Even though education experts slammed the LA Times for ranking LA Unified teachers based on a flawed metric emphasizing test scores above other factors, the Times went ahead and published the article anyway. Last week we learned that the lowest rated teacher was, in fact, a successful and beloved teacher who eschewed the tests in order to ensure her students had the English language skills they needed for a lifetime of success.

Today comes a much more dark and tragic story of another teacher who was given a low ranking in the flawed LA Times article. Rigoberto Ruelas, a teacher at a school in South LA who had been missing, was found dead of an apparent suicide in the Angeles National Forest above LA:

“Based upon the entirety of the investigation, the evidence indicates he took his own life in this tragedy,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Capt. Mike Parker said….

KABC-TV Channel 7 quoted family members as saying that Ruelas was distraught about scoring low in a teacher-rating database recently made public by The Times. He had been missing since Sept. 22. South Gate Police Officer Tony Mendez told KCAL-TV Channel 9 that Ruelas was unhappy at his database ranking….

In the database, Ruelas is listed as “less effective than average overall.” He rated “less effective” in math and “average” in English.

The president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has come out strongly against the public release of teacher names and “value-added” ratings, released a statement calling on The Times to take down the database, saying the union “predicted there would be problems.”

The Times issued a statement of “sympathy” for the family, but they have still not retracted their extraordinarily flawed articles and rankings. This shows why the Times was reckless to arrogate to itself the task of providing a high-profile and flawed teacher rankings system.

As billionaires and hedge funds are launching their own effort to privatize public schools under the guise of “reform,” it’s more important than ever that we get educational assessments – of schools, teachers, and students – right. The Times has gotten it very wrong, and the consequences have now become tragic.

UPDATE: UTLA is calling on the LA Times to take down the flawed teacher rankings:

United Teachers Los Angeles President A.J. Duffy called the publication of the list of teacher ratings “despicable,” and the union — which had opposed publication of the list — issued a statement calling on The Times to remove it from its website.

“UTLA is appalled at the L.A. Times,” Duffy told KCAL. “We predicted there would be problems. This teacher was a great teacher by all accounts — loved by students, parents, and respected by his colleagues.

“I will be reaching out to Superintendent (Ramon) Cortines and Deputy Superintendent (John) Deasy to join forces to implore the L.A. Times to take the names of individual teachers and test scores off the website and cease and desist from publishing any in the future.”

Good to see UTLA fighting back against the LA Times’ indefensible use of methodologically flawed data. It was bad enough that the Times went ahead and published the rankings in the first place. Now that someone has died as a result, the Times should do the responsible thing and take them down.

One of the most important trends afoot right now is the move to privatize as many government services as possible. Billionaires like Bill Gates, along with hedge funds, are pushing an agenda of privatizing public schools, and funding a PR push in support of that cause with films like “Waiting for Superman” and the NBC “Education Nation” that included a panel with the title “Does Education Need a Katrina?”.

This trend is fueled by the desire of the richest Americans to seek new income streams. Instead of spending their cash hoard on innovating new products or businesses that can create jobs and lasting economic activity, they’re engaged in a process of rent seeking, which has no productive value. By taking tax dollars that currently provide public services and channeling them to the private sector, which contracts to provide the service at lower cost – and therefore at lower quality – these wealthy individuals can add new income streams while also blunting any effort to raise their taxes to provide these services.

It’s not just schools that are targeted for privatization, however. As the New York Times reports, Santa Clarita has privatized its library – even though it wasn’t forced to by financial considerations:

A $4 million deal to run the three libraries here is a chance for the company to demonstrate that a dose of private management can be good for communities, whatever their financial situation. But in an era when outsourcing is most often an act of budget desperation – with janitors, police forces and even entire city halls farmed out in one town or another – the contract in Santa Clarita has touched a deep nerve and begun a round of second-guessing.

Can a municipal service like a library hold so central a place that it should be entrusted to a profit-driven contractor only as a last resort – and maybe not even then?

“There’s this American flag, apple pie thing about libraries,” said Frank A. Pezzanite, the outsourcing company’s chief executive. He has pledged to save $1 million a year in Santa Clarita, mainly by cutting overhead and replacing unionized employees. “Somehow they have been put in the category of a sacred organization.”

In his rather blunt and offensive way, Pezzanite actually lays out the stakes pretty clearly. In a country that has turned pursuit of profit into a civic religion, and that since 1980 has argued that all government activity and policy should be oriented around producing corporate profits, it is indeed an open question whether there is any room left for the concept of the government providing services directly to the people, without having to give an investor a cut.

Public libraries have been operating quite effectively and efficiently for over 100 years. The notion that one would privatize the library just so some company can make money was virtually unheard of, at least in California, for the last century. But that was before the era of Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Whitman.

