Election aftermath

Much has been written about the recent national elections, and I only wish to add to it if I can say something original.  Here it is:  in large part, I blame the result on the New York Times, which for weeks had listed Hillary Clinton as having a virtual lock on the election and which, earlier, had done all it could to support Clinton over Bernie Sanders, even if it meant crossing the heretofore sacrosanct line between reporting and editorializing, a line it later admittedly obliterated when the finalists came down to Clinton and Trump.  The Times contributed to the naming of Clinton as the nominee, though she represented the party’s past, not its future.  And its unrealistic assessment of her chances justified the decision to stay home of those who did not support her, but otherwise would have come out to hold their noses and vote for her to defeat Trump.  Commendably, in some of its post-election navel-gazing pieces, the Times admitted that, in assessing Clinton’s chances as unrealistically high, it ignored the majority of voters outside of its bubble.  I have not yet seen an apology for its disregard of journalistic standards in its biased coverage of her campaigns in the primary and general elections.

Not that Clinton didn’t sabotage her own candidacy.  Her monetization of her prior service by giving paid speeches to Wall Street firms, the content of which she refused to disclose, and her misuse of e-mail, which almost surely revealed government secrets to those not authorized to see them (though I am not aware that the nation ever was placed in danger), among other things, were, to be sure, not as bad as many of the things Trump has done and said.  But the “false equivalency” argument is not a winning one.  Her weaknesses were enough to take the issue of character out of the race for those otherwise inclined to vote for Trump.  Had the democrats fielded a candidate with less questionable character, many people would have seen Trump for what he is and would have refused to vote for him, even if his ideology – to the extent it could be ascertained from his rambling, contradictory statements – might be more palatable to them.

So here we are.  The losers are not happy, as many violent demonstrations show.  I hope all the protesters were Clinton voters.  Obama, ever the class act, vows cooperation in the transition (see, by contrast, the way in which the Bill Clinton administration left the White House) and Trump, after a long meeting that undoubtedly opened his eyes as to what lies ahead, appears accepting of the advice he received.  He already is tacitly acknowledging reality by pulling back on his promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, realizing there is no easy way to preserve insurance for its 20,000,000 or so beneficiaries while removing its “objectionable” features.  Even with his party dominating both houses of the Legislature, expect more reality-dictated compromises to follow.  While such compromises may result in a lot of buyers’ remorse among Trump’s supporters, they could avert disaster at home and abroad.

 

Let’s see how long it lasts

As I suspected, the new State-regulated casinos in New York (as well as those in Massachusetts) will almost all be smoke free.  This good news was reported by the Times Union in a recent item about what Turning Stone is doing to meet the new competition.

While I and many other casino patrons would welcome a completely smoke-free environment, maintaining a ban on smoking may not be economically viable.  There is a high correlation between gambling and smoking, and a complete ban in Atlantic City sent too many customers elsewhere and had to be rescinded.  Smoking will continue to be allowed at Turning Stone and in the Connecticut casinos.  Their customers may stay loyal to those establishments that allow them to smoke, even if new, non-smoking casinos are closer to where they live.

I think the best way to accommodate everyone is to make all public areas of casinos non smoking, with separate (but equal, in terms of games offered and other amenities) gambling rooms for smokers and non smokers.  Foxwoods has a separate non-smoking casino, but unfortunately for me it does not have any of the full pay jacks or better video poker machines I like to play at that establishment, so I have to put up with some smoke to play the better games.  Casino management also should consider accommodating those who are sensitive to noise by establishing some quiet areas.  The more a business can accommodate those with competing likes and dislikes, the better for everyone.

More on charter schools

This recent column in the New York Times summarizes some studies on charters, and sheds some interesting light.  Apparently, the charters that do the best (and not all even do well) are those that stress the basics — longer days, more support for teachers and students and imposition of high standards.

Aside from reflecting what appears to me to be common sense, these values contrast with those present in many conventional public schools, where shorter work days and more insulation from accountability are the goals of the teachers, as expressed through collective bargaining and political action (many individual teachers put in extra time and strive for excellence, even after achieving tenure).  While I understand teachers’ perceived need for some job protections, and while I believe most tenure “abuses” are caused by management that does not terminate probationary teachers who are unlikely to be successful, there still is a disconnect between the positions of advocates of traditional education and those of the best, successful charters.

If competition produces better results for all, and if charters are to fulfill their original mission as laboratories in which successful teaching methods can be developed and tested, both systems need support.