Dear Commons Community,

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ upcoming memoir dominated media coverage especially with the cable news channels yesterday.   A review of the book written by The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward states that Gates “unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war.” According to summaries of Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, printed in the Post, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, Gates seems to have two main criticisms of Obama: that divisions were created because he did not believe in, and was suspicious of, his generals; and he did not believe in his own strategy in Afghanistan, caring only about getting out.  (The book will be available in bookstores next week).

“Bush was willing to disagree with his senior military advisers, but he never (to my knowledge) questioned their motives or mistrusted them personally,” Gates wrote in a Wall Street Journal  essay, adapted from the book. “Obama was respectful of senior officers and always heard them out, but he often disagreed with them and was deeply suspicious of their actions and recommendations. Bush seemed to enjoy the company of the senior military; I think Obama considered time spent with generals and admirals an obligation.”  However, a number of observers have already pushed backed and have even complimented the president for the way he is depicted in the Gates’ book. As reported in The Huffington Post:

“… these “harsh” criticisms fall flat for some foreign policy observers, and could even put Obama’s defense record in a good light. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and holds final authority for decisions to send troops — not the generals. Gates’ criticized Obama for being overly suspicious of his generals; others commended him for his scrupulousness and leadership.

On his approach to Afghanistan, Obama made clear that he believed it was in the U.S.’ best interest to strategically withdraw, and his overwhelming election was a mandate from the American people to do so. And he wasn’t exactly hasty, as Gates seems to imply: In a 2008 debate with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama called for more troops, but also to reduce them after 16 months. He announced at a December 2009 address at West Point that he would order an additional 30,000 troops, and they would leave after 18 months. By ordering additional troops, Obama was hardly “all about getting out.” Moreover, Gates was secretary of defense when Obama made decisions about troop levels.”

“… it’s odd to say that Bush’s relationship with his generals was better than Obama’s,” said Heather Hurlburt, senior adviser to the National Security Network. “Because Bush’s relationship with his generals is what brought us the loss of focus in Afghanistan and the debacle in Iraq.”

Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said that Obama was right to be skeptical toward the military. “Like any bureaucracy, they have a point of view, they see things in a certain way,” he said. “If we had listened to the military in the Cuban missile crisis, none of us would be here.”

Moreover, Korb added that Obama’s generals leaked information to the press to bolster their positions. “There’s no doubt that [David] Petraeus leaked stuff to the press that got Obama mad, as it should have. It should’ve got Gates mad,” he said. “Also, when [Stanley] McChrystal asked for more troops after Obama had already sent more troops to Afghanistan, that got also leaked and put him in a tough spot.”Petraeus leaked documents on Iraq troop pullout plans, while a McChrystal plan for more troops in Afghanistan was published by Woodward in the Post.

“…But for a former Secretary of Defense to be so critical of the current commander-in-chief, particularly on an issue like Afghanistan when negotiations over future security arrangements remain unresolved, strikes me as bad timing and bad form,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) wrote on Facebook. “Worse yet, it makes it less likely that this President, or future Presidents, will reach across the political or philosophical aisle when filling out his or her cabinet. The country benefits when people with discordant views are in a position to challenge and shape a President’s views in private, when in matters most. This book makes that less likely to happen.”

In sum, while some conservative hawks will make Gates’ memoir seem like a grand expose of the President, in closer reading, it seems that Obama was functioning exactly the way the majority of Americans would want him to especially with regards to the mess he inherited in Afghanistan.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

One of the more surprising political stories in this New Year was the decision of Dick Cheney’s daughter, Liz, to drop out of the Senate Republican Party primary in the state of Wyoming.  After all, Cheney had a famous name, a high-profile media presence, an impressive CV, plenty of money, and  the incumbent, Mike Enzi, was expected to retire. As reported in The New Republic: 

“Most political pros would have had an easy time gaming out the next few moves: First, meet Enzi to divine his intentions… Then sit back and let him do the right thing. When it’s done, offer some gracious praise on the occasion of his retirement. And then await a coronation.”

However, the article goes on to analyze Cheney as having made a series of “Palinesque” moves:

“Cheney was trailing badly in early polls and having trouble finding a Washington firm to set up a super PAC. Which all added to the aborted campaign’s central mystery: Why did this well-prepared, well-connected, well-known political figure put on such an amateurish performance when she finally ran for office on her own?

Cheney’s campaign was marked by a Palinesque series of news stories involving ham-handed politics and small-time personal dramas: There was the kerfuffle over whether her dad was an old fly-fishing buddy of Enzi. There was the time her mom told former Senator Alan Simpson to shut up when he announced his support for Enzi. There was a $220 fine for in-state residential claims on her fishing license application. (Cheney hadn’t lived in Wyoming long enough to avoid the out-of-towner fee.) And, when that was reported in the local press, there was a controversy over whether she had wished death on the state’s well-loved small-town papers.”

There was also a much more serious break between Cheney and her sister over gay marriage. Candidate Cheney’s position was that states should decide for themselves. But she also said that she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman. That drew Facebook rebukes from Mary Cheney, who has two daughters with her wife. The whole tableau, transpiring on social media, had a touch of Jerry Springer about it.”

The article also goes on to compare Liz to her father, who had a good deal of political savvy as a Washington insider and Vice President under George W. Bush even though he lied to the entire country on Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.  It concludes that she needs to grow up a bit and wait a few years.  We will see!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I would like to announce that a new book on blended learning research has just been published (2014) by Routledge/Taylor & Francis.  Edited by Chuck Dziuban (University of Central Florida), Charles Graham (Brigham Young University), and yours truly, it presents the research of 58 scholars from around the world.  At 376 pages and 21 chapters, it provides a plethora of insights into conducting research on blended learning while also providing the formal write-ups of fifteen empirical studies.

The book is organized as follows:

• Introduction
• Blending Learning Models and Scale
• Evaluation
• Faculty Issues
• Studying Non-Traditional Learners
• International Perspectives
• Blended Learning in K-12
• Conclusion

The reviews we have received so far are quite positive.  For example:

“The research explored in this volume, spanning engagement, pedagogical practice, and learning outcomes will ensure that blended learning is well understood and of high quality.” –Diana Oblinger, President and CEO, EDUCAUSE

“The thoughtful essays in this book highlight the myriad choices as well as challenges that instructors and learners face each day as they utilize web-based tools.” – Curt Bonk, President of CourseShare, LLC, and Professor of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University

“Provides invaluable insights into the continued development of blended learning.” –Dr. Randy Garrison, Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, and Co-author of Blended Learning in Higher Education

“Describes the impact of different implementations of blended learning on the learner, the instructor, and the institution…laying the foundation for the ‘new norm’ in education.” –Phillip D. Long, Professor, University of Queensland

Further information is available at amazon.com.

If anybody is so inclined to purchase/read this book, my co-authors and I would love to hear back from you.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

This piece was passed on to me by colleague, Jack Hammond, at Hunter College.  I join Jack in giving a shout-out for our librarians, past and present, who have helped and continue to help so many of us with our ventures into reading.

Tony

==================================

The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Reader

By COLIN ROBINSON

Published: January 4, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/the-loneliness-of-the-long-distance-reader.html

This was especially shocking:

Librarians, described by the novelist Richard Powers as “gas attendant[s] of the mind,” saw a national decrease in their numbers of nearly 100,000 over the two decades to 2009. Two-thirds of public libraries reported flat or decreasing budgets in 2012.

Jack

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times has a featured article this morning, reviewing Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty program that he initiated in 1964.   It held great promise but most would agree it failed to live up to its expectations.  The article provides the following evaluation:

“To many Americans, the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson has largely failed. The poverty rate has fallen only to 15 percent from 19 percent in two generations, and 46 million Americans live in households where the government considers their income scarcely adequate.

But looked at a different way, the federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher. There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans. At the same time, in recent decades, most of the gains from the private economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder.

Half a century after Mr. Johnson’s now-famed State of the Union address, the debate over the government’s role in creating opportunity and ending deprivation has flared anew, with inequality as acute as it was in the Roaring Twenties and the ranks of the poor and near-poor at record highs. Programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps are keeping millions of families afloat. Republicans have sought to cut both programs, an illustration of the intense disagreement between the two political parties over the best solutions for bringing down the poverty rate as quickly as possible, or eliminating it.

For poverty to decrease, “the low-wage labor market needs to improve,” James P. Ziliak of the University of Kentucky said. “We need strong economic growth with gains widely distributed. If the private labor market won’t step up to the plate, we’re going to have to strengthen programs to help these people get by and survive.”

In Washington, President Obama has called inequality the “defining challenge of our time.” To that end, he intends to urge states to expand their Medicaid programs to poor, childless adults, and is pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and funding for early-childhood programs.