The privatizers’ method is the same: fire all the employees, regardless of how good at their jobs they are, so the company can replace them with cheaper labor, increasing their profits at the expense of quality services and middle-class wages. It’s wealth extraction at its finest, the corporate raider having shifted his target from an ’80s manufacturing plant to a ’10s library.

Why would Santa Clarita go along with this? It’s likely that the council are merely outliers, the first ones to make a highly ideological move that will be quickly taken up by right-wing (and some not so right-wing) councils across the state, demanding privatization to suit their ideological agenda and justified by overblown and misleading concerns about pension costs.

It’s true that I have more than a passing interest in this topic, as the husband of someone working at a public library. But it’s the bigger principle that really matters here. Public services should be provided for the benefit of the public – and not for the benefit of some company’s bottom line.

When profit becomes the primary motive, all else is sacrificed to it. It’s not what most Californians want for their state and their future, but unless we fight back hard, they will privatize everything, and keep the profits while we get stuck with the risks – and the losses.

Newspaper endorsements are of limited value, especially in high-profile statewide campaigns for major elected offices like US Senate. And yet they can sometimes frame the way a campaign is discussed, and shape perspectives about a candidate, especially when the editorial board’s assessment is very deeply flawed.

And that’s why the San Francisco Chronicle’s decision to not endorse anyone in the US Senate race is our attention. The rationale is contradictory and ignorant of key facts, producing an outcome that lacks basic intellectual credibility.

Their basic argument is that while Carly Fiorina is an extremist who doesn’t share California’s values, Barbara Boxer has spent too much time representing California’s values. Because Boxer wouldn’t sell out California’s progressive values to implement a bipartisan set of corporate-friendly policies, the Chronicle views her as “ineffective” and therefore not worthy of support.

For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

In other words, because Boxer spent her time doing what her constituents asked and voting according to the values and views shared by a majority of Californians, she’s not a good Senator? A “usually correct vote on issues they care about” is pretty damn important for most Californians, especially given the stakes in this election.

But it’s not just that Boxer stands up for Californians that got the Chronicle mad – it’s that she refuses to cut corporate-friendly deals. The Chronicle rips her for not being “bipartisan” – without acknowledging what everyone who pays even a slight bit of attention to national politics understands, that Republicans are not in a mood to compromise on anything:

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

So it’s Boxer’s fault that the extremist Republican Party, which now systematically denies the existence of global warming, refused to support her bill that was shaped largely on the basis of California’s AB 32?

This failure to admit the extremist nature of the Senate Republicans, their unwillingness to compromise, is a huge flaw in the Chronicle’s assessment of Boxer’s career. They claim she cannot “reach across party lines” – but have they been paying attention these last 15 years?

Boxer’s Senate career has generally been spent under an extreme right-wing majority in Congress, an extreme right-wing President, or both. Of Boxer’s 18 years in Congress, only 6 of them came with a Democratic Congressional majority, and only 4 [of those 6] have come with a Democratic president. From 1995 to 2009, Boxer had to contend with Republicans who absolutely refused to make any deals with Democrats unless Democrats sold out their constituents and agreed to support a far-right agenda.

Boxer refused. In one of her most important votes as Senator, she opposed the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002, and then fought to protect the troops and make sure they received the equipment, support, and care they needed, in combat and back home. That alone should earn her the support of Californians, even 8 years later.

Boxer and other Senate Democrats have only had the last 21 months to implement anything close to their agenda. And with the filibuster rule, Boxer’s key legislative priorities have been undermined by a coalition of Republicans (who have vowed to oppose ALL Democratic legislation no matter the efforts at compromise) and right-wing Democrats who have chosen to give up their party’s control of Congress to serve their corporate masters.

Which is really what this editorial is all about. The Chronicle knows Fiorina isn’t a credible candidate for senator – as they put it, “Fiorina has firmly staked out positions that are outside of the state’s mainstream values and even its economic interest.” So she’s not an option.

Yet they also want to take shots at Boxer for not selling out her constituents or their values to support a corporate-friendly agenda. The Chronicle evidently wishes for a clone of Dianne Feinstein, the Senator who never met a neoliberal policy proposal she didn’t like.

But that’s not the choice in this election. Californians have to decide between a right-wing extremist and someone who has stood up for their progressive values for 18 years. Judging by the polls, they’re making the obvious choice.

Stephen Colbert testified today at a House immigration subcommittee hearing on immigrant labor, related to his work with the UFW in drawing attention to the conditions experienced by farmworkers in California fields. Earlier this year Colbert was one of just 7 people to take up the UFW’s challenge to white Americans to spend one day doing the hard work that farmworkers do every day.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-16) invited Colbert to speak, who presented his remarks in character as a right-wing blowhard, in order to rebut immigrant-bashing claims that undocumented residents are “stealing jobs” from others. Colbert used humor to mock the anti-immigrant sentiment of people like Iowa Rep. Steve King by explaining that other Americans leave these very difficult jobs to others, and showing the basic injustice of further attacking those workers as somehow being responsible for our nation’s economic problems.

King, along with Fox News, threw a temper tantrum afterwards, denouncing Rep. Lofgren and Colbert for the testimony. But what they’re really reacting to is the fact that Colbert so effectively mocks the right-wing’s anti-immigrant sentiments. It’s clear that while King, Fox News, and their brethren can dish out vicious, dehumanizing attacks on our fellow Californians, they can’t take it when those immigrants and their defenders fight back – especially when they fight back with humor.

Colbert exposes the basic flaws and nonsensical nature of the anti-immigrant hysteria as well as anyone. That approach can only go so far; the immigrant-bashing as well as the conditions many farmworkers still face have serious consequences that need to be addressed directly. And Colbert understands this, as he explained after the hearing:

At the close of the hearing, Colbert dropped his TV persona and turned serious, saying he was using his celebrity to bring attention to farm labor because “these seem to be the least of my brothers.”

“Right now migrant workers suffer and have no rights,” Colbert said.

Colbert, a practicing Catholic, was making an obvious reference to the Bible, specifically the passage where Jesus explains that “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” I’m not religious, but many of the anti-immigrant forces claim to be. If anything, that shot from Colbert might have as much power and potency as his mockery.

Whether it’s Colbert’s serious or humorous approach that ultimately gets people to care about farmworkers, there’s no doubt that they need and deserve the same rights to organize as other Americans. Colbert had a hard enough time during just one day in the fields – he didn’t see his friends and family die in the heat, as have numerous farmworkers in recent years. They deserve justice, not scapegoating.

UPDATE: David Dayen has an excellent interview with Rep. Judy Chu (CA-33), who lamented the fact that the media preferred to report on Colbert and not on the farmworkers he was talking about:

“I think that’s due in large part to the fact that it’s easier to write a story or newscript about how out of the ordinary it is to have a comedian testifying to Congress, than it is to really delve into problems facing migrant workers,” she continued. “Tragically, I think it’s safe to say that the lone day Mr. Colbert spent working in the fields earlier this year gave him a better understanding of this issue than many people covering this story possess.”

Dayen also included the full response from “serious” Colbert to a question from Rep. Chu, including “the least of our brothers” line:

CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don’t have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don’t have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights.”

That’s what really ought to be reported about Colbert’s testimony. The fact that it isn’t shows the media is unable to report on immigration or farmworkers unless they’re being scapegoated or used as an occasion for humor.

UPDATE: Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles has called upon Wagner to give the donation from Frogue to the Jewish Federation of Orange County. A quote from DFI-LA’s Andrew Lachman:

Tolerating Holocaust denial lies in a district that has most of Orange County’s Jewish population is not acceptable. We call on Wagner to show his commitment to fighting intolerance and anti-Semitism by donating the money to the Orange County Jewish Federation.

Original post begins here:

Don Wagner is the Republican candidate for the 70th Assembly District seat currently held by the termed-out Chuck DeVore in central Orange County. AD-70 went to Barack Obama in 2008 by a 51-47 margin, a sign that this district has become quite purple in recent years.

But Don Wagner comes from a different tradition – the older, far-right tradition in central Orange County that produced people like DeVore, going all the way back to at least the 1950s and 1960s when the region’s politics were dominated by the John Birch Society.

Sure, his website is crafted to make him look like an unobjectionable Republican. But his list of donors and supporters suggests he’s much further to the right – with donations from Holocaust deniers and support from other right-wing extremists.

More below.

First, the Holocaust-denying donor. When I was growing up in Tustin, located in AD-70, there was a controversial history teacher at Foothill High School named Steven Frogue. He had a reputation for not just being right-wing, but even racist. I attended the other high school in our district, Tustin High, but friends of mine who went to Foothill told me about this guy and his crazy right-wing statements he would make in the classroom, including denying the Holocaust and repeating racist stereotypes about Asian and Latino students.

About this time, those statements started getting noticed. In 1994, a group of parents went to the district and succeeded in getting Frogue reassigned to supervising detention instead of teaching history. The LA Times reported on Frogue in a 1996 article:

Frogue has been accused of denying the Holocaust, according to a former board member and several former students who say his comments about Jews and those who died at the hands of the Nazis cross over a line of ethics, propriety and recorded fact.

Frogue went further in his capacity as a board member of the South Orange County Community College District. As the LA Times reported, Frogue denounced a class being taught at Irvine Valley College on the Holocaust by someone with ties to the Anti-Defamation League. Here’s what Frogue had to say about the ADL:

Frogue’s high school students voice a similar complaint, saying his lectures are often angry diatribes against the ADL, revisionist views of this or that chapter of history or passionate speeches about who actually pulled the trigger on President Kennedy….

“I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL,” Frogue said in a half-whisper during a recent interview on the Foothill High campus.

Asked to repeat his assertion, Frogue said, “That’s right. . . . I believe the ADL was behind it.”

Frogue also had links to the Institute for Historical Review, a leading Holocaust-denial organization. He served on the SOCCCD board of trustees until he finally resigned in the year 2000. One of his fellow boardmembers was Don Wagner, who later became board president.

Wagner likes to claim he’s distanced himself from the likes of Frogue. So why did Wagner accept a donation from Frogue back in May?

Perhaps it’s because Wagner himself is backed by a group of right-wing extremists. One of his key organizational supporters is the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed’s new movement to elect right-wing extremists. FFC touted Wagner’s win in the June primary as one of their most important nationwide successes this year:

FFC spent weeks blanketing conservative voters in the 70th district with targeted voter guides on issues ranging from balancing the state budget to life and protecting marriage. The outcome was recently decided in another nip-and-tuck race. Don won the race against his less conservative opponents by a mere 860 votes.

Wagner and his defenders might argue that one’s donors and supporters don’t necessarily reflect on the candidate himself. While that’s hard to believe, we can look at Wagner’s own positions and find evidence he too is a right-wing extremist.

As the OC Weekly reported, Wagner revoked the SOCCCD schools’ membership in the American Library Association after calling them “liberal busybodies.” Wagner’s board considered ending involvement in study abroad programs in Spain in 2005 when the Spanish government announced it was withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the SOCCCD board has been frequently accused of ignoring the boundary between church and state.

On his website, Wagner outs himself as a card-carrying member of the religious right:

The family is the bedrock of our civilization. It is critical to our state that we protect the family from threats to re-define it, make it obsolete, or undermine its importance to society. I will defend the God-given right of parents to teach their children their values, to defend marriage, and to defend the right to express our faith in the public square. I believe that life is precious and will fight to defend life from conception to natural death.

In other words, he is against marriage equality, against a woman’s right to choose, and for prayer in school.

As I explained last month, Orange County is becoming bluer, partly as a rejection of the kind of extremism that Don Wagner represents.

While Wagner is taking money from Holocaust deniers and carrying out Ralph Reed’s agenda, Orange County residents in my hometown assembly district are focused on jobs, preserving good schools, and improving their quality of life. That’s not something Don Wagner can or will offer.

But Melissa Fox can. She’s a good Democrat who understands the needs of the district, particularly on education. She deserves the support of progressives across California, who can help turn Orange County blue. Click here to donate via ActBlue to her campaign. It’s a winnable seat, especially as Orange County moves away from extremists like Wagner and toward good, sensible leaders like Melissa Fox.

Two new polls out today – from SurveyUSA and PPP – show that progressives are rallying to save California from the right-wing forces that are spending limitless amounts of money to destroy our state and our future.

First up is SurveyUSA, as reported by Doug Sovern of CBS/5 on Twitter:

Brown and Boxer take the lead for first time in two months: Brown 46, Whitman 43.

Also interesting to note Brown’s surge in Rasmussen, since data they sent me yesterday had Whitman still ahead. This polling was done Monday.

Boxer 49 Fiorina 43. That’s an 8-point swing for Boxer in last 3 wks

Prop 19: 47% say “certain” to vote yes, to legalize pot. 42% say “certain” to vote no

The SUSA poll is very similar to the PPP poll I described yesterday, showing Brown up 47-42. PPP also gives Boxer an 8 point lead and shows very similar numbers on Prop 19, with it ahead 47-38.

So what do these polls mean? They show quite clearly that progressives are rallying to save California. Whether’s it’s because of Prop 19 or anger at the prospect of right-wing extremists like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina winning elections, the enthusiasm gap is much narrower here in California (some indications are that it doesn’t exist at all) and as a result, Brown and Boxer as well as Prop 19 now have important leads in the polls.

Yet those leads are still close. Brown and Boxer are rallying right now, but there’s still 6 weeks to go. Whitman and Fiorina have millions more to spend on this race, and have been building a strong field campaign. There’s no time to get complacent or careless. We can save California and build a more progressive future, but only if we keep getting involved and don’t let up, even for a second, between now and November 2.