OlsonOnline

The inexorable trend toward school elitism

I've railed on occasion against the transformation of a select few neighborhood schools to language immersion magnets.  Providing parents such choices, I've argued, takes from the poor and gives to the privileged. 

The Richmond Japanese Immersion School is a case in point.

In an article in today's Oregonian about Richmond's development of three gardens on its grounds, the school principal said this:

" 'We have a talented cadre of parents and teachers who are passionate about hands-on experiences,' Principal Kathryn Anderson says."

Well of course.  That's precisely what happens when a public school district makes such choices available to ambitious, energetic, and well-educated parents.  But what's good for the Japanese Immersion School may not be good for those neighborhood schools denied the same opportunities and the same level and caliber of parent involvement. 

It apparently hasn't occurred to the architects of school choice that students, and their parents, come in many varieties.  Offering programs to the most supportive parents as a sop to keep them in public schools has unintended consequences. 

One of those is inequity in educational offerings, which is something a public school district should take great pains to avoid. 

For those of you who argue it can't been done, consider neighboring Beaverton.  I read in the news this week that the Beaverton school board denied a charter school application, bringing the district's total number of charters to --zero!

Beaverton, it seems, has uniformly strong neighborhood elementary schools.  It needs neither charters nor magnets.  And its enrollment continues to grow.

There's a lesson to be learned there it seems to me.

Matt Canter slimes Steve Novick

Jeff Merkley's communications director Matt Canter is a real piece of work.

His recent press alert/hit piece managed twice, in the first paragraph, to label Steve Novick as "professional  political consultant":

"Professional political consultant Steve Novick has a new best friend. Republican Gordon Smith has joined forces with Novick's negative campaign in an effort to swing the Democratic primary to the professional political consultant."

Then, lest the reader forget, he repeats the charge once more deeper into the e-mail. 

Apparently "professional political consultant" is a more effective --and probably poll-tested-- pejorative than "politican", or "career politician", both of which could be affixed to Jeff Merkley's name.

(In an earlier attack, Canter likened Novick's base to the "inner circle of the Kremlin.")

The charge of negative campaigning is of course laughable and not without a whiff of hypocrisy.  Until the Merkley campaign realized that Novick posed an actual threat to Merkley's coronation as opponent to Republican Gordon Smith in the general election, it was content to ignore Novick.  But that was then.  Now fellow Senate candidate Candy Neville  feels obligated to warn Merkley to cease his negative attacks on Novick. 

Whatever.  My money and my vote are with Novick come next Tuesday. 

Dueling pastors

For the last word on the non-issue of Jeremiah Wright, I defer yet again to the wisdom of Bill Moyers:

"Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright’s transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. ...

"But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger ... . I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, 'We the people.' Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I’ve known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic."

As the title of Moyers' piece cautions, beware the simplifiers!  And the simple-minded.

************************

Outspoken clergymen will remain an issue, however, in the general election.  And for John McCain, rightfully so.   Unlike Obama, McCain eagerly sought the endorsements of two fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists who espouse views that few Americans can easily accept.  Thus far, McCain has refused to denounce them.  The endorsements stand.

Pastor John Hagee is by now fairly well known for his staunch pro-Israel and anti-gay, anti-Catholic positions.  The other, the Reverend Rod Parsley, has not been as frequently mentioned, but he may well be the more controversial of the two.  His characterization of Islam is not only inaccurate and intemperate, it's also dangerous, especially in service of the militant and war-loving John McCain, who at a campaign rally called Parsley "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide".

Here's what Parsley said about Islam:

"I can't begin to tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam. That we see it for what it really is. In fact...I do not believe that our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam… . The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we no longer can afford to ignore."

The media has temporarily forgiven McCain his sin of embracing the two pastors who together make Jeremiah Wright seem a sage and biblical scholar of the first rank.  Why?  Because McCain hasn't had a "close" relationship with either man.  Obama, on the other hand, was a member of Wright's largely mainstream Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years.

Forgive my naivete, but doesn't that cast the strange political alliance between McCain and his two preachers in an even more tawdry and cynical light?  I daresay it does.

Perhaps the general election campaign between Obama and McCain will reveal a more even-handed media coverage.  Time will tell.

Leadership

Where to (re)start?

No better place than the presidency --of Portland State University, arguably the most important institution of higher education in the state of Oregon (by size and location).  And of the presidency of the United States.

The leadership of Portland State has, by default since the other two candidates withdrew, has been handed over to Wim Wiewel, an excellent choice given Wiewel's background in urban planning and his vision of the significance of urban universities.

That said, I hope that Wiewel takes the advice of Oregonian letter writer Peter Reader:

"And let's hope that Wiewel puts an end to Portland State's foolhardy focus on sports programs and facilities at the expense of sorely needed educational resources.

"PSU's new president should honor the school's motto: 'Let Knowledge Serve the City.' "

In other words, Wim Wiewel, follow the example of Portland's Reed College, an excellent academic institution with no college sponsored sports programs, and not that of PSU's neighbor to the south, the "national championship"-obsessed University of Oregon.

********************************

The U.S. Presidency, at least on the Democratic side, comes down to an apparent choice between a black man and a white woman.  Really though, as the campaign thankfully comes to a close, the choice is between a candidate desperately grasping at straws to keep her Presidential dreams alive, and one who remains positive and, yes, hopeful.  I fervently hope that Oregon voters end the Clinton campaign with a decisive vote for Barack Obama.

I say that not out of disrespect for Sen. Clinton, who I think still has an edge on Obama in policy substance, at least on domestic issues.  (Hillary's position on the war has always been a turn-off.)  But lately, out of what I believe is sheer desperation, Hillary has taken positions that are by turns laughable and dangerously divisive.

Her proposal in Indiana for a gas tax holiday is an example.  It's political pandering of the   worst sort.  And it's not even original since it was first proposed by the economically hapless John McCain.  Thankfully, once Obama secures the nomination, his opponents won't be able to hang that around his neck like they have (unfairly) his association with Jeremiah Wright.

More insidiously --and odiously-- is Hillary's insinuation that Obama can't win the white vote.  It's more likely true that Hillary can't win the white "male" vote, but fortunately Obama hasn't waded into that sexist minefield. 

Hillary may truly believe that she is the one best able to lead this country.  So be it.  Let her make that case.  The longer the campaign limps on, however, the more likely it is that negative --and racist-- politics will seep in.

We need to end it now.

Render unto Caesar

" 'God Damn America,' the people of Sadr City must rage, as the bombs shake their homes and tear the flesh from their friends and family. 'God Damn, America,'I mutter, echoing the good Reverend Wright, as I witness the indifference of the American people to the war crimes committed by our nation's leaders."  --Phillip Rockstroh

"The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, ... and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came... . Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, ... so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."   

--Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

And I say:  woe to those who claim that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is obligated, through self-imposed silence, to further the political career of Barack Obama.   Those making that demand confuse the call of the religious life with the call of politics.   They conflate the transcendent with the temporal, God with Caesar. 

Even the estimable Thom Hartmann, a self-proclaimed Christian, argues that  Jeremiah Wright should have postponed his media blitz until after the November elections.  That's his firm belief, despite his acknowledgment of the truth of much of what Wright has said in the past three days.

And further woe to all the talking heads, millionaires and celebrities all, far removed from the slums and ghettos,  who are quick to characterize Wright's comments about Obama speaking "politically" as a slander and an ill-timed blow to his electoral chances.   I say Wright merely revealed the obvious.  Politicians temper their speech and their positions for political purposes.  Their goal is to get elected.   Obama is no exception.  He has been politic in his pronouncements on guns, gays, and most revealingly, God.  He has pandered to the Israel lobby.  He has hinted at the use of military force in Iran.  He has voted for continued funding of the Iraq War to "support the troops." 

If I were a churchgoing man --like most Oregonians, I'm not-- I'd like a man like Jeremiah Wright as the pastor of my church, a man who speaks truth to power and seeks justice for the oppressed while preaching compassion and forgiveness for the oppressors. 

Religion without compassion can hardly be called religion at all.  In the words of the scholar Karen Armstrong:

"The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion."

 

More Jeremiah Wright

I note that John McCain has now raised the issue of Barack Obama's affiliation with the controversial Jeremiah Wright after vowing that his campaign would take the high road.

Given McCain's embrace of the blathering evangelical literalist John Hagee, that's hypocrisy in its purest sense.  It also reveals the media's simpering devotion to McCain and its knee-jerk pro-Israel sympathies.  The mainstream media is obsessed with Wright, but says little about McCain-Hagee. 

Apparently you can spew vitriol about gays and the disastrous consequences of their parades as long as you don't "damn" America for it's genocidal history and it's murderous foreign policy.  And you can blurt out anti-Semitism without repercussions as long as you voice support for America's staunch nuclear ally --Israel-- in the Middle East, even if that support is compromised by Israel's expected demise in the soon-to-come battle of Armageddon.

Which of the two --Wright or Hagee-- is truly delusional?

(The American Israel Public Affairs Committee --the most influential American pro-Israel lobby-- and the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman have embraced Hagee as well.  McCain's hypocrisy pales in comparison.)

If Jeremiah Wright's damning of America is a campaign issue --only ignorance and intolerance makes it one in a country that separates church and state-- then McCain's embrace of the delusional, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic John Hagee, for "political" purposes, should surely be an even more legitimate, and publicized, campaign issue.

Jeremiah Wright revisited

Bill Maher called him a "dick".  Chris Matthews announced that he wasn't interested in hearing anything more from Reverend Wright.

My brother wrote that Wright was a "borderline nutcase", and that, unlike Martin Luther King, would hardly "merit a footnote" in history.

Hillary Clinton has cynically used (and misused) the issue of Pastor Wright to her political advantage.   And even Barack Obama himself, although refusing to "disown" his longtime pastor, has condemned his remarks as unpatriotic.

After Jeremiah Wright's appearance on Bill Moyers' Journal Friday evening, they (and all his  critics) should beg his forgiveness.  I include myself for not acknowledging my ignorance of the man and his work when I denied comparing Wright to Martin Luther King.  I was wrong.  I now believe that a comparison between the two, in many respects, is warranted. 

Pastor Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, I've concluded, is smart, articulate, well-educated and profoundly insightful about the black experience in America, and the influence of that experience on American Christian theology:

"The shame of being a descendant of Africa, was a shame that had been pumped into the minds and hearts of Africans from the 1600s on, even aided and abetted by the benefit of those schools started by the missionaries, who simply carried their culture with them into the South and taught their cultures being synonymous with Christianity. So that to become a Christian, you had to let go of all vestiges of Africa and become European, become New Englanders and worship like New England, worship God properly and right. Well, that shame was a part of the shame that many Africans in the '60s and the '70s were feeling."

The University of Chicago Divinity School taught Wright about the hermeneutics of black theology:

"Hermeneutic is an interpretation, it's the window from which you're looking is your hermeneutic. ... Dr. James Cone put it this way. The God of the people who riding on the decks of the slave ship is not the God of the people who are riding underneath the decks as slaves in chains. If the God you're praying to, 'Bless our slavery' is not the God to whom these people are praying, saying, 'God, get us out of slavery.' And it's not like Notre Dame playing Michigan. You're saying flip a coin; hope God blesses the winning team, no. That the perception of God who allows slavery, who allows rape, who allows misogyny, who allows sodomy, who allows murder of a people, lynching, that's not the God of the people being lynched and sodomized and raped, and carried away into a foreign country."

That's the context, "the frame", of Wright's controversial sound bite snippets from past sermons.  The "No no no ... God Damn America!" is spoken in the context of the biblical prophetic tradition of "condemning" --Wright reminds us of the etymology of "damn"-- a government for it's sins.  The post 9/11 sermon saying "America's chickens have come home to roost" --quoting Malcolm X-- is uttered in the context of this government's terrorism against oppressed minorities at home --Native Americans, African-Americans, Japanese Americans-- and abroad --in Grenada, in Panama, in Iraq.

And  Bill Maher's "he's a dick" comment?  That was in response to Obama's defense of Wright --his refusal to "disown" him-- repaid with what Maher interpreted as ingratitude. Here's the offending remark:

"He's [Obama] a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds."

Two different worlds indeed.  I wouldn't expect Maher to understand the distinction.  He has little use for pastors or any adherent of what he calls an irrational belief in "the talking snake." 