But conservatives, like Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, have looked at the poverty statistics more skeptically, contending that the government has misspent its safety-net money and needs to focus less on support and more on economic and job opportunities.

“The nation should face up to two facts: poverty rates are too high, especially among children, and spending money on government means-tested programs is at best a partial solution,” Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution wrote in an assessment of the shortfalls on the war on poverty. Washington already spends enough on antipoverty programs to lift all Americans out of poverty, he said. “To mount an effective war against poverty,” he added, “we need changes in the personal decisions of more young Americans.”

Still, a broad range of researchers interviewed by The New York Times stressed the improvement in the lives of low-income Americans since Mr. Johnson started his crusade. Infant mortality has dropped, college completion rates have soared, millions of women have entered the work force, malnutrition has all but disappeared. After all, when Mr. Johnson announced his campaign, parts of Appalachia lacked electricity and indoor plumbing.

Many economists argue that the official poverty rate grossly understates the impact of government programs. The headline poverty rate counts only cash income, not the value of in-kind benefits like food stamps. A fuller accounting suggests the poverty rate has dropped to 16 percent today, from 26 percent in the late 1960s, economists say.

But high rates of poverty — measured by both the official government yardstick and the alternatives that many economists prefer — have remained a remarkably persistent feature of American society. About four in 10 black children live in poverty; for Hispanic children, that figure is about three in 10. According to one recent study, as of mid-2011, in any given month, 1.7 million households were living on cash income of less than $2 a person a day, with the prevalence of the kind of deep poverty commonly associated with developing nations increasing since the mid-1990s.

Both economic and sociological trends help explain why so many children and adults remain poor, even putting the effects of the recession aside. More parents are raising a child alone, with more infants born out of wedlock. High incarceration rates, especially among black men, keep many families apart. About 30 percent of single mothers live in poverty.

In some cases, government programs have helped fewer families because of program changes and budget cuts, researchers said. For instance, the 1996 Clinton-era welfare overhaul drastically cut the cash assistance available to needy families, often ones headed by single mothers.”

In sum, while the War on Poverty did some good, so much has been left undone.  President Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place but the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008 and the rise of ultra-conservatism within the Republican Party make any significant federal program initiative to reduce poverty unlikely.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

According to a recent Gallup Poll, across 131 countries worldwide, the richest 3% of residents hold 20% of the total collective household income — as do the poorest 54%. In other words, the 3% reporting the highest household incomes share the same “slice” of collective income across countries that more than half of residents worldwide — those on the lower end of the income scale — share.  A commentary in The Huffington Post noted:

“With the money they made in 2013 alone, the world’s richest people could have paid to feed the world’s hungry school kids 163 times over. In other words, they probably wouldn’t have even noticed the cost.

…Approximately $3.2 billion per year is all it would take to feed the 66 million kids in the world who go to school hungry, according to a 2012 estimate from theWorld Food Programme.

As of December 31, the world’s richest individuals were worth $3.7 trillion combined…. That’s just a bit more than Germany’s GDP, which stood at $3.4 trillion in 2012.

All in all, it was a pretty great year for billionaires, at least in part due to the stock market’s record gains. Not much of these gains were felt by the average American. Hourly wages for most Americans aren’t growing much faster than the rate of inflation, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And while we talk a lot about wealth inequality in America, it’s actually worse in some places across the globe.  Inequality is worst in Sub-Saharan Africa, but it’s not that much better in the U.S.”  See the table above for a list of countries.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D) has proposed  to raise the minimum wage for city workers to $15 an hour, a local TV news station (KIRO 7) reports.

Murray said Friday he wants a recommendation on how to address the city’s minimum wage within four months, according to KIRO 7, which reports Murray also wants to avoid a vote.

This isn’t the first push to raise the city’s minimum wage. The AP reported in August that the City Council and others were met with opposition while considering an increase.

The effort to raise the minimum wage effort has gained momentum in the Northwest. Workers in the city of SeaTac won a $15 an hour minimum wage at the polls.  In the same election, Socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant rode the minimum wage issue to victory in Seattle. The fight here has sparked a national battle over the minimum wage with some Democrats planning to use the issue to win in the 2014 elections.

Some businesses advocates say a higher minimum wage will make it harder for companies in Seattle to survive. They cite Wal-Mart, which has all but refused to accept a Washington, D.C., decision to raise the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour in big box stores.   A higher minimum wage eliminates low wage jobs because that’s how small businesses cut costs and that ends up hurting the people it was supposed to benefit, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The minimum wage in Washington state, already one of the highest in the nation, jumped to $9.32 an hour on New Year’s Day.

My opinion is that this is a good move for workers especially those who barely can eke out a living on current minimum wage salaries.

Congratulations to Mayor Murray!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Earlier this week, New York State Commissioner of Education John King sent a letter to all school district superintendents, urging them to support the new Common Core curriculum that has been the focus of much debate among educators and parents.  As reported in The Huffington Post:

“[King] penned a letter to state superintendents, school principals and other school leaders to defend the standards and clear up what he called “misinformation” being spread about them. He also reaffirmed his commitment to the Common Core, while recognizing that the implementation process has posed certain challenges.

The Common Core State Standards, a set of learning benchmarks, have been adopted in a vast majority of states in an effort to make sure students around the country are being taught to the same measures. After New York was one of the first states to start implementing the standards, King faced backlash from citizens who felt the process was rushed and done without transparency.

The commissioner held a series of forums around the state this fall to allow parents and educators could voice their concerns. Many of the forums turned hostile, however, and a contingency of parents and education advocates have been calling for King’s resignation since.

“We understand that implementation of the Common Core and teacher/principal evaluation in a time of limited resources has come with significant challenges,” King wrote. “The Board of Regents and I knew we would encounter a good amount of concern in the public forums. We want – and need – to hear from teachers, parents, and students as these important changes in practice occur in classrooms, schools, and communities across the State.”

He also argued the complaints expressed at the forums were based on “misinformation,” and disputed the idea that the Common Core will lead to additional standardized testing.”

King is right in defending the substance and intent of the Common Core curriculum.  The problem with it at least in New York was that the implementation was rushed.  Teachers were not trained to use it and curriculum materials were not available in many school districts.  Commissioner King has to accept the blame for this.  It was not “misinformation”, it was poor planning and management on his agency’s part.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The New York Times continues to try to put the brakes on Bill de Blasio’s progressive enthusiasm.  In covering the Mayor’s inauguration yesterday, in an article entitled, “Plenty of Reminders of Populism’s Limits”, de Blasio was compared to Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, who as centrist Democrats,  had to temper their views.  The article also provides a warning to de Blasio not to follow in David Dinkins’ footsteps:

“More broadly, the new mayor’s speech underlines that those conservatives who cast a querulous eye and accuse New York City of floating closer to Europe than to North America are not entirely mistaken. It can seem more akin to a Social Democratic nation-state than to a typical American city.

We have stiff antismoking and antigun laws, and a great array of hospitals, clinics and public colleges. While several speakers on New Year’s Day condemned the condition of our homeless shelters, it is worth keeping in mind that the city stands nearly alone in declaring that homeless people have a legal right to shelter.

Mr. de Blasio’s hopes are grand. “When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it,” he said. “And we will do it.”

Perhaps he’s right. The coming months will offer a clearer verdict. But you suspect that his life’s experience has also taught him that chasms are rarely crossed in a single step. His long-ago employer, David N. Dinkins, is referred to, more than a touch unfairly, as having presided over a failed mayoralty.”

The New York Times has been reeling since de Blasio was elected and is doing everything it can to move him to the center and away from the people’s platform upon which he was elected.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The news media are reporting on the new law that went into effect yesterday in Colorado legalizing the sale of marijuana.  Accounts of hundreds of people waiting in the cold and snow  to purchase “weed”  came in across the state.   CNN reported:

“Even three hours after the stores opened, one downtown Denver dispensary had a line of about 100 people outside the front door to the corner. The snow had stopped falling by then, and the gray skies were clearing to blue.

While patrons — young and the old, men and women — waited patiently in line, the demographic at the downtown dispensary tilted more toward 20- and 30-somethings.

When many buyers emerged from the store and nudged through the line, they raised their bags of newly purchased pot above their heads.

People waiting on the sidewalk cheered them.

Even though recreational weed is now legal, some purchasers declined to disclose their last names.

One woman, Dee, who didn’t want to use her surname, said she waited in line for almost three hours to buy her cannabis. She and a male companion bought a small amount, she said, just to commemorate the occasion.

“We voted for it, and now it’s here,” Dee said of the recreational marijuana law. “We just went in and celebrated the new law. It’s a new day.”

In terms of price, eight ounces costs about $60.00.

Tony