Dear Commons Community,

Today’s New York Times editorial targets our government leaders who have turned away from any meaningful attempt to enact gun control at any level.  Given the horror of Aurora last week, we would have expected some outcry from our elected and would-be officials but alas the response has been lame at best.   With the exception of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a few other local politicians, there have be no significant charges against the governmental policies that allow individuals to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition on mail order, SWAT helmets, chest protectors, and tear gas canisters.

The editorial particularly targets President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney:

“When he was campaigning for office in 2008, Barack Obama vowed to reinstate the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004. That would have prohibited the AR-15 rifle used in the Colorado theater shooting on Friday, along with the large 100-round magazine attached to it. But as president, Mr. Obama has made no attempt to do so. Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts and undoubtedly saved many lives, but now he opposes all gun control measures. He never repeats what he said in 2004 when he signed the ban:

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he said. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Both men fear the power of gun ideologues, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, Nevada and North Carolina, where many voters have fallen under the spell of a gun lobby that considers any restriction an unthinkable assault on the Constitution. Senator Ron Johnson, the Tea Party favorite from Wisconsin, spoke for the Republican Party (and many Democrats) when he said that limiting high-capacity magazines would infringe on a basic right. “When you try and do it, you restrict our freedom,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

It is one thing when pro-gun activists hide behind the U.S. Constitution to promote their beliefs, it is quite another when our government leaders live in fear of and sell out to the lobbyists.

To overcome their fear, they need only look at the faces of the victims in Aurora, Colorado, or Columbine or Tucson, Arizona.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times has a featured article today commenting on the fewer number of students in large urban school districts.  Declining birthrates, fewer immigrants and parents opting for charter schools are given as the main reasons.  Fewer students generally also means less funding.  Exacerbated by the the recession and state budget shortfalls, large school districts are cutting teachers and overall reducing programs.

“While the losses have been especially steep in long-battered cities like Cleveland and Detroit, enrollment has also fallen significantly in places suffering through the recent economic downturn, like Broward County, Fla., San Bernardino, Calif., and Tucson. Urban districts like Philadelphia and Columbus, Ohio, are facing an exodus even as the school-age population has increased. Enrollment in the New York City schools, the largest district in the country, was flat from 2005 to 2010, but both Chicago and Los Angeles lost students, with declining birthrates and competition from charter schools cited as among the reasons.

The article also mentions that:

“The students left behind in some of these large districts are increasingly children with disabilities, in poverty or learning English as a second language.

Jeff Warner, a spokesman for the Columbus City Schools, said that enrollment appears to be stabilizing, but it can be difficult to compete against suburban and charter schools because of the district’s higher proportion of students requiring special education services.

In Cleveland, where enrollment fell by nearly a fifth between 2005 and 2010, the number of students requiring special education services has risen from 17 percent of the student body to 23 percent, up from just under 14 percent a decade ago, according to the Cleveland Metropolitan School District.

Such trends alarm those who worry about the increasing inequity in schools. “I see greater stratification and greater segregation,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.”

Tony