OlsonOnline

"Dr. Strangelove" and U.S. foreign policy

It's more than coincidental to read first, that the U.S. is lifting its 13 year arms embargo on Haiti just as lawlessness and violence in that country is spinning hopelessly out of control, and second, that Henry Kissinger, according to phone conversations that he himself had taped, was instrumental in propping up military dicatorships in Chile and Argentina with a complete and utter disregard for human rights.

Here's his stance on Pinochet and Chile:

" During the conversation Kissinger makes it clear that he disagrees with efforts to pressure Pinochet to stop violating human rights, and equates such diplomacy with efforts to weaken and overthrow the military regime. 'I am not on the same wavelength with you guys about this business,' Kissinger tells Rogers. 'I just am not eager to overthrow these guys.' During his meeting with Pinochet on June 8th in Santiago, Kissinger told the Chilean dictator that 'in the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here. I think that the previous government was headed toward Communism. We wish your government well.' "

The archived "telcons" also expose Kissinger threats against U.S. Ambassador Robert White for speaking out about human rights abuses in Argentina.

The point here is that American foreign policy, especially in Latin America, has had one overriding concern: opposition to and subversion of "leftist" governments, and support for conservative "anti-communist, anti-Marxist" regimes, even when they are obviously dictatorial and anti-democratic. That's true even of Jimmy Carter-- the human rights President. His trip to Iran in an attempt to prop up the corrupt Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi precipitated the Iranian Revolution, which ultimately led to his defeat in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, who, ironically, cared nothing about human rights.

The larger point is that Bush's preemptive war in Iraq, with its imperialistic overtones, is nothing new in U.S foreign policy. It continues a well-documented tradition of American meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries to promote American interests, which, contrary to what Bush says, are not necessarily democratic interests.

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

On the local level, a story in today's Oregonian says that Oregon is dumping, at least temporarily, the math problem solving component of the state testing program.
That means that school performance will be judged exclusively, almost, by a battery of multiple choice standardized tests in reading, math, and science. The one exception is the writing sample, a true performance based measure, much like math problem solving.

The reason? What it comes down to is that true performance measures--authentic assessments--are difficult and time consuming to score. With class sizes increasing, teachers just don't have the time to score such open-ended tests. Multiple choice tests are simply scanned, and bingo!-- you have a score. Unfortunately, it's a score of limited value in assessing true learning, and of no value in judging the performance of schools and their programs.

More unfortunate is the distinct possibility that the writing assessment, a really good measure of a student's ability to actually express ideas through the written word, could suffer the same fate as the math problem solving test. As I wrote in my September 2 post, the writing assessment is a great classroom instructional and diagnostic tool, but unreliable beyond that:

"In other words, to use the writing assessment, which is excellent for the classroom, to judge the performance of teachers or schools is quite simply a misuse of a valuable instructional tool."

Thucydides on war

"To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man. ... .Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect."

That's from Thucydides, the Greek historian, via this column by Molly Ivins.  It eerily echoes what I meant in yesterday's post by "American machismo posing as foreign policy" to characterize not only the war in Iraq, but the "war on terror", the "war on drugs", or any other of a number of "wars"  we as Americans have launched recently to effect social or cultural change.  Not only is the bellicose language inappropriate, but so are the strategies.

As Ivins says in her column:

"Wretched excess always accompanies war fever -- in World War I, 'patriots" used to go around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that they were 'German dogs.' As I have noted elsewhere, people like that do not go around kicking German shepherds.

"Some of that bullying, swaggering tone remains with us, in our politics. To treat with contempt any effort at 'nuance' or 'sensitivity' -- in one of the most fraught and sensitive situations we've ever been in -- is just ugly know-nothingism."

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

Chuck Collins of Responsible Wealth, whom I've referenced before as an opponent of the estate tax repeal, has an op-ed piece in today's Oregonian reminding us that Google's IPO success (it netted its founders a billion or so dollars) "is built on the Internet, which was created by the Defense Department's Advanced Research Project Agency with public tax dollars and nurtured through a continuing partnership of government, universities, adn industry."

Click here to read about a report from Responsible Wealth which essentially debunks the "myth of the self-made man" and argues for a socially responsible tax policy. 

Such a policy would not--emphatically not-- include ridding the nation of what Bush refers to, sneeringly, as the "death tax".

 

Wars, wars, wars!

American machismo posing as foreign policy under the Bush Administration  has become so accepted, so mainstream, we no longer react rationally to the debate over which candidate is best suited to lead us in the "war on terror".  The rational response would be this:  Why are we waging a military war against something so nebulous as "terror"?  It's not only a stupid strategy, it's utterly futile.  It's likely that for every terrorist we kill, or capture, two more will spring up to take his place.  There is no military solution to the "problem" of terrorism. 

Nor is there a military solution to the "war on drugs".  This article in today's Tribune on the methamphetamine epidemic should make that abundantly clear.  The American drug war strategy has been primarily a supply side approach:  Eradicate the drug-- cocaine, heroin, marijuana-- and the problem is solved.  And throw all the drug users in jail, which is about as sensible as fighting "crime" by jailing all the criminals.

With meth, it's impossible to eradicate the "supply".  It's relatively simple to make from materials purchased in local stores.  So what's left?  Punishment!  But like with terrorists, jail one, and ... well, you get the drift. 

So what do we do?  I suggest we use our brains, and our wealth, to solve the problem in a pragmatic fashion.  First, acknowledge that we'll always have some substance abusers among us.  Second, stop wasting money on failed policies.  Give the money, not to soldiers, policemen, and jails, but to doctors, counselors, treatment programs, social workers, and..... schools!  Legalize the possession of small quantities of narcotics.  Criminalize their abuse, particularly when that abuse leads to theft, assault, and even murder (that's what we do for alcohol, the most wdely abused, yet legal, substance in the country).  But also fund full community treatment options. Lastly, admit that the problem with drugs (and alcohol) is culturally and sociologically based.  It arises as much from poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity as it does from character flaws.
To label drug use a crime, and that's that, is a woefully inadequate, head-in-the-sand, response.  It's doomed to fail.

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

All the while, the political wars rage on.  John Kerry, it turns out, is not a war hero after all.  In fact he's a coward.  And a liar.  And a ruthless political opportunist.  So say the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, funded by well-heeled Texas Republicans who also happen to be Friends of Bush.

The mainsteam media has actually handled this negative assault on Kerry pretty  well, and that includes the cable news channels (except for Fox), so I don't have much to say about it (well, actually I do, but I'll save it.)  But here's a piece by Paul Waldman who actually appeared as a guest on Fox News to "debate" right wing media analyst Brent Bozell about the Swift Boat Vets' allegations.  I found it amusing, especially the after show confrontation with an irate Bozell.  Here's the exchange:

"WALDMAN: What part of it?

BOZELL: You're a liar!

WALDMAN: What are you talking about?

BOZELL: That stuff about Kerry!

WALDMAN: What, about atrocities?

BOZELL: He called them war criminals!

WALDMAN: He didn't accuse any individuals of anything.

BOZELL: You're a liar!

WALDMAN: He never accused those guys of anything.

BOZELL: John Kerry is a liar, and you're a liar!

WALDMAN: What are you talking about?

BOZELL: Fuck you!

And they say progressives are deranged in their hatred of Bush!

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

Of course there's also a "War on Democracy" going on, conducted by that beacon of democracy, the U.S. of A.   Or at least that's the opinion of some who accuse the Americans of attempting to subvert the democratic process in places like Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez' resounding recall election victory is being called "fraudulent" by opposition forces.  This AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle links the charge of voter fraud to a U.S. polling firm, which used an opposition group to help conduct the poll:

"Critics of the exit poll have questioned how it was conducted because Penn, Schoen & Berland worked with a U.S.-funded Venezuela group that the Chavez government considers to be sided with the opposition.

"The firm had members of Sumate, a Venezuelan group that helped organize the recall initiative, do the fieldwork for the poll, election observers said."

The contention that the U.S. actively opposes Chavez has been made many times before, but most recently perhaps in the testimony of Mark Weisbrot to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  In the testimony, he accuses the American backed National Endowment for Democracy for supporting both the coup against Chavez and the vote to recall him. 

Whether it's true or not, I don't know.  But the charge is certainly more credible than the charges leveled against John Kerry, who did serve honorably in Vietnam, was cited for heroic actions by the U.S. Navy, and was wounded in action.

Unlike his opponent.

 

Charters, Chavez, Tariq Ali

For good or ill, the New York Times is nothing if not influential. A day after publishing a front page story on the poor "performance" of charter schools, and even editorializing about it, the Oregonian has dutifully followed the Times lead.

Steve Duin's column in today's edition is all about charters (nothing worth quoting), as is the lead editorial, which begins with this:

"I t's almost funny to hear charter school proponents make excuses for the lackluster performance of students in charter schools on a nationally standardized test."

Charter school proponents are predictably outraged. They blame the AFT (an evil teacher's union) which dug the data out of the Department of Education's own report.

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we insist on using standardized tests to rate schools, it's only fair that the charters suffer the same indignity.

Now if we could only extend testing to the private schools, there would really be something to write about.

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

While we're on the subject of the media, I must note that not much has been written about Hugo Chavez' overwhelming victory in Venezuela's recall vote on Sunday, at least not in the mainstream press. Alternative media outlets, on the other hