OlsonOnline

Molly and me

Molly Ivins is dying of cancer, or at least she suspects she is.  As she again battles breast cancer, Ivins has dedicated whatever columns she may write to stopping the war in Iraq.

I'm in a similar situation. Not dying, necessarily, but struggling with another onslaught of the cancer I've lived with for nearly twelve years.  I thought about announcing a simple medical hiatus from blogging, but I think I'll follow Molly's lead.  When I'm able to muster the energy, what I write will also be mainly about stopping the war, not just the war in Iraq, but the planned hostilities against Iran and other countries in the Middle East and around the globe.

The urge to war is the urge to violence, and war, like all acts of violence, is almost always a stupid, counter-productive, and immoral course of action.   Chris Hedges, who wrote a book entitled What Every Person Should Know about War, is more eloquent and direct in his characterization and condemnation of war:

"The   vanquished know war. They see through the empty jingoism of those who use the   abstract words of glory, honor, and patriotism to mask the cries of the wounded,   the senseless killing, war profiteering, and chest-pounding grief. They know   the lies the victors often do not acknowledge, the lies covered up in stately   war memorials and mythic war narratives, filled with words of courage and comradeship.   They know the lies that permeate the thick, self-important memoirs by amoral   statesmen who make wars but do not know war."

"Empty jingoism" is all that justifies the invasion of Iraq and all that sustains those few who still believe that "victory" in Iraq is achievable.  Iraq has become the metaphor, the symbol, of the utter senselessness and criminality of all wars championed by "amoral statesmen" who indeed "do not know war". 

Here are two bits of information about the war in Iraq that may force you to join with those tens of thousands --perhaps 400,000-- who marched in our nation's capital yesterday to demand an end to the carnage in the "cradle of civilization".

First, the actual troop numbers in Iraq may not be 150,00, but 250,000.  That's because the Pentagon has "contracted" out services that heretofore were performed by U.S. soldiers.

Secondly, many of the "soldiers" who serve in Iraq are  privately employed mercenaries, provided through military "outsourcing" by an organization rarely mentioned by news media (and certainly not by Bush in his State of the Union plea for more soldiers to be sent to Iraq.)  That organization is Blackwater USA, which has a $300 billion contract with the State Department to provide "diplomatic security" in Iraq.

Jeremy Scahill calls the Blackwater venture "...an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster."

Of Blackwater Scahill says:

"Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the 'military-industrial complex' President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

"Further privatizing the country's war machine — or inventing new back doors for military expansion with fancy names like the Civilian Reserve Corps — will represent a devastating blow to the future of American democracy." 

Back to Chris Hedges.  He leaves us with this warning about the ongoing militarization of U.S. foreign policy:

"...if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, ... we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become   them."

 

Here's another reason to change PPS leadership

Nike's donation of $9 million over five years to three local school districts, including Portland, has district officials doing cartwheels.

But as Steve Duin points out, corporate donations come at a cost --namely, tax revenue.   Like  $16.7 million in tax revenue that Nike won't be paying to the state for 2006 because of changes in the corporate tax code that the Beaverton-based company actively lobbied for:

"Nike lobbied viciously, and successfully, for the single-sales factor, which dramatically cut income taxes for companies with significant property and payroll in Oregon but a majority of sales outside the state."

No surprise then that Nike donated nine mill over five years when if saved nearly twice that in a single tax year.

Have the district and its board "viciously" lobbied for corporate tax reform at the state legislature?  If they have, they've been doing it largely out of the public eye,  probably for fear of offending their allies and sugar daddies in the business world. 

The increasing reliance on grants and handouts from the private sector to fund schools is worrisome to me.  It raises the question:  Who ultimately determines policy for  Portland Public Schools?  Phil Knight?  Bill Gates?  Or the public in an open and democratic fashion?

The district's excitement over Nike's million dollar donation goes a long way in answering that question.

Four more years? Not for this school board.

At least I hope not. 

But the four board members up for relection this May are sounding downright cocky.  Bobbie Regan, for example, responded this way to "school officials" saying that they haven't heard anything about "outsiders throwing their hat in the ring", nor any talk emanating from "school circles":

"Hopefully, that’s a good sign things are going well” with the current board, said Regan, who represents Southwest Portland’s Zone 3, around Lincoln High School."

Outsiders?  Is that a reference to those who don't believe things are going particularly well with the district?  To parents who don't appreciate their neighborhood schools closing while magnet schools and focus options proliferate? 

Or maybe it refers to those who live "outside" the wealthy and influential areas of the district, like in the Jefferson, Roosevelt, Madison, and Marshall clusters, where substantial numbers of students are fleeing their neighborhood schools, especially their high schools, for "better" schools elsewhere. 

I don't think things are going particularly well in the district.  But I'm certainly an "outsider".  I disagree with the district's school choice and open enrollment policies which, thanks to the school board, have picked up considerable steam in the last four years.  I also think that Vicki Phillips' school reconfiguration schemes, especially at Jefferson --remember school uniforms?-- are top down mandates which have alienated large segments of the community, especially the district's teachers.

What kind of "leader" alienates her employees? 

Board member Doug Morgan, who may or may not run for another term, thinks Vicki Phillips' has done a remarkable job:

"Morgan and others say that restructuring the schools has been a difficult task. But they think Superintendent Vicki Phillips took the right leadership steps to see the process through.

“ 'We hired Vicki to figure out how the district needed to be better organized and get it staffed,' Morgan said. 'She’s done a remarkably good job in getting it done so quickly. I would’ve expected it to take another year.' "

As an "outsider", I must disagree with Morgan's assessment.  If he decides to run again, I hope someone steps up and challenges him. 

What do you think? 

Huffman's defense of M37 --lame and misleading!

James Huffman's defense of Measure 37 in today's O is lame, even insulting in its  attempt to trivialize the effects of M37 in Hood River as nothing more than NIMBYism:

"If every application is found meritorious and the remedy in every case is waiver of offending regulations, the impact will be barely evident to the average Oregonian -- except to those who live, work or play nearby."

"Except" to those who live nearby? 

What are zoning laws for if not to protect people from the irresponsible acts of their neighbors?  To protest the development sprawl enabled by M37 is not NIMBYism. It's standing up for one's rights as a property owner to insist that existing zoning and land use laws --existing, that is, before the passage of Measure 37-- be enforced. 

Howard Dietrich, the wannabe developer of a Wal-Mart mega-store on the edge of Sellwood, has notified the city he plans to file a Measure 37 claim if he's denied the right to develop his property as he sees fit.  I am among many that don't want a Wal-Mart store in my "backyard".  In fact, I don't want a Wal-Mart store anywhere in Portland.

Is that NIMBYism?  No.  It's protecting the quality of life in a quiet pedestrian-friendly neighborhood from the traffic congestion that would certainly result from the siting of a Wal-Mart a mile from where I live.  It's protecting my neighborhood hardware store.  It's protecting any number of small businesses in the neighborhood from the depredations of Wal-Mart.

Huffman's op-ed piece is also misleading in claiming that's there no difference between Dorothy English, the poster "little old lady" for the M37 campaign, and the corporate landowner, Plum Creek Timber:

"But that is not the American way. Everyone is equal under the law. That means the benefits and burdens of the law are the same for the big guy as for the little guy. Measure 37 is about protecting the property interests of Oregonians -- all Oregonians."

Maybe so --legally.  But I don't think it was the "will of the voters", as Huffman argues,  to pass M37 to benefit "big timber".  Had timber interests been front and center in the campaign, there's no way in hell that Measure 37 would have passed. 

Let's honor Martin Luther King for who he REALLY was

Yesterday I sent this e-mail to the Neigborhood Schools Alliance and assorted other people of importance:

"Here's my concern about moving the MLK event from a school --Jefferson-- to a church.  I watched the festivities on TV and what I mostly heard was a quite narrowly defined religious message --to wit,  you can be 'free at last' or 'reach the promised land' by accepting Jesus as your savior.

"I know that Martin Luther King was an ordained Baptist minister, but  that's not why he won the Nobel Peace Prize nor why he's honored with a national holiday.  His mission was one demanding the end to the injustices of slavery,  Jim Crow segregation, and racism, a mission which was later expanded to include opposition to the Vietnam War and the advocacy of economic justice for poor people regardless of race.  He may have personally believed in the saving grace of Jesus, but that wasn't his message to the nation, at least not one that I heard.  His was a call for peace, nonviolence, and social justice, not a call for 'personal' salvation.

"I speak as one who likes gospel music, but the events at the Highland Christian Center were more like a Christian revival meeting than an occasion to honor the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.   Had the event been held at Jefferson, I'm convinced that the tone of the festivities would have been far more inclusive."

Last night I came across a couple of pieces that reaffirm my concern with the tendency to oversimplify and distort King's message.  The first was appropriately published on Dissident Voice, appropriately because Martin Luther King was nothing if not a dissident:

"The guy they show us isn't MLK. They show us a saint, even a martyr to the cause of racial justice, a goal that most Americans think we achieved a long time ago.           

"The icon serves an important role. It preserves the power structure, a strange claim when considering MLK was a subversive through and through." ...

"To his racial justice agenda, he added anti-militarism and           economic justice. It took him some time, but he came out against the Vietnam War.  Indeed, he came out against all wars."

And this piece from the American Prospect reminding us why King was in Memphis where he was assassinated.  It concludes:

"The best way to honor his memory is to continue the struggle for human dignity, workers' rights, living wages, and social justice."

Lastly here's King's speech --"A Time to Break the Silence"-- in 1967 when he announced his opposition to the Vietnam War.

It's my fervent hope that a truly progressive Democratic candidate for President will emerge to once again take up Martin Luther King's "struggle".

First Amendment brouhaha at Jeff: PAT'S Miller speaks out

PAT'S Jeff Miller has weighed in on the threatening memo left for Jefferson teachers not to talk to reporters without permission from the principal.  Like me, Miller sees what he calls "management through intimidation" as a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights:

" 'It’s as if someone … forgot about the First Amendment of our federal Constitution,' wrote Miller, adding that teachers still are allowed to speak to reporters without permission during breaks or before or after work. 'It’s called the right to free speech.' "

Since the current issue of the PAT's Advocate isn't online yet, here's another of Miller's  "messages", this one reaffirming what I wrote about the district's  K-8 reconfiguration mandate.  Miller is one sharp cookie.

"No careful study has shown that K-8 schools in and of themselves cause higher achievement, reduced absenteeism, or fewer disciplinary problems."

That's what I said last May:

"Merely reconfiguring schools into K-8's, while ignoring curricular reform, will do nothing to raise student ahievement."

Earlier I wrote a post claiming that research supported the switch to K-8 schools.  I was wrong.  Some does, some does not.  I still like the idea of returning to the K-8 model, but as a long time middle school teacher, I know that middle schools, if they avoid the temptation to put on high school airs, can do wonderful things for pre-adolescents.

The district, however, is pushing the K-8 model for all the wrong reasons, improved student achievement among them.  The real goal is improved efficiency, as in saving money and closing neighborhood schools.

What happened to focusing on what's best for students?

I agree with Thomas Friedman. Really.

Even Friedman can't be wrong all the time.  What he says in his column about the Iraq "surge" is about as right as you can get, at least in this respect:

"I'll surge on the condition that you once and for all enlist the entire American people in this war effort, and stop putting it all on the shoulders of 130,000 military families, and now 20,000 more.

Is Friedman calling for a draft?  No.  Is he demanding a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?  No.

But he is calling out George W. Bush for what he said in his surge speech about "America's commitment", about the need for the "the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives", and his demand for "more patience, sacrifice, and resolve".

As a proponent of the war, it's Friedman's responsibility to question the "sacrifice" Bush is willing to demand of the country.  And he's right to do so.  The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough.  He merely adds a "deadline" and a "floor on the price of oil" to the proposed troop surge.

Is that sacrifice enough for a country spilling blood and squandering treasure in a war that's lasted longer than WWII, a war in which citizens made real sacrifices to support the military effort?

I think not. 

Don't think I've gone soft on Friedman.  He was wrong to support the invasion in the first place.  And he continues to be wrong in spouting his neoliberal theories of globalization.   His support of free trade agreements reminds me of what he told Tim Russert:

"We got this free market, and I admit, I was speaking out in Minnesota–my hometown, in fact, and guy stood up in the audience, said, `Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?’ I said, `No, absolutely not.’ I said, `You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.”

Nor did he apparently know that CAFTA is the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Winterhaven slanders and NCLB nonsense

Those who read this blog may wonder why universal healthcare was my priority for the new Democratic Congress.  Why not Iraq, since I've opposed the war from day one? 

Or the repeal of No Child Left Behind?  I've urged readers to sign the petition opposing Congressional reauthorization of NCLB since I first became aware of it.  Public education is obviously a major concern of mine. 

There is no simple answer to that, except to say that without adequate healthcare for all, public schools will continue to struggle.  And the war in Iraq, regardless of what the Dems do, will end soon.  Somehow.

(I note that Russell Sadler echoes what I wrote yesterday about healthcare in his latest Blue Oregon piece:  "The increasing cost of health benefits is a problem for the public and private sector alike.")

But since I mentioned NCLB, this fawning op-ed piece in today's Oregonian demands comment, most particularly this ridiculous assertion:

"We need this bill [NCLB] to keep the pressure on schools so students can become creative thinkers and sustain our way of life."

One thing that NCLB, with its test-based accountability, doesn't do is encourage "creative thinking."  It does "encourage" students to become good test takers. It encourages teaching to the test.  It encourages cheating, which, come to think of it, may indeed help "sustain our way of life."

But creativity?  What planet are you from, William McKenzie?  Texas you say?  I guess that explains it.  Texas --Houston specifically-- is the birthplace of NCLB and corporate cheating.  You know.  Enron. (Not to pile on, but Texas also leaves 25% of its citizens without health insurance.)

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

And since I'm on the subject of education, here's what I heard from Winterhaven parents while watching a televised replay of the school board's January 8 public hearing on the district's decision to move the inner Southeast's math and science magnet to outer Southeast.

First from Winterhaven's site council chair (paraphrased):

"We're a nerd school and proud of it.  Many of our students have experienced bullying and isolation in their neighborhood schools."

Then this (again broadly paraphrased) from a parent of an exceptional child (like all Winterhaven students):

Imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by severely mentally disabled (retarded?) students.  That's what it's like for our [Winterhaven] students in neighborhood schools.  "This is a special group."

The first remark reinforces my contention that niche schools like Winterhaven may be less about special academic programs than about sheltering kids from the real world.

The second remark?  It's simply an insult and a slander against me, my children, and all my former Portland public school classmates, many of whom were freakishly smart and ended up at places like Harvard, Brown, Oberlin, and Reed. 

One wonders how they managed without a Winter"haven". 

The case for single payer national healthcare

In a recent Blue Oregon post, Ben Westlund cited the Democratic Party's belief in "affordable healthcare" as a "fundamental human right" as the deciding factor in his defection to the Democrats

But on January 4, when Blue Oregon asked readers what they wanted from the new Democratic majority in Congress, only one person responded with a call for universal  healthcare.

I agree with that call.  No issue, at least domestically, is as pressing as the need for revamping America's healthcare delivery system.  The way we go about it now is not only ridiculously expensive --medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country-- it also leaves some 40 - 50 million Americans --primarily the poor-- uninsured.  And it saddles employers in both the private and public sectors with huge  health insurance costs.  Those costs are a drain on the economy.

There's a better way --extending Medicare to all Americans.

Paul Krugman addressed that issue directly in 2005.  He did so again recently in response to Arnold Schwarzenegger's hybrid plan to insure all Californians, saying that the California plan adds three new bureaucracies to deal with the three reasons people are uninsured.  A single payer approach avoids that complexity:

"Single-payer insurance solves all three problems at a stroke. The Schwarzenegger plan, by contrast, is a series of patches. ...  As a result, the plan requires a much more intrusive government role than a single-payer system."

There are two primary obstacles to the adoption of a single payer healthcare system in America.  The first is ideological, perhaps best summed up by this article provided by the Blue Oregon commenter who questioned the "right" to healthcare, and called Ben Westlund a "Socialist".  The article is from the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, named after the man who fervently believed that

"...the only viable economic policy for the human race was a policy of unrestricted laissez-faire, of free markets and the unhampered exercise of the right of private property, with government strictly limited to the defense of person and property within its territorial area."

An entrenched and influential group of conservatives, libertarians, and free marketers, affiliated with well-funded think tanks, are thus able to convince Americans that government funding of healthcare is "socialized medicine."

The second is political.  As Sarah Ruth van Gelder and Doug Pibel conclude in their piece, "If America's So Great, Where's Our Healthcare", few politicians, including Democrats, have the courage to buck a system that funds a large share of their political campaigns:

"With all the support and all the good reasons to adopt universal health care, why don't we have it yet? Why do politicians refuse to talk about the solution people want? It could be the fact that the health care industry, the top spender on Capitol Hill, spent $183.3 million on lobbying just in the second half of 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. com. And in the 2003-2004 election cycle, they spent $123.7 million on election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

People less cynical than I say that "Hillarycare", the Schwarzenegger plan, the Wyden plan, and here in Oregon, the Kulongoski proposal to insure all chlidren, each a half step at best toward an efficient single payer system, or Medicare for all, are pragmatic and politically possible. 

I more inclined to see it as politcal cowardice, a condition that won't be remedied until we enact true campaign finance reform.

 

PPS' Celebrate! --a dog and pony show for "market-based" education

Here in Portland we have our own version of Amsterdam's red light district, where "ladies of the evening", perched in windows, display their "goods" in an attempt to attract customers.

Our red light district is at the Expo Center on February 3.  It's called Celebrate!Portland Public Schools.  The product being hawked?  The schools themselves.  The customers?  Eager parents looking for the 'perfect' program for their children.

Roll out the carnival barkers!

Excuse the metaphor, but I see little difference between marketing the world's oldest profession and marketing education.  Much like the working women of Amsterdam, those schools which fail to attract enough customers --students-- fail the market test, and are destined to wither on the vine until the district axe --closure-- falls.

Market-based education, much beloved of libertarians like Portland's Cascade Policy Institute (and its puppets), supposedly injects healthy competition into the government schools "monopoly".  If it works in the business world (although imperfectly), they ask, why not public educaton?  School choice  becomes the ultimate measure of accountability.

So let me ask this:  Does anyone at the district seriously think that Jefferson or Roosevelt cluster elementary schools have the allure to "compete" with Ainsworth, Skyline, or Forest Park in the Lincoln cluster?  That parents will "choose" Grout over Winterhaven?  Or Binnsmead over the Creative Science School?  I think not.  The "competition" betwen these schools takes place on a completely uneven playing field.  It's a rigged game.

Some, including me, reject out of hand the business model* of educational governance.  I've argued that education is not a commodity to be marketed like breakfast cereal or  automobiles or  male enhancement drugs.  Education, by its very nature, is not in the business of selling things. 

The business model is nothing more than creeping neoliberalism** at work in the "commodifying" of education.  I wrote last May that Vicki Phillips is at heart a neoliberal who believes the "best way to get to where we want to go educationally is to free up the 'educational market place.' "

And that's the direction that she, with the help of a largely compliant and like-minded school board (and the Oregonian), has taken the district.  And why we now have the spectacle of the annual Celebrate! PPS.

It's time to do away with this marketing nonsense.

* Robert Freeman from the linked post:

"To make a profit from education you need to do two things: increase efficiency and reduce costs. Increasing efficiency means removing variability while boosting output. This is a great formula for mass-producing hamburgers or semiconductors. It is a disaster for producing intelligence and character in children."

**  The "three elements" of the neoliberal approach to education are:

• cost efficiency achieved by "commodifying the product"
• standardizing education so that its outcomes can be measured by multiple choice achievement tests
• the focus on "marketable skills"