Jeremiah Wright speaks Monday at the National Press Club.  I'm sure you can catch it on C-Span.  But read the entire Bill Moyers transcript for come context.

We're in dire need of context.

More Merkley

Not only has Jeff Merkley loaned his campaign $250K to prop up his faltering bid to win the Oregon Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, he's also charging a small fortune for military vets  to hobnob with war hero Max Cleland at the Bridgeport Brewery. 

Here's part of his e-mailed invite:

"The Merkley campaign is offering a special opportunity for veterans to meet  
Max next Tuesday, April 29. Tickets for a private photo reception are $250, 
but  we're offering a special discount for veterans to attend for just $150. 
Tickets  are limited, so buy yours today! ...
 
"If you want to meet Max and Jeff, but $150 is a little steep, consider  
buying a general admission ticket for just $50."

I wonder if the plan is to keep the cheapskate general admission participants behind a rope line to avoid offending those who pay the full $150.

Let's hope Jeff Merkley supports meaningful campaign finance reform, public financing of elections, for example, so that the poor rabble aren't excluded from events like this one.

 

Merkley's pandering politics

You may have read both the Willamette Week and Oregonian coverage of Jeff Merkley's decision to return a $2300 donation to Palestinian-American lawyer Hala Gores because of  her comments critical of Israel.  And how other donors who support Palestinian rights are upset with Merkley for abandoning his sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians in favor of a staunch pro-Israel stance.  (Here's Loaded Orygun's take on the Merkley incident.)

One such donor calls Merkley a coward and a hypocrite. 

I call him a typical establishment Democrat pandering to the influential American Israel lobby, not all that different from the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates.

In a paper written at the behest of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and presented at a Jewish Federation of Portland forum, Merkley even defended the "fence" built by Israel to separate Jewish settlements from the Palestinian population as a necessary "security wall".   So did establishment Dem John Kerry back in 2004.   

(Funny, isn't it, how Democratic candidates John Kerry back in 2004, and now the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, have both been labeled by the Republican opposition as the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, despite their moderate positions on most issues.  Including Israel.)

The establishment bias toward Israel also infects the  mainstream media.  Consider the O's editorial Tuesday lambasting "private citizen" Jimmy Carter for his meddling in American Middle Eastern policy by daring to meet with Israel's sworn enemy, the "terrorist" group Hamas.  Never mind that Hamas was the winner in the last Palestinian Authority parliamentary elections -- the democratically elected winner.

The Oregonian condemns Hamas for not supporting Israel's "right" to exist, and for its vow to liberate "all of Palestine".  Others* claim that Hamas wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".  It's as if Arab extremists plan a second Jewish Holocaust.  I don't think that's anywhere close to the truth.   The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not that simply explained.

Here's my take.  Hamas --and Palestinians in general-- object not to the state of Israel, but to the exclusively Jewish state that treats its million Palestinians as second class citizens.  It objects to the encroachment --an official and deliberate Likud government policy--  of Jewish settlements into U.N. designated Palestinian territory.  It objects to the "security wall".

Here's what I think must happen to establish a just peace in Palestine.  Most have advocated a two state solution for peace in the region.  I think it's time to seriously consider a one state solution, a state that respects the rights of Arabs and Jews alike, a state perhaps called neither Israel nor Palestine. 

Impossible?  Perhaps.  But some have advocated a one state solution, modeled after South Africa, as the only feasible way to resolve the long simmering conflict.   It would take leadership, perhaps most importantly American leadership, to make it happen.  But it's long past time to give it a try.

*(Steve Novick, whom I support for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Oregon, is one of the others who view the state of Israel as threatened by the enemies that surround it, including Hamas.  Here's his position paper on Israel.)

High stakes graduation tests coming to Oregon

Oregon's decision to require students to pass multiple choice reading and math tests* for high school graduation is a bad idea.   The tests will likely drive up the high school drop-out rate which, as recent, though rather suspect, data show, is already alarmingly high, especially among at-risk minority and low income students.

Why a bad idea? 

A quantitative study of 16 states with high school graduation exams by Amrein and Berliner at Arizona State University (2002) showed that

"...state adoption of high-stakes testing policies leads to increased drop-out rates, decreased graduation rates, and higher rates of younger individuals taking the GED equivalency exams."

The American Psychological Association writes that

"...high-stakes decisions [like graduation] should not be made on the basis of a single test score, because a single test can only provide a "snapshot" of student achievement... ."

The International  Reading Association has a similar view:

"IRA strongly opposes such high-stakes testing."

So why has the Oregon Board of Education now decided to require kids to pass the same CIM tests that a third to a half of all sophomores fail in order to get their diplomas?  It will make them "try harder", say the "experts".   

The evidence says otherwise.  But some educational leaders are so enthralled with testing for accountability that they're willing to overlook --or ignore-- research that, if they took the time to read it, would tell them that high stakes multiple choice tests are a really bad idea. 

*(The writing sample is an authentic --or performance-- assessment.  I think it's a good idea that students demonstrate they can communicate coherently in writing before they're awarded their high school sheepskins.)

2:49:12

That's my 24-year-old son's time in today's Boston Marathon, a personal best by over six minutes on a deceptively difficult course. 

He beat Lance Armstrong -- the seven time winner of the Tour de France and a superb all-around endurance athlete-- by nearly two minutes. 

All in all, the 112th running of the nation's oldest marathon with the closest women's race in the event's history --neck and neck until the last few meters--  provided for an exciting morning.  At least in this household.

Well done, Andrew Olson!

How Dozono lost my vote

As a long time opponent of Wal-Mart, it came down to this:

"That is not the kind of message you want to send to the business community, suggesting that the largest retailer in the world is not welcome here," he said.

The "he" in that quote from the Oregonian's coverage of Friday's City Club debate between Portland mayoral candidates Sho Dozono and Sam Adams is Dozono responding to Adams' question about whether he --Dozono-- would have voted to allow another Wal-Mart store in Portland.  (Adams is on record as opposing both the Ardenwald/Sellwood store and the proposed Hayden Island development.)

As the supposedly pro-business candidate, Sho Dozono apparently doesn't "get" the impact of Wal-Mart superstores on surrounding small businesses.  Nor the danger to local economies of the aggregation of retail power in a single global corporation with close commercial and manufacturing ties to China. 

Along with Sam Adams, I think that the Wal-Mart mega-corporate model is ultimately bad for American business.

I therefore agree with the O's endorsement of Sam Adams for Mayor in today's paper.  And with Steve Duin before that.  "Sam the Tram" will get my vote. 

Notable

What's been deemed newsworthy in the last Presidential debate is the performance of the two moderators --Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos-- not the performance of the  two candidates.  The moderators' tactics provoked this letter from leading left-wing media analysts accusing them of avoiding questions about serious issues and turning the debate into an exercise in "tabloid journalism".

Maybe so.  But more notable to me was the blatant pandering by both candidates to gun owners and the Israel lobby when policy questions were asked in the second half of the debate.  Obama said this about gun ownership and the ban on handguns in Washington D.C.:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

He then acknowledged that he has "...never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

The Supreme Court has yet to rule definitively on whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.  If Obama believes in the individual right to bear arms, then Washington's ban on an entire class of firearms is clearly unconstitutional.

When questioned about Iran's threats to Israel, both candidates said the United States' would respond militarily if Iran attacked it's ally, Hillary most emphatically:

"...I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States."

Never mind that Israel, the only Middle Eastern nuclear power, is fully capable of defending itself. 

*************************

Meanwhile, the only true American statesman working for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is shunned by Likud leadership for daring to speak to leaders of Hamas:

"The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world."

The backdrop to Carter's visit is the ongoing resettlement of Jews on Arab land and the continued persecution of Palestinians with road blocks, check points, and off-limit areas even within the Palestinian West Bank. 

Orthodox Jews, prime backers of the illegal settlements, are at the same time incensed at the Likud government for allowing the sale of leavened bread during Passover:

"But Orthodox Jewish groups say that it violates the spirit of what Israel is meant to be -- a Jewish state."

That's the paradox of Israel in a nutshell:  Is Israel truly a democratic haven for all Jews, observant or not, or is it a theocracy run by the most intolerant of its citizens?

A new group consisting of "prominent" Jews has sprung up in the United States to counter the influence of lobbying organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the cause of peace.  I say it's long overdue.

AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups contribute 40% of campaign funds to Democratic candidates, which explains why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are loathe to say anything at all that may be construed as sympathetic to Palestinians and critical of the Israeli government.   

School Board fights over Title I money --and counselors

At issue in Monday's board meeting was allocation of money for counselors at Portland's elementary schools, the determination for which is based on both school enrollment numbers and Title I eligibility.

In the background (but not directly mentioned) was the recent Tribune revelation that Title I services are by law provided to private school students in the Portland district who meet Title I criteria.  That surprised some school board members, notably Bobbie Regan and David Wynde.  Wynde called it an "anomaly" of federal policy.  And of No Child Left Behind:

"Poor kids in private schools are not left behind, but poor kids in public schools are left behind."

At Monday's meeting, Wynde set his sights on the poor public school kids who don't attend Title I elementary schools and therefore are denied federal money, which, as Wynde pointed out, can be used for counselors.  The need for counseling at non-Title I schools, namely Buckman and Glencoe, Wynde said, is just as great as at those which do get Title I money.  At least for some kids. 

Given that Wynde has (or has had) children enrolled at Buckman, the insinuation that federal money should be diverted from reading and math remediation to counseling at the district's poorest schools so that more money might be freed up for FTE positions --counselors-- at wealthier schools, especially schools of choice like the arts magnet Buckman, seems rather odd.  And more than a little suspicious. 

But then again, perhaps I read too much into David Wynde's Title I observation.

*****************************

The deeper issue is the role of counselors in the schools.  And whether they're worth the money.  I have mixed feelings about school counseling, dating back to my middle school teaching experience.

As you know, I'm a huge proponent of team teaching.  When I once suggested that our counselors take a role in the classroom --a scheduled role (counselors are certified teachers, after all) as a part of the team, with their own groups of students-- I was promptly rebuffed.  I came to the conclusion that counselors don't want to be in the classroom.  That's a big reason they become counselors in the first place. 

Our counselors spent an inordinate amount of time showing new kids around the school, meeting with students individually to discuss school rules infractions, and running kids (again individually) through a computer-based career awareness program.   In other words, they spent precious little time on the actual education of kids which, of course, is what school is all about. 

At traditional middle and high schools, counselors are responsible for scheduling kids into classes, keeping track of graduation credits, and familiarizing students with colleges.  Those responsibilities are all, if you'll forgive me, a waste of time, especially in reformed and teamed schools.  There's no reason teachers, given the proper structure, couldn't do those things. 

I paint, needless to say, with a broad brush regarding the role of counseling in schools.  Good counselors, especially those trained in resolving social, emotional and psychological problems, most importantly in the elementary grades (K-5 and K-8), can be valuable additions to a school's staff. 

In a time of limited resources, educational leaders, including school board members, need to start thinking outside the box about how to provide the resources they agree are necessary to the successful education of our children.  That starts with defining "successful education", and ignoring side issues like test scores and their correlate, the "achievement gap".

Frontline follow-up

Click here for facts and figures from the five countries with universal health care --the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland-- profiled in last night's Frontline documentary.

Click here for an analysis of issues related to the establishment of a national health care system.

Click here for interviews with key players in each country's health care system.

I was especially impressed with Switzerland's Pascal Couchepin who, when asked if everyone was entitled to health care, responded emphatically:

"Everybody has a right to health care."

In the U.S. we're still debating that issue.

PBS' Frontline to expose American health care --tonight!

Here's some context for explicating what you'll see tonight at 9:00 p.m. (if you're not watching American Idol) as PBS' Frontline attempts to expose of the failings of the American health care system, hosted by the always entertaining T.R. Reid.

First this from Marie Cocco's column a couple of weeks ago:

"Well, Americans would like to change up, too -- up to a less expensive, less irrational health insurance system in which 47 million people aren't left out of coverage. Up to a system in which those who are lucky enough to have coverage aren't confronted with continually rising co-payments and deductibles and convoluted schemes for limiting payment when someone gets really, really sick.

"It turns out their doctors want to move up, too. They are way ahead of politicians in daring to go where the rest of the industrialized world has already gone: to a national health insurance system.

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed."

Seems like the people who have up-close knowledge of how the system works --or fails to work-- want national health care. 

Then there's Paul Krugman on John McCain:

"... Mr. McCain’s approach to health care is based on voodoo economics — not the supply-side voodoo that claims that cutting taxes increases revenues (though Mr. McCain says that, too), but the equally foolish claim, refuted by all available evidence, that the magic of the marketplace can produce cheap health care for everyone. ...

"... the premise that competition would reduce health care costs... enough to make insurance affordable for Americans with a history of cancer or other major diseases is sheer fantasy. ...

"And the international evidence on health care costs is overwhelming: the United States has the most privatized system, with the most market competition — and it also has by far the highest health care costs in the world."

With those thoughts in mind, enjoy the show.  Channel 10, 9:00 p.m. tonight.

I'd vote for Frohnmayer, too.

In fact I said as much back in September.  But then Steve Novick came out in favor of impeachment. 

Frohnmayer may not be a Democrat, but he's running for the U.S. Senate on an anti-war, pro-impeachment, single-payer health care, and free speech platform, positions that would make any progressive Democrat --like Steve Novick-- proud.  It's no wonder then that Novick said he would vote for Frohnmayer if he couldn't vote for himself.

I also believe, along with Novick, that blogging is "a way for a number of people to waste a vast quantity of time."  (I should know.)  It must be said, however, that Novick was specifically referring to the tedious back and forth squabbling on the blogs between die-hard Merkley and Novick surrogates over even the most trivial of issues. 

I also back Novick on another of his tendencies --his willingness to criticize other Democrats on policy issues, particularly Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Again, I've done the same myself.

I admire Steve Novick's outspoken approach to politics.  As he himself has claimed, as a political candidate, he's a "little different."  That puts some hyper-partisans off. 

Not me.  I'm a registered Democrat (always have been), but I'm not terribly partisan.  In fact, I've advocated non-partisan races especially for state legislative positions.  Like Novick, I'm more concerned with the issues than with the "horse race", and the numbers of D's and R's voters can cram into a legislative body. 

Maybe Novick's hesitancy to endorse opponent Jeff Merkley should Merkley win the Democratic nomination is impolitic.  So be it.  Novick, not John McCain, is the straight talker in the 2008 campaign for federal office.

That straight talk may sometimes get him into trouble.  But it also gets him my vote.  And probably the votes of lots of others as well. 

People are sick to death of overly cautious politicians.

'Sho' time in Sellwood

Sho Dozono appears to be winning the mayoral lawn sign race here in Sellwood by a 5-1 margin.  If lawn signs were an accurate measure of a candidate's popularity (I don't really believe they are --his $money$ maybe), I'd say that Dozono would surely win the Democratic vote for Mayor here in ultra-Democratic Sellwood.  (And the non-Democratic vote, too.  A couple of houses displaying Dozono signs are owned by Republicans.)

On the other hand, Sam Adams voiced early opposition to the proposed Sellwood Wal-Mart and showed up at several neighborhood events, including the screening of Robert Greenwald's documentary, The High Price of Low Cost, at the Moreland Theater.  Since there are still a few No Sellwood Wal-Mart signs up in the 'hood, that has to count for something.

On a related political note, the lawn sign race here for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate appears to be a landslide victory for Steve Novick, 10-1, maybe even 20-1.  (I have two Novick signs, but everybody else just has one.  I think.)

The environmental impact of school transfers

One of the reasons I decided a few years ago to get involved with a group opposed to a new Wal-Mart development on the edge of Sellwood was concern for the environment.  A Wal-Mart super store would have have drastically increased automobile traffic though an otherwise pedestrian friendly neighborhood.

The same can be said of the impact of Portland's school choice and open transfer policies.

Think about it.  If 20 to 40 percent of Portland's grade school children attend schools outside their own neighborhoods, schools they're not likely to walk or bike to, how many extra cars does that decision put on the road each school day? 

Here are a couple of examples from the elementary schools nearest me:

• Llewellyn  -- Out of the 411 children living in Llewellyn's attendance area, 135 (33%) choose to attend other neighborhood schools, focus option schools, or charter schools.  In addition, another 67 who live outside the neighborhood attend Llewellyn.  That makes 202 children who are probably arriving for class each day by automobile. 

• Duniway --  (Duniway is the school I walked --or ran-- to every day for eight years.) With a high capture rate, only 32 (12%) of the neighborhood kids choose to attend other schools.  But for 120 kids from outside the attendance area, Duniway is the school of choice.  That makes 152 who again probably rely on cars to get to school each day.

• Lewis -- 129 (41%) of the 312 neighborhood children attend other neighborhood schools or focus options.  Another 129 transfer in from other areas.  That's a total of 258 who likely are automobile dependent.

In those three K-5 elementary school attendance areas, 296 students take advantage of school choice to travel ouside their neighborhoods to other schools farther away.  How much farther away I don't know, but undoubtedly far enough to prevent them from walking to school.

Perhaps the two most egregious examples of the effect of choice on school attendance are the K-8 Sunnyside Environmental School and the K-5 Ainsworth Spanish immersion focus option.  At Sunnyside, 62% of enrollment comes from out of neighborhood students.  At Ainsworth, tucked away high up in the West Hills, 42% of students live elsewhere in the city.

It's been estimated that 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Portland area come from the tailpipes of motor vehicles.  I find it problematic that school choice, in this era of global warming, puts more cars on the road. 

Some school choice advocates are also car enthusiasts.  Take the local libertarian think tank, the Cascade Policy Institute.  Not only does Cascade promote unfettered school choice, it also has a program called the Wheels to Wealth Project. 

That's a classic --and troubling-- example of pitting the environment against economic growth. 

Cokie and Condi

Here's why I've always hated NPR's Cokie Roberts:

"Public opinion on the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq is unambiguous and it has been for a long time. Large majorities of the public favor withdrawal regardless of whether we're "winning." To say otherwise -- as establishment journalists like Roberts continuously do -- is just rank deceit."

What did Cokie Roberts say to provoke Glenn Greenwald to call her a liar?  This, to Katrina Vanden Heuvel on George Stephanopolous' Sunday show:

"Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win... ."

**************************

Whether Condoleeza Rice believes that the American people "would prefer to win" in Iraq is open to question.  But she does support the Bush war strategy.

So would she be a good vice-presidential choice for unabashed warrior John McCain?  I don't think so.  Most Americans do want troops withdrawn from Iraq.  Rice doesn't.

Neither does 9/11 widow and former Bush supporter Kristen Breitweiser.   Breitweiser, the brightest of the "Jersey Girls", refers to Rice as

"...the disgraceful, incompetent former Bush Administration National Security Advisor... ."

For obvious reasons, Kristen Breitweiser has little respect for Bush's current Secretary of State.  Nor for Barack Obama, whom she accuses of sounding like Condi on the "predictability" of the 9/11 attacks.   Kristen supports Hillary.

I don't have much respect for Rice either.  BUT...  I'm starting to lean heavily toward Barack in the Democratic presidential race.

With reservations, certainly.  Kinda like Steve Novick, who ended up endorsing Obama anyway. 

 

"We've been overstaffed," says PPS' Cathy Mincberg

That's the explanation offered by Portland Public Schools Chief Operating Officer Cathy Mincberg in today's Tribune for the paltry increase in staffing at schools like Peninsula as it struggles in its transition to a K-8 school. 

District patrons have been reassured for some time that the current budget has achieved stability, and that cuts to educational programs can, at long last, be avoided.  Tell that to the students at Jefferson, Madison, and Ockley Green, all of which are losing a number of Full Time Equivalent positions. 

One of the few coherent commenters on the Trib's piece suggested that Mincberg be fired and her ample salary given to suffering schools.  That may be good idea.

I say that not for the money it would save the district, nor for believing the district can get along just fine without a Chief Operating Officer, thank you.  I say it because Mincberg is  holdover numero uno from the Vicki Phillips regime, the one responsible for ramming through  the notion of a  rapid transition from middle schools to K-8 schools, mainly in the less affluent parts of the city. 

I'm convinced that little progress will be made on issues of school equity until all remnants of Phillips' neoliberal tenure are purged from the district administration.  And from the school board. 

Some progress has been made with the school board.  Ruth Adkins (who for some inexplicable reason is pictured in the Trib article) was elected to replace staunch Phillips backer, Doug Morgan, the one board member most likely to agree with Mincberg's "overstaffed" analysis.  Before she ran for the school board, Adkins pointedly questioned Phillips' so-called mandate for large elementary schools (and the shift to K- 8 schools).  As a board member, Adkins has been less outspoken, but I don't doubt her commitment to school equity.

Speaking of equity, the Trib piece featured both PPS Equity editor, Steve Rawley, and a frequent contributor, Peninsula parent Nicole Leggett.  Here's what Steve had to say:

"There’s kind of a storm of discontent brewing here on a number of fronts. Part of the problem here is, we’re pushing ahead with this K-8 thing without first justifying it. What’s the benefit of it? … We need to take a step further back and re-evaluate the decision in the first place, because otherwise we’re just going down the wrong path.”

Wrong path indeed. 

Steve Novick's 'quick mind'

The most intriguing assertion from Friday's City Club debate* between U.S. Senate candidates Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley had nothing to do with Bono and his hypocrisy (although it must be said that only the nimble-minded Novick would be bold enough to link the crusading and much revered U2 front man with deliberate tax evasion.)

No.  The most interesting revelation was Novick's confidence in the level of intelligence of members of the U.S. Senate, a revelation which came about in the course of Novick's defense of his sometimes acerbic (insulting, as Merkley would have it) campaign rhetoric:

"I'm sure that every member of the U.S. Senate's mind is as quick as
mine... ."

There Novick goes too far.  If elected, Novick will be serving with the likes of Oklahoma's Sen. James Inhofe who once claimed that global warming was a "hoax".  I'm pretty certain that Inhofe's mind is not nearly as quick as Steve Novick's.

Some who oppose Novick's candidacy (other than Merkley himself) seem to resent Novick's outspoken style and his superior intelligence.  Not me.  I want the person I send to the Senate to be smarter than I am.  I believe that intelligence, combined with bedrock progressive values and a willingness to speak out on important issues, is a virtue in politics.  Likability, politeness and tempered speech don't rank high on my list of desirable traits in politicians.  I'll take the smart and competent jerk who understands the necessity of occasional diplomacy over the amiable drone any day.

In any event, it's highly unlikely I'll ever have the opportunity to sit down for a beer with either Novick or Merkley.  Or any of the other people who represent Oregon and me in Congress.

That's why I have two Novick signs in my front garden.   

*(The format of the debate, with its 60 second strictly enforced time limits for responses to questions, was terrible.  I say let the candidates go back and forth until a topic is fully exhausted.  Truncated 'sound bite' answers are hardly conducive to informed discourse.)

 

The media silence on the "true" legacy of Martin Luther King

"In 1967 and ‘68, mainstream media saw Rev. King a bit like they now see Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

--Jeff Cohen, April 4, 2008

Back then, Cohen writes, highly regarded newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post denounced King for his antiwar and "anti-American" comments.  Now they simply ignore them.  An eerie media "silence" surrounds the complete legacy of Martin Luther King.

When was the last time you read about Martin Luther King as anti-Vietnam War activist?

Sometimes the "silencing" of war critics is more direct, as in the cancellation of MSNBC's Donahue hosted by the outspoken peace monger, Phil Donahue --and  produced by Jeff Cohen.   Donahue was "discontinued" just three weeks before the invasion of Iraq.  It was, in effect, silenced by corporate media for its antiwar views. 

I suspect that Hardball's Chris Matthews may have had a hand in that.  I recall that Matthews, as a guest on the Phil Donahue show to tout his long forgotten book about the greatness on America, questioned Donahue's patriotism and his love of country.  Not surprisingly, Matthews  has similarly denounced Jeremiah Wright for his anti-American pronouncements, joining the media campaign to demand that Barack Obama renounce his association with the former pastor of his church.

(Ironically, Chris Matthews now says that he's always opposed the Iraq War.  I'm not sure that's true.   And speaking of books, Matthews claimed on Jon Stewart's show that his latest effort, Life's a Campaign, is better than Machiavelli's The Prince.  I predict that the recent Matthews book, like his previous effort, will soon be forgotten too.)

Cohen also reminds us that Life magazine in 1967 portrayed Martin Luther King as advocating "abject surrender in Vietnam".  Well, King was prophetic about the mistake of Vietnam and the futility of American militarism generally.  If he were alive today, King would be in the forefront of those protesting the invasion of Iraq, a foreign policy blunder presaged by America's arrogance of power in Southeast Asia.

Some are slow to learn the lessons of history, John McCain among them.   His campaign against "abject surrender" in Iraq echoes Life's criticism of King. 

I hope that McCain, the champion of "the surge" in Iraq, reads --and heeds-- the assessment of the U.S. Institute of Peace reported in today's paper:

"...political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago."

The nexus of race and war

"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

Martin Luther King, Jr., "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence", 1967   (King was shot dead 40 years ago today.)

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Pastor Jeremiah Wright, sermon, 2001

(For further perspective on preaching "anti-Americanism", read Glenn Greenwald's commentary here.)

The military-educational complex, and other school news

Most right thinking folks in Portland agree that the invasion of Iraq was a monumental mistake.  They probably also know that the two wars in the Middle East have exacted a severe toll on our all-volunteer army.

But they may not be aware of all the devious strategies concocted by military recruiters to meet quotas for new bodies to replenish depleted military ranks.  This one, for example (as reported by Steve Rawley a few weeks ago), offers free trips to Portland educators to naval bases in San Diego.

Remarkably, according to comments on Steve's post, the tactic predates the Iraq War (and No Child Left Behind, which ties school access for military recruiters to federal funding.)  Former school board member Sue Hagmeier, for example, wrote that she used to get these invites regularly. 

And no, she didn't accept.  For ethical reasons.

**********************
War is nonetheless on the minds of school officials, as evidenced by this memo from district administrator Justin Devers in response to an e-mail from facilities consultant Bill DeJong:

"It was also clear to me, after the discussion, that another 'war room' planning session is necessary. I would like to use that session to develop a strategy around prioritization, etc."

An innocent figure of speech, one might think.  But to those wary of the district's plan to float a two billion dollar levy for the "reconstruction" of several Portland schools, "war" seems an ominous, and ill-chosen, metaphor.

**************************

Finally there's the much ballyhooed board negotiated amendment to the teachers' union contract to alter teacher hiring and transfer practices. 

Is it a step in the right direction?  Yes, certainly.  Will it make much difference in the quality of instruction in Portland's lower income schools?  No.  In my opinion, it's an issue that's largely beside the point.  And it certainly doesn't address the inequities between poor and rich schools.

Consider this Oregonian op-ed piece written by a Stand for Children member and a Portland classroom teacher.  They don't think the new agreement goes far enough.  Their goal is

"...to remain steadfast in our determination that every student in Portland be taught by an excellent teacher."

That's a laudable goal, but highly unrealistic outside of Lake Wobegon (where all the children are above average.)   It does, however, get to the heart of why the fixation on teacher hiring and transfers is essentially, as I said, beside the point. 

We will never, at least not in this world,  have uniformly "excellent" teachers in every classroom.  Given human nature and the number of teachers required to staff a large school district, it's just not possible to hire "excellent" teachers to fill every opening. 

Here's what I think.  The district should focus its attention on giving schools the latitude and resources to encourage greater teacher collaboration and teacher teaming as a first step toward genuine school reform.  Teaming extends the impact an "excellent", or master, teacher can have on students beyond a single classroom.

That's a goal worthy of those concerned with quality education.

 

More lessons from Finland

It's fitting that the only socialist (although he now identifies himself as an independent) serving in the U.S. Senate, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, has invited the Finnish ambassador to the United States to take a tour of Vermont and meet with Sanders' constituents. 

In Sanders own words:

"We as a state and nation should do our very best to learn as much as possible about the best kind of economic and social models that exist throughout the world and, where these models make sense, we should see how we can adopt them to this state and this country."

The "social models" in Finland include

• Universal health care that costs "about half as much per capita as our system."
• Free high quality child care
• Free college and graduate education

And

• "...the best primary and secondary educational system in the world."

I've written about Finland's exemplary public schools.  But for me personally, universal health care looms larger as an issue of importance.  For the first time in my more than decade long battle with cancer, I'm find myself engaged in a similar battle with my insurance company over coverage of necessary --not elective-- reconstructive surgery. 

Of course universal health care --single payer universal health care-- is of wider importance for the health of the country's economy and for the health of its citizens.  As I've argued before, employer health care costs are an unnecessary drain on productivity and competitiveness.  The private insurance system we are forced to rely on, a system which devotes an inordinate amount of money to deny people health care in order to maximize profits, is both inefficient and unfair.

So  kudos to Sen. Sanders for his attempt to learn some lessons from Finland.  From my perspective, they're lessons well worth learning.

Mr. Wingard goes to New Orleans

Here's the latest from the Cascade Policy Institute's drive for "real school reform" through increased school choice.

Cascade's school options point man (and legislative candidate) Matt Wingard accompanied a large delegation from the Black Alliance for Educational Options on a visit to New Orleans to view firsthand the post-Katrina "miracle" of school charterization at work in the Big Easy.  Needless to say, Wingard found the experience "liberating":

"It took a hurricane to break the iron grip of the education special interests and give power back to the parents of New Orleans schoolchildren. Now parents choose the school they want their children to attend, and a more respectful relationship exists between administrators and parents."

It takes a libertarian to see the bright side of the devastation wreaked on New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina.  But what does Wingard mean by those "education special interests" who have had their "iron grip" broken?

Teachers, of course.  And their collective bargaining units, otherwise known as unions.  Libertarians hate that teachers have collective bargaining rights. They hate unions.  But they love charter schools that effectively strip teachers of those rights and unions of their power. 

Wingard is correct in describing the charterization of New Orleans.  But he has the narrative wrong.  Here's what really happened in the Big Easy post Katrina:

"In a remarkable two part report, Bill Quigley explains how, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Department of Education in collusion with the state of Louisiana and charter school proponents, divvied up the New Orleans Public School District into two discrete and unequal sectors, one served by charter schools, the other by schools administered by something called the Recovery School District (RSD) run by the state."

So it's not, as Wingard would have it, the Recovery School District bringing in charter schools to improve public education in  New Orleans.  It's the Bush administration bribing Louisiana to set up two "discrete and unequal" districts, one of which was designated solely for charter schools.  The Bush Department of Education has always pushed charter schools. It's one of the prescribed options for failing public schools under No Child Left Behind.

In New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina provided Bush's education minions an opportunity to test the viability of charter schools on a grand scale, much as 9-11 provided Bush the perfect political climate to indulge his long-cherished goal of deposing Saddam Hussein. 

The invasion of Iraq has had disastrous consequences for American foreign policy.  I predict that the invasion of New Orleans by charter school zealots will have equally disastrous consequences for sound American educational policy.   

Obama's one shining moment

Despite recent endorsements by the Nation and Z-Net, many on the left still question Barack Obama's progressive bona fides.  His soaring rhetoric aside, a close look at Obama's stand on the issues and his Senate voting record, legitimize the concern of left-leaning Democrats that Obama is at heart a centrist, beholden to the same entrenched special interests his campaign of "hope and change" has challenged.

That said, Obama's speech on race was a splendid exception to his typical caution when called to take a stand on a contentious or politically dangerous issue.  His refusal to disown Pastor Jeremiah Wright for a handful of "angry" remarks condemning this country for its racism, taken out of context and quickly labeled unpatriotic by the media, was an uncharacteristically bold step for the man who has a realistic chance of becoming America's first black President. 

Here's the part of Obama's speech I found most impressive:

"But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.  That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.  For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.  That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends.  But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. ...

"And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews.  The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning."

Obama's speech reminds us that the legacy of slavery --America's original sin-- has yet to to be confronted openly and honestly.  And that remnants of racism are still at work in this country.  For those "patriotic" critics of Jeremiah Wright, Tavis Smiley reminds us (on Bill Maher's show Friday) that, in the words of Frederick Douglass, a true patriot is one willing to "rebuke and point out the sins" of the country he loves.  Jeremiah Wright in that sense is a true patriot.

Other parts of the speech were less impressive, especially Obama's felt need, in his condemnation of Pastor Wright's most incendiary remarks, to pander to the Israel lobby:

"Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country... a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

There I disagree.  So does Obama supporter General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, who like Wright, has been roundly disparaged for daring to criticize America's continued support of Israel despite its reprehensible treatment of the Palestinians.  McPeak claims that the Middle East peace process has been stymied by the unwillingness of politicians, because of the "large vote . . . here in favor of Israel",  to "to push Israel for the territorial concessions" necessary for peace.

One of those politicians is Barack Obama.  Another is Hillary Clinton, who has predictably seized on the opportunity to condemn Obama's connection to both Jeremiah Wright and Tony McPeak. 

An Obama stand against the Israel lobby would do much to burnish his progressive credentials.

 

The Lottery and Novick --and Obama

There are two things wrong with the Oregon Lottery.

First, the state should not be in the business promoting gambling as a revenue source for public services.  Second, the Oregon lottery has too much autonomy and too little government oversight. 

The Oregonian takes on both issues in an editorial in this morning's edition, the first by implication, and the second more directly.  The bottom line, says the editorial, is that the decision to reward lottery vendors --bars and taverns-- with outsized commissions, a decision backed by a recent state Supreme Court ruling, is bad for the state and and bad for the services the lottery was set up to fund.

The language of the editorial bolsters my objection to state-sponsored gambling:

"But it's not good business -- and it's another symptom of the state's gambling addiction. ...

"...the rates haven't kept up with Oregonians' legendary gambling habits. ...

"And Oregonians continue to feed their paychecks into these blinking, hungry machines."

U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick is quoted in the O's piece as saying that the court decision sets a "terrible precedent".  Unfortunately, Novick, neither in the editorial nor on his campaign website, which argues for tax fairness, condemns the lottery as  a bad --and unfair-- source of revenue. 

Nor, it must be said, has Novick's primary opponent, Jeff Merkley, taken a stand against the lottery.  In fact, Merkley recently commissioned a poll (and here)--some call it a push poll-- linking Novick to proposals for raising taxes.  (Why it's bad for a progressive candidate to call for a tax increase to pay for vital public services is beyond  me.)  If the flow of easy money from the lottery were to be stopped, as I believe it should, taxes --fairer taxes-- would have to be increased elsewhere to make up for decreased revenue to the state.  Merkley appears to oppose both the cessation of state sponsored gambling and increasing taxes elsewhere. 

****************************
How does Barack Obama figure into this debate?  He doesn't, at least not directly.

However, his good friend and campaign surrogate, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who ran for office on the Obamian theme of "change and hope", has suffered some setbacks since becoming governor in 2006, the most noteworthy being the defeat of his plan to bring three casinos to Massachusetts to help with state revenue.

The man responsible for stopping the casino plan, speaker of the state Democratic House Salvatore DiMasi, said Patrick's gambling proposal would be "a scourge on the state... ."

DiMasi is right.  State sponsored gambling is a "scourge".  If casino gambling is what the new politics of "hope and change" is all about, count me as an advocate of the "old" way of doing things. 

Let's hope for better from Barack Obama.

Eat this, Horowitz!

The scourge of liberal bias on college campuses, David Horowitz, who's made a living off his campaign to rid U.S. colleges of dangerous left-wing academics, now has an excuse to shut up and to go on to something else. 

A recent study reported  that professorial "liberal bias" has no effect on the political views of students.  The tilt to the left by 18 - 24 year-old college students "mirrored" that of the same age group in the wider population, the study found.

I attribute that leftward trend to young people becoming more aware of what's going on in the world.  And getting smarter. 

As for the preponderance of liberal academics at U.S. colleges, the explanation for that is simple.  College Ph.D's know more.  And they're smarter than the average joe, too.

It's a straightforward correlation.  The more educated a person, the more liberal. 

Which isn't to claim that there are no well-educated conservative propagandists out there.  There are.  Just not as many.  Unfortunately those few have a much louder and better funded megaphone* than college professors.  The accumulation of great wealth tends to breed reactionaries.

*(I refer to the right wing think tanks --Cato, Hoover, AEI, etc.,-- which magnify greatly the voices of the "scholars" who work for them.)