 Most Stylish New Yorkers Event at STK Midtown on September 12, 2012 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images

8. BRUCE WILLIS

Actor Bruce Willis has a penchant for small government. While he may not be on board with all (or most) GOP proposals, in 2006, he made his pseudo-conservatism known.

“I’m a Republican only as far as I want a smaller government, want less government intrusion,” he said, going on to make it clear, though, that he is not political. “I hate government. I’m apolitical. Write that down. I’m not a Republican.”

Willis did support George H.W. Bush in 1992 and President George W. Bush in 2000, but, today, he remains “apolitical.” In fact, he recently said that he doesn’t care who wins in the upcoming election and that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is an “embarrassment.” Still, he embraces right-of-center sentiment and, because of his smaller-government views, he qualifies for this list.

Actor Bruce Willis attends the ‘Looper’ opening night gala premiere during the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival on September 6, 2012 in Toronto, Canada. Credit: Getty Images

9. SHANNEN DOHERTY

“90210′s” Shannen Doherty has been vocal about her Republican views in the past. ”I realize that the majority of people in the entertainment business happen to be Democrats. I have no problem with that. And they should have no problem with the fact that I’m a Republican,” she once said.

In a recent interview, Doherty proclaimed that, while she’s a conservative, she needs to believe in a candidate in order to cast a vote for him or her. The actress said that she supports people who are willing to “evoke change and to stand for something.” The actress is also passionate about educating students on what unfolded on September 11, 2001:

“…9/11 affected me, as it affected everybody in this country and most people around the world. It was horrific and scary, but it also elicited feelings of pride, camaraderie and patriotism. You saw a country pull together and support each other. It was one of the most beautiful things I’ve bared witness to, while also being a horrific event with how many people were murdered on that day. My political mind comes into play being that I’m confused as to why we don’t have some form of a curriculum in our schools for teaching about that day.

I don’t think it’s a day that should ever be forgotten. We certainly didn’t forget about Pearl Harbor and we teach about Pearl Harbor. I don’t see why 9/11 is any different, and it’s something I am going to be fighting for. In life, you have to get passionate and stand behind something and fight for it. It takes one person to evoke change, to start a movement to make the world a better place. Education is first and foremost, which is again, why I believe that 9/11 is something that should be taught about in school.”

While she was once known as a wild card and a Hollywood bad girl, Doherty is nowadays calling herself a conservative.

Actress Shannen Doherty arrives at the 20th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation Academy Awards Viewing Party at The City of West Hollywood Park on February 26, 2012 in Beverly Hills, California. Credit: WireImage

10. 50 CENT

Perhaps the biggest surprise is rapper 50 Cent. In the past, he’s stated that he is, in fact, a Republican. Inquisitr writes, “Rapper 50 Cent allegedly leans to the right and once noted he would vote for President George W. Bush if it weren’t for his felony conviction.”

However, some outlets have shown that 50 Cent, though he once showed his love for the nation’s 43rd president, eventually soured on Bush. StarPulse.com has more:

The hip-hop star – real name Curtis Jackson – was a one-time fan of the political figure, telling interviewers in 2005, “I wanna…shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him.”

However the In Da Club hit maker has made a dramatic u-turn, accusing Bush of being cruel and heartless. He tells New York Magazine, “George Bush has a talent: he has less compassion than the average human. By all means, I don’t aspire to be like George Bush.” The President has lost public support in the polls in recent years following wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Either way, 50 Cent has shown his support for Republican ideals — a fascinating notion, considering his stature in the entertainment industry.

Singer ’50 Cent’ Curtis James Jackson arrives at the premiere of Open Road Films’ ‘End of Watch’ at Regal Cinemas L.A. Live on September 17, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. Credit: Getty Images

There you have it. Ten of the most fascinating (alleged) Republican celebrities.

via These Are 10 Surprising Republican Actors & Singers | TheBlaze.com.

Advertisements
September 26, 2012

Union Hooey on Display

Larry Sand President California Teachers Empowerment Network

Even with a “victory” in Chicago, teachers unions are still under attack, and their buzz words, doublespeak and bunkum are becoming ever so transparent.

After striking Chicago teachers went back to work last Wednesday following a seven day walk-out, their union declared a victory. While the school district did get some concessions, the union managed to get its teachers a hefty raise, a continuance their archaic “step and column” salary scale and the requirement that only a small part of their evaluations are to be based on whether or not the kids learn anything. While somehow, the Chicago Teachers Union managed to maintain the sympathies of most Chicagoans, public opinion outside the Windy City was derisive, as was much of the mainstream media everywhere. Even the Chicago Tribune felt the union went overboard with its demands.

At the same time, the “Students Matter” case drew some attention from the California Federation of Teachers. As I wrote in May, this lawsuit was filed

…on behalf of eight students from around the state, claims provisions of California’s education code—rigid tenure rules, a seniority-based firing system that ignores teacher quality, and a “due-process” system that makes it all but impossible to remove incompetent or criminal teachers—violate student rights. “As a result of these arbitrary distinctions” in hiring and firing, the complaint reads, “children of substantially equal age, aptitude, motivation, and ability do not have substantially equal access to education. Because education is a fundamental interest under the California Constitution, the statutes that dictate this unequal, arbitrary result violate the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution.”

The Students Matter lawsuit doesn’t ask the court to devise specific policy solutions. Ultimately, those decisions should be left to local districts—as they are in 33 other states. 

The California Federation of Teachers came out swinging on its website, claiming that it opposes the suit because it “threatens teacher due process rights.” Its verbiage is typical union claptrap – filled with buzz words, bogeymen and fear mongering – in short, a self-righteous pastiche meant to rally the troops and fellow travelers and to “educate” the public. Some examples:

CFT says it a “malicious and costly lawsuit.”

Costly, perhaps. But malicious? Trying to overturn statutes that are harming school kids is malicious?

CFT says that the suit is “financed by wealthy investors from Los Angeles and the Silicon Valley….”

Why do they have to let us know the investors are “wealthy?” Do you know any impoverished investors? Of course not; they mention “wealthy” as an invitation to their ongoing us vs. them class warfare effort.

CFT says, “…there is nothing in the suit that would then prevent administrators from politicizing the classroom and removing many of the same employment rights enjoyed by doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters, and nurses.

Huh? Last time I checked, people in these fields who are lousy at their chosen profession either fail if they are self-employed or are fired if they are employees. Doctors? Tenure? Lawyers? Seniority? Employment rights?

CFT says, “Our complete and total focus must be in our classrooms, not the courthouse.”

Nice thought. And when teachers unions stop buying legislators in Sacramento, litigation will no longer be necessary.

At the core, CFT fears that if the top-down, one-size-fits-all education code they so strongly defend is amended and these decisions are left to local education agencies, the union’s freedom to run the education enterprise in California will be imperiled. At the same time, AFT President Randi Weingarten, gloating in the wake of the Chicago strike, said,

Real public education reform comes from the bottom up with teachers, parents and communities and kids working together to make all of our schools thrive.

Here is the doublespeak. The Students Matter case is about getting the community control that Weingarten claims to want, yet the California affiliate of her union wants reform to stay on the state level.

But continuing its power on the state level may not be as easy as it used to be. According to an encouraging post by Mike Antonucci, the California Teachers Association (CFT’s big union brother, and the most powerful union affiliate in the country) came out with some interesting new business items which are currently under review by its board of directors. One deals with the union’s ongoing effort to limit the number of charter schools. But there is also a revealing item that suggests that the CTA board should

… explore options to generate additional resources from both internal and especially external sources to counter the vast resources available to our political opponents due to the Citizens United decision.

CTA needs to recognize we are in a war we do not currently have the resources to win. Since the Citizens United decision our political opponents have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money via “Independent Expenditure Only Committees,” popularly known as “Super PACs.” Although CTA currently has such a committee, it has only been utilized on an ad hoc basis. We need to aggressively pursue consistent funding sources. These could include entertainers, professional athletes or other wealthy individuals with possible ties to public education. CTA-retired members could be a valuable resource to assist in this effort.

Bottom line here is that whether it’s negative publicity from the Chicago strike, fear of losing its grip on tenure and seniority in California or CTA admitting it is in a war that it doesn’t “currently have the resources to win,” this is not a good time for the teachers unions. As things get worse, they will become more frantic. The public needs to be highly skeptical of union claims that they are only thinking about the children, that they are just interested in due process and that they really want to “work together to make all of our schools thrive.” These are not serious words. In fact, it’s the same bunkum they have been peddling for years, and it’s way past time for us to stop buying it.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

September 15, 2012

Sugar High Economics & Keynesian Distortions

Did you know every time Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke “Eases Monetary Policy” what he and the Keynesians are doing is taking money right out of your savings accounts and paychecks and pumping up commodity prices and the stock market. This is called Sugar High Economics and its only purpose is to stimulate the economy of the Federal Government, not the American Private Sector Economy.

Keynes

The Keynesians are those economists that are called upon by the federal government to back up,  justify and rationalize their economic policies such as printing, borrowing and taxing in such a way as to convince the public that this is the right thing to do. In reality it makes them rich by transferring wealth from the workers, savers and entrepreneurs, to the financial wizards and politicians that have control of our legislation and the printing presses.

The Freemarketeers are economists that exist in the reality outside of Washington that claim smaller government is the only way to minimize cronyism, special interests and corruption that naturally exists between the establishment politicians and their rich friends that contribute to their campaigns. This “Keynesian Distortion” sucks capital out of the private sector and inhibits job growth.

Which one are you? If you are a FreeMarketeer then please join us at the Wake Up America 2012 Rally at the West Los Angeles Federal Building Oct 7 at 2pm. Dennis Prager, Stephen Bannon, Bill Whittle, Mark Meckler, AlfonZo Rachel, and Ted Hayes (who will be telling the story of the Republican Party and what it has for the American Culture.) will be speaking on behalf of America, its families, workers, savers and entrepreneurs.

Special musical guest Madison Rising will be performing their hit version of the Star Spangled Banner. It is the second best rendition next to Jimi Hendrix and WILL send that tingling feeling of patriotism up the back of your leg.

Wake Up America! 20012 Rally

Facebook/WakeUpAmerica2012

Donate to the event and get free stuff!

See Madison Rising’s version of the Star Spangled Banner.

Buy their CD and T-Shirt here

September 9, 2012

Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell

by Thomas Sowell

After reading Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” it became painfully clear that he has not been searching for the truth, because he assumed from an early age that he had already found the truth — and now it was just a question of filling in the details and deciding how to change things.

Obama did not simply happen to encounter a lot of people on the far left fringe during his life. As he spells out in his book, he actively sought out such people. There is no hint of the slightest curiosity on his part about other visions of the world that might be weighed against the vision he had seized upon.

As Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong?

This would be a remarkable position to take, even for a learned scholar who had already spent decades canvassing a vast amount of information and views on many subjects. But Obama was already doctrinaire at a very early age — and ill-informed or misinformed on both history and economics.

His statement in “Dreams from My Father” about how white men went to Africa to “drag away the conquered in chains” betrays his ignorance of African history.

The era of the Atlantic slave trade and the era of European conquests across the continent of Africa were different eras. During the era of the Atlantic slave trade, most of Africa was ruled by Africans, who sold some of their slaves to white men.

European conquests in Africa had to wait until Europeans found some way to survive lethal African diseases, to which they lacked resistance. Only after medical science learned to deal with these diseases could the era of European conquests spread across sub-Saharan Africa. But the Atlantic slave trade was over by then.

There was no reason why Barack Obama had to know this. But there was also no reason for him to be shooting off his mouth without knowing what he was talking about.

Similarly with Obama’s characterization of the Nile as “the world’s greatest river.” The Nile is less than 10 percent longer than the Amazon, but the Amazon delivers more than 50 times as much water into the Atlantic as the Nile delivers into the Mediterranean. The Nile could not accommodate the largest ships, even back in Roman times, much less the aircraft carriers of today that can sail up the Hudson River and dock in midtown Manhattan.

When Obama wrote that many people “had been enslaved only because of the color of their skin,” he was repeating a common piece of gross misinformation. For thousands of years, people enslaved other people of the same race as themselves, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Western Hemisphere.

Europeans enslaved other Europeans for centuries before the first African was brought in bondage to the Western Hemisphere. The very word “slave” is derived from the name of a European people once widely held in bondage, the Slavs.

As for economics, Obama thought that Indonesians would be worse off after Europeans came in, used up their natural resources and then left them too poor to continue the modern way of life to which they had become accustomed, or to resume their previous way of life, after their previous skills had atrophied.

This fear of European “exploitation” prevailed widely in the Third World in the middle of the 20th century. But, by the late 20th century, the falseness of that view had been demonstrated so plainly and so often, in countries around the world, that even socialist and communist governments began opening their economies to foreign investments. This often led to rising economic growth rates that lifted millions of people out of poverty.

Barack Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt. When he burst upon the national political scene as a presidential candidate in 2008, even some conservatives were impressed by his confidence.

But confident ignorance is one of the most dangerous qualities in a leader of a nation. If he has the rhetorical skills to inspire the same confidence in himself by others, then you have the ingredients for national disaster.

via Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell – [page].

September 1, 2012

Chutzpah on Steroids

Larry Sand President California Teachers Empowerment Network

An audacious article asserting that teachers unions are good for kids may have fooled some people fifty years ago but now should be viewed as a modern fairy tale.

AlterNet, a far left website that among other things extols the virtues of Communist wretch Howard Zinn, posted an article by Kristin Rawls – are you sitting down – “6 Reasons Teachers Unions Are Good for Kids.” I checked the date and it wasn’t April 1st so I realized that Rawls was actually serious – seriously deluded.

One of her six reasons: Teachers unions are the only major educational players still focused on advancing school equity by leveling the playing field. Yes, the playing field is level – the basement level, however – across much of the country. But parents are more interested in quality, which is why so many of them (especially minorities) are doing everything they can to get their kids away from unionized schools.

Another reason: Teachers unions protect student and teacher safety in schools. Student safety? Really? In California, the teachers unions just killed SB 1530, a bill that would have shortened the endless “dismissal statutes” for teachers who committed offenses involving violence, sex or drug use with children. I don’t think that the students victimized by pedophiles and sadistic teachers would agree with her outlandish statement.

Teachers unions fight to protect teachers’ First Amendment rights… Perhaps the writer needs a history lesson. The First Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution; no one needs a union to guarantee constitutional protections

Teachers unions oppose school vouchers. She’s right about this one, which is too bad because vouchers work for both the students who avail themselves of them and the students who don’t. The competition factor improves the quality of education for all students. But then again, the writer isn’t looking for quality, just equality. And if kids are equally miserable, well at least they’re equal, right?

A second fawning pro-union article appeared in the Los Angeles Times last week. Michael Hiltzik’s “Proposition 32: A fraud to end all frauds” attacks an initiative that will be on the California ballot in November. This prop would ban not only direct corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates, but also contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them, and in addition, it would prohibit automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics. The piece is insulting to voters, whom he suggests would be “stupid” to vote for the prop and to union members he believes should be forced to pay dues to a union whether they want to or not.

A much more realistic and sobering article also appeared in the LA Times last week. Michael Mishak’s “California Teachers Assn. a powerful force in Sacramento” details the frightening power wielded by CTA. Just a few quotes from the article will put things in perspective:

The union views itself as “the co-equal fourth branch of government,” said Oakland Democrat Don Perata, a former teacher who crossed swords with the group when he was state Senate leader.

Backed by an army of 325,000 teachers and a war chest as sizable as those of the major political parties, CTA can make or break all sorts of deals. It holds sway over Democrats, labor’s traditional ally, and Republicans alike.

Jim Brulte, a former leader of the state Senate’s GOP caucus, recalled once attending a CTA reception with a Republican colleague who told the union’s leaders that he had come to “check with the owners.”

CTA has since used its institutionalized clout, deep pockets and mass membership largely to protect the status quo… CTA has ferociously guarded a set of hard-won tenure rules and seniority protections, repeatedly beating back attempts by education groups to overturn those measures, increase teacher accountability and introduce private-school vouchers.

In a similar vein, Troy Senik wrote a piece for City Journal, “The Worst Union in America: How the California Teachers Association betrayed the schools and crippled the state.” Like Mishak, he makes a case for the enormously destructive power of the teachers union,

In 1991, the CTA took to the ramparts again to combat Proposition 174, a ballot initiative that would have made California a national leader in school choice by giving families universal access to school vouchers. When initiative supporters began circulating the petitions necessary to get it onto the ballot, some CTA members tried to intimidate petition signers physically. The union also encouraged people to sign the petition multiple times in order to throw the process into chaos.

As the CTA’s power grew, it learned that it could extract policy concessions simply by employing its aggressive PR machine. In 1996, with the state’s budget in surplus, the CTA spent $1 million on an ad campaign touting the virtues of reduced class sizes in kindergarten through third grade. Feeling the heat from the campaign, Republican governor Pete Wilson signed a measure providing subsidies to schools with classes of 20 children or fewer. The program was a disaster: it failed to improve educational outcomes, and the need to hire many new teachers quickly, to handle all the smaller classes, reduced the quality of teachers throughout the state. The program cost California nearly $2 billion per year at its high-water mark, becoming the most expensive education-reform initiative in the state’s history. But it worked out well for the CTA, whose ranks and coffers were swelled by all those new teachers.

Seems overwhelming, doesn’t it? No, not really. In a recent post, education blogger Joann Jacobs spells out some inconvenient realities for the teachers unions. In “Teachers  unions go on the defensive,” she points to an article in the New York Times by Frank Bruni who writes that,

In Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and other cities, Democratic mayors have feuded bitterly with teachers’ unions and at times come to see them as enemies. And at a meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in June, Democratic mayors joined Republican ones in a unanimous endorsement of so-called parent trigger legislation, about which unions have serious reservations. These laws, recently passed in only a few states but being considered in more, abet parent takeovers of underperforming schools, which may then be replaced with charter schools run by private entities.

The unions have also run afoul of the grim economic times. “In the private sector, nobody’s got any security about anything,” said Charles Taylor Kerchner, a professor of education at ClaremontGraduateUniversity. So the unions’ fights over pay raises and pensions, he said, made previously routine negotiations “look like pigs at the trough.”

Then, referring to liberal news commentator Campbell Brown’s recent dust up with AFT President Randi Weingarten, Jay Greene says,

. . .  the teacher unions are finally being treated as the special interest group they are rather than as credible players in the discussion over the merits of various education policies. When Campbell Brown takes on the unions, the game is over.

Well, maybe not “over.” Greene concedes,

The unions are still quite powerful and policy battles will continue to rage. But a big political and cultural shift has occurred.

Indeed it has, which is why “6 Reasons Teachers Unions Are Good for Kids,” with its brazen, reality-free content, would be a fitting entry in “Mother Goose: The Dark Side.”

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

%d bloggers like this: