OlsonOnline

Bill Moyers is BACK!

There is perhaps no better measure of how completely the Bush reactionary agenda has imploded than the dramatic return of Bill Moyers to his rightful place on public television.  I once called NOW with Bill Moyers, the show that raised the right-wing ire of Bush appointee Ken Tomlinson as chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the best hour on TV.

His new effort, Bill Moyers Journal, may even be better.

Moyers was actually on twice this week, Wednesday with his brilliant skewering of press coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and than again on Friday with a look at two non-traditional journalists --Jon Stewart and blogger Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo.)  Both interviews were spellbinding.  Of Stewart's Daily Show,  Moyers said:

"...faking the news can reveal more of the truth than all of the Sunday morning talk shows put together."

In my view, Moyers is nothing less than the savior of TV journalism, perhaps of all journalism.   Not all would agree, Bill O'Reilly for one, but who takes him seriously.  CBS White House  correspondent Mark Knoller is another, a perhaps slightly more credible, critic of Moyers.

Funny thing, though.   Many of the journalists who beat the drums for war declined to be interviewed by Moyers, most prominently Judy Miller and Tom Friedman of the New York Times.  They therefore forfeited the right, in my opinion, to second guess Moyers' veracity.

Watching Now with Bill Moyers introduced me to many interesting and provocative figures who may otherwise have remained unknown to me, people like Karen Armstrong,  George Lakoff, Chuck Collins, Benjamin Barber, and David Cay Johnston. 

I expect nothing less from Bill Moyers Journal.

The Dems debate

Air America's Laura Flanders made this prediction Saturday:

"I bet that (ex)Senator Mike Gravel won't even be mentioned on the talking heads news shows Sunday."

I think he will be mentioned, but only with chuckles, and that's Flanders' point:  Although Gravel was the highlight of the Democratic "debate" in South Carolina, neither he nor Dennis Kucinich, the only true anti-war candidates on the stage, were taken seriously by the media.  The "post game" analysis on MSNBC focused heavily on Hillary's "savvy" answer to Brian Williams' question about how to deal with a hypothetical terrorist attack on two American cities. 

"Retaliation," said Hillary, thereby proving her national security Presidential mettle. 

But none of the "top tier" candidates, as Gravel put it, responded to his accusation that they appeared ready to "nuke" Iran if necessary.  Mostly, they just ignored him.

It was more of the same on the NewsHour Friday night on PBS.  Regular talking head Mark Shields evaluated the field this way:

"What hit me last night watching it was, yes, Obama, yes, Clinton, yes, Edwards, as the front-runners with most of the press attention, but you look at Chris Dodd, senator from Connecticut, extremely able and respected legislator, Bill Richardson, you know, a multifaceted public servant in his career, and Joe Biden. I mean, I just thought, you know, these, in other years, would be front-rank and front-burner candidates."

Not a mention of Gravel or Kucinich. 

I'm so glad that Bill Moyers has returned to public radio.  But that's my next post.

The disinformation campaign of Bill Gates and Eli Broad

They call it Ed in '08, or Strong American Schools.  But really it's just a couple of rich guys trying to scare the bejesus out of people about the wretched state of American education.  And using $60 million to influence the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.

But many of the claims made by the joint venture of Bill Gates and Eli Broad are either downright false or intentionally misleading.  Education News columnist Marty Solomon responds to a few:

• Over two thirds of new jobs being created require college education or advanced training.   Solomon -- "Wrong.  According to the Bureau of labor Statistics forecast for the year 2014, there will be 10.4 million new jobs requiring no post-secondary education, only on-the-job training and another 2.7 million not requiring a bachelor’s degree but some post-secondary training, while there will be 5.8 million new jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher."

• Seventy percent of 8th graders can’t read at their grade level – and most will never catch up.   Solomon -- "Wrong again.  ... In the 2005 NAEP reading test, 71% of 8th graders scored basic or above which is a probably a much better picture of grade-level achievement."

• The majority of employers and college professors say today’s high school graduates do not have the skills to succeed.   Solomon -- "Correct.  But the majority of employers have ALWAYS complained that high school graduates are not sufficiently skilled.  This has been said every year since 1845."

• In 1976, the U.S. was home to 30 percent of the world’s college graduates. Today it’s 14 percent.    Solomon -- "So what?  What does that prove?  In the past 31 years the developing world has been, well, developing.   That seems like a good thing... .  But in any case, it seems silly to blame American education for the educational progress  in foreign countries."

• America’s high school graduation rate ranks 19th in the world. (Forty years ago, we were first.)   Solomon  -- "Naïve.  Neither the United States nor any foreign country knows what it’s graduation rate is.  Here in the U.S. we cannot even agree on how to measure it and we have had widely differing estimates by various groups.
  Gates and Broad claim that our graduation rate was highest in the world in 1967.  That is utter nonsense."

I hope Vicki Phillips enjoys working with these two educational propagandists.  As I said yesterday, she'll fit right in.

Here's one of Marty Solomon's columns on the destructive impact on public schools of the No Child Left Behind law.

Gates and Broad and Phillips a good fit

Questions remain about the sudden resignation of PPS Superintendent Vicki Phillips.  But whether she's leaving for the money, the prestige, or just to get out of Dodge before the heat is turned up further, one thing is certain:

Bill Gates and Vicki Phillips were made for each other. 

Both are autocrats.  Both embrace a "business model" of school governance.  And neither knows much about school reform. 

Gates has been called the "national superintendent of education." ("When Gates makes pronouncements about school reform, the media fawn." --Susan Ohanian) That's rings even truer now that he has teamed up with the neoliberal, charter school-loving Eli Broad to pump $60 million into the 2008 presidential campaign to make sure the candidates are talking (correctly) about fixing our schools.

Board member Dan Ryan thinks it's great for Portland to have a direct pipeline into the Gates Foundation.  I say be careful what you wish for.  Accepting gifts from private foundations is the first step down the slippery slope to school privatization. 

District spins 'data' to defend its transfer policy

As an educator, maybe I'm biased, but it irks me that people generally pay such scant attention to local educational issues.  Public education, after all, is the foundation of a democratic society, so it's important that we get it right.

Take yesterday's Tribune article on Portland's transfer policy --the only local newspaper to cover the PPS news release, by the way.  I wonder how many people read Jennifer Anderson's article?  And of those who did, how many thought to ask the obvious question:

How did the district gather the data? 

And if it was gathered through a "survey of students", not parents, how can the district vouch for its accuracy?   

For example, if I were a student who fled Jefferson for Cleveland or Lincoln to play basketball, not for their "superior" academic programs, would I say so?   Would I have even been considered for a transfer if I had honestly confessed that my only motivation was to assure myself of more playing time and less bench time?

The survey methodology is faulty to begin with.  Parents, not students, make the transfer decisions, particularly at the lower grade levels. Parents probably "assisted" the younger students with the survey, but parents are just as likely to lie about the reasons for a transfer request as their children.  Perhaps more likely.  A woman I know, for example, decided not to send her daughter to the local neighborhood school because, as she told me, "my daughter would have been the smartest one there." 

Is that a good reason to switch schools?  Not one that I would admit to.

Ample anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that parents will go to extremes to avoid lower class, racially mixed schools.  Special academic programs elsewhere merely give them an excuse to do so.  Let's be blunt:  Portland's transfer system encourages "white flight".

But who would admit it?

Even so, let's stipulate that the data are accurate.  The 13% that "admit" to fleeing "underperforming schools" --a euphemism for lower class schools-- is a pretty big number.

I would also note that the map accompanying the article presents data contradicted by the article itself.  Poverty rates after transfers have increased, in some cases fairly significantly.  The numbers shown on the map list the before transfer percentages. The Marshall cluster, for example, had a free and reduced lunch population  of  "69 percent beforehand and 75 percent afterward."

The comments following the article make many of the same points.  Even Scott Bailey of Community and Parents for Public Schools, a staunch ally of the district,  says that the district should "get better data, through an independent survey and focus groups... ."

Of course, we already had an independent audit criticizing the transfer system.  The new district data appear to be nothing but "spin".
 

Don't take money from AIPAC, Steve Novick!

Although we're still hearing calls for Earl Blumenauer to enter the Senatorial race against Gordon Smith, the latest from local Democratic Party hack Moses Ross ("OK, Earl, Oregon needs you more than it ever has before"), I'm convinced that we have a solid challenger in Steve Novick.

So does the Eugene Register-Guard.

What concerns me is that Novick, should he become the official Democratic Party candidate, may be tempted to jump into the pocket of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee --AIPAC-- in a scramble to raise money for the campaign to unseat Gordon Smith. 

I beg him not to do it.   

Make no mistake --the temptation will be great.  All of the leading Democratic presidential contenders, after all, have succumbed to AIPAC's lure, as has the Senate Democratic leadership.  That includes Chuck Schumer, who as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, dispenses funds to favored candidates around the country.

Here's the problem.  Novick is running on an anti-Iraq War platform.  One of his strategies is to remind voters of Smith's long-standing support for the war.   But AIPAC supports the war.  In fact AIPAC, according to John Walsh, is

"...a major force, although not the only one, driving the U.S. to wars in the Middle East.  AIPAC is no less a force for war than is the Republican National Committee."

And not just Iraq:

"...AIPAC ... campaigns relentlessly for war on Iraq, war on Iran, war on Syria, war on Lebanon and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people."

More frightening is the Israeli insistence that war against Iran remain an option even without Congressional approval.  According to news reports, a provision requiring Bush to get the OK of Congress before invading Iran was left out of the supplemental bill up for  a vote in the House of Representatives, left out because of concern for Israel:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday."

Cozying up to AIPAC will undermine your anti-war message, Steve Novick.  Please don't do it.

 

That's what I want to hear!

From yesterday morning's Oregonian:

"I don't think there are more dangerous people around, but I do think the amount of harm a dangerous person can do is accelerating. Why are the numbers getting worse? Because the number of guns is increasing. It's getting easier and easier to get more potent guns."

David Duncan, School of Medicine, Brown University

But then you get the gun nuts restorming Blue Oregon (a progressive website) in rabid response to Albert Kaufman's plea for Oregon to take the lead in enacting some sane gun control laws.  They all appear to be second amendment purists and devotees, like this anonymous (of course) commenter who claims:

"The greatest threat to America comes from traitors within.  The 2nd Amendment is one of our best protections from this threat."

Many of the commenters firmly believe that the second amendment confers on individual citizens the right to "keep and bear arms", a right they cherish as devoutly as the right to free speech.  But it doesn't.  Read the amendment carefully:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The amendment makes it quite clear that a "militia", not individual citizens unconnected with a militia, are necessary for the "security of a free state."  When the Bill of Rights was adopted, citizens were expected to man state militias along with the firearms they owned.  That is no longer the case.

The evolution of the second amendment bolsters my argument.  The original version began  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;... ."  That was rejected for the current language which subordinates that individual right to the necessity of militias for "securing a free state." 

James Madison himself argued that a standing federal army of at most "twenty-five or thirty thousand men" would be no match for state militias numbering "near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands".  Supreme Curt Justice Joseph Story wrote similarly in 1833

"The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people."

We no longer have militias.  We do have a large standing federal army, even in times of peace.  The second amendment, perhaps useful for the times in which it was written, is now an anachronism.   

It's time to update our laws to reflect current reality.

The faulty logic of the abortion decision

Some would argue that the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold a law banning "partial birth abortion" is no threat to Roe v. Wade.

I disagree.  The decision is a direct assault on a woman's right to choose to abort an unborn child (or fetus.)   Here's why. 

The majority opinion, written by Anthony Kennedy, uses language like "brutal" and "inhumane" to describe the procedure.  But he goes further:

" 'The Act's stated purposes are protecting innocent human life from a brutal and inhumane procedure and protecting the medical community's ethics and reputation . . . ,' wrote Kennedy. 'Moreover, Casey reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.' "

Based on that, let's set up a logical syllogism (of sorts) based on the beliefs of those opposed to abortion --including the five justices in the Supreme Court majority:

• Life begins at conception.
• Abortion intentionally and premeditatedly ends that (innocent) life.
• Abortion is therefore murder. 

If abortion is murder, and murder is, by cultural consensus, "inhumane" and "unethical", it follows therefore that the "inhumane and unethical" abortion of an unborn child at any stage of fetal development should be outlawed.

So much for Roe v. Wade.

Kennedy would have us believe it's ethical (and humane) to suck from a woman's uterus a three month-old fetus, but unethical (and inhumane) to suck the brains from a six month-old fetus, even though the results are identical --the destruction of "innocent" human life. 

I don't believe that he and other anti-abortion fanatics, like David Reinhard, who characterized the ruling as "balanced and humane",  believe that.  Neither should you.

Novick's the man --to Stop Gordon Smith!

Apparently I'm one of the first 612 people to officially sign on to the Stop Gordon Smith campaign.

That's good, because now that Peter DeFazio has decided to stick with his seat in the House, I can work, unconflictedly, to help elect one of the few remaining true blue progressive Democrats in Oregon politics, Steve Novick.  He's "da man", without a doubt, to send Gordon Smith back to his pea processing plant in Pendleton.

Some would disagree.  He's unknown.  He's too far left.  He doesn't have the experience.  He doesn't have state or national credibility.  Somebody who has a real chance at unseating Smith should run, someone like Earl Blumenauer. 

Well, let me disagree with the disagreers.  Novick is a far better candidate to take on Smith than Earl Blumenauer for many reasons, but mainly because Blumenauer is viewed statewide as a Portland Democrat.  His only electoral successes have been in Portland.  As a Congressman, he has championed issues that appeal primarily to urbanites, issues like "smart growth" and mass transit.  You think voters in Pendleton or Burns are excited by "smart growth" and mass transit?  I don't think so.

But they are concerned with issues like health care, the first issue Novick addresses on his campaign website.  Everyone, regardless of where they live, wants access to adequate health care.  To me, that's a winning Democratic issue.

Note also that Novick shows his political pragmatism in acknowledging that a single payer system (which he favors) is not the first step to universal health coverage.  Note also that he doesn't talk about abortion, gun control, or gay rights.  So tell me how he's too "extreme" to be elected.

Novick does have wide experience, by the way, in politics --or public service-- outside of Portland.  He's worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, for the state legislature, and as an independent advocate.  Let me assure you --the man is well-connected.  He should have no problem raising the money it takes to run a credible campaign.

If you truly want to get rid of Gordon Smith, get behind Steve Novick.  He's the man for the job.  And read this interview to assuage any remaining doubts.

School board incumbents don't deserve reelection

The Portland Public School District's board of directors voted unanimously on January 23, 2006, to approve the recommendation of the so-called Jefferson Design Team to slice and dice Jefferson High School into several small "academies."

That's reason enough for me to vote against the four incumbents seeking a second four-year school board term on May 15. 

Nicole Breedlove has the lowdown on the machinations that led to what critics have called the re-re-redesign of Jefferson that culminated in the disastrous hiring (and apparent firing) of Leon Dudley as Jefferson's principal.   Here are a few of the crucial facts:

• Months before the Design Team recommendations, the district applied for a Gates grant to divide Jefferson into separate schools.
• In fact, the recommendation to divide Jefferson into four separate schools was Vicki Phillips'.  The Design Team never made that recommendation.
• Research shows no benefit to students from separate small schools.  There are decided benefits, however, with small learning communities, or what I call "schools within schools".
• Jefferson, prior to the redesign, had such small learning communities, and was "making above average increases in test scores" within that model. 
• Hundreds of Jefferson community members protested the proposed changes.  They were adopted nonetheless. 

So much for community involvement.

David Wynde responded this way to the League of Women Voters questionnaire requesting a different or better solution to an issue confronted by the board:

"I’m proud of the decisions we’ve made to move the district in the right direction in the past four years: including hiring an excellent
superintendent ... ."

I'm not sure where Michele Schultz, Wynde's opponent in the May election, stands on the Jefferson re-re-reconfiguration.  But given Wynde's response above, she's got my vote.