|
|
|
|
September 23, 2008
Helping to bring about "change"?
Is education still an issue? Anyone who thinks it is, or who wants to learn more about Barack Obama's background in the field should read "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools": Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.As to why Obama is downplaying his leadership of the CAC, I think there are two reasons. For starters, the CAC was the brainchild of unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers: The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.As the author Stanley Kurtz argues, this work with Ayers is hardly guilt by association; "it's guilt by participation." Which comes to the second reason Obama doesn't want to talk about his work with Ayers and the CAC. The outfit promoted a radical approach to education based on Ayers' view that student radicalism should be emphasized, and educational achievement de-emphasized: The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.Little wonder Obama doesn't want anyone to know. It's one thing to hang out with a guy like Ayers in a bar and have a few beers. I could forgive something like that. But here he was, partnering with Ayers in a radical enterprise to indoctrinate children, by messing with their heads. As if that's not bad enough, they also steered money to ACORN: CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).Of one thing we can be glad. The effort failed, because (surprise!) student test scores failed to improve. Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.At least, I guess the fact that it failed is good. But it's money down the drain, fed into the small c communist coffers. Kurtz is right that there's a lot more to this than "guilt by association." As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.Obama's coverup is quite understandable. Associating with an unrepetant terrorist radical is one thing. Working with him is another. But partnering with him to help bring about his radical educational ideas? Appalling. Whether the voters will ever know the details, I don't know. Obama continues to insist that the issue is how old he was at the time Ayers and his outfit were bombing people, and that his critics are stuck in the 60s. What ought to matter is how old he was when they were both trying to bring about "change" in the 90s. MORE: Noting that the MSM has "quite consciously and deliberately ignored and minimized this subject," Glenn Reynolds links the WSJ piece and also a great Hot Air post (from which I'll quote liberally): Kurtz' report provides a very interesting look at the early political life of Barack Obama. He had already entered politics at the time he joined the CAC, and even at that stage had allied himself with ACORN, which has found itself at the center of more than a dozen voter-fraud investigations. Obama also allied himself with Ayers and helped the former Weather Underground fugitive push forward with his plans to radicalize an entire generation of schoolchildren in the area through the CAC. Note well the parallels to community organizing that play out in the activities of the CAC, and recall again how Obama claims that activity as a major qualification for the presidency.In an earlier post (titled "What if Ayers really is mainstream?") I speculated that the fact of Ayers being part of the Democratic mainstream is the real issue they want to hide: Is Ayers mainstream or is he not?I keep saying this is worse than Jeremiah Wright, and I think it is. Far worse. You'd almost think Wright was a distraction from this, um, mainstream issue. MORE: Joshua Muravchik, writing in Commentary, looks at the Obama Ayers collaboration and says, "There may be much more, so far successfully hidden by all concerned; but even these facts suggest that Ayers was among Obama's closest collaborators."My guess is that Obama would continue to say he hardly knew the guy. I say "would" because I'm not convinced the Ayers questions will even be asked. posted by Eric on 09.23.08 at 01:01 PM
Comments
Eric said: "Of one thing we can be glad. The effort failed, because (surprise!) student test scores failed to improve." Student test scores may not have improved, but I don't believe that the effort failed. That is, I don't believe that Ayers/Obama ever had any interest in student test scores at all. Their true agenda -- "a radical approach to education based on Ayers' view that student radicalism should be emphasized, and educational achievement de-emphasized" -- was indeed quite successful. Look at schools and universities today: anti-American, social engineering factories that don't educate children in the skills they need to succeed, but instead indoctrinate them in the attitudes that will make them dependent on government while despising the country that feeds them. The Ayre's plan is doing exceedingly well, far beyond the confines of Chicago, and his principles seem firmly entrenched in nearly every corner of America. What I want is for someone to tell me how we reverse Ayre's success, so we can restore our schools to their former capabilities -- and restore the rest of our society, too, as bad schooling and bad attitudes are infecting every aspect of our lives as well. See William Staneski's recent article at American Thinker for an excellent picture of just how well Ayre's and his fellow travelers have succeeded (although the article is not about Ayres): If you read nothing else this week, read Staneski. pa · September 23, 2008 01:44 PM Barry's madrassas dre · September 23, 2008 01:55 PM Nicely said, Mr. Scheie. Bleepless · September 23, 2008 09:04 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The third rail is easy to embrace
The double-secret Tom Eagleton non-prediction prediction! "The biggest story of the campaign" "white privilege" defined "Disparate impact." A deadly remedy for a misdiagnosis Helping to bring about "change"? An issue that should not be forgotten Some Lovely Friends You Have Buddy Fanning the frames of flames Just say no! To Bush!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
After reading the snit by Ben Smith of "The Politico" last night, I left reminded that in this political season the 4th estate has done the American public a disservice.
After the Iraq War started, the 4th estate spent months before they finally decided that maybe they were vigilant enough with their reporting running up to the war.
In this election, the 4th estate repeats it's error by falling into the same trap.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
In this election, the 4th estate has actually allowed one of the candidates to write his own narrative uncontested, based on two auto-biographical books, that is full of holes for large time sequences.
Today, with only 40 some days remaining till the election, a bit of one of those 4 year holes is filled in, but much is still left unknown.
Will the 4th estate be contemplating their navel for that time or will they begin to ask the questions that will give the American people a complete story ?
Not only does the future of their craft stand in balance, the future of the country demands better.
If they are not up to the challenge .. we will look elsewhere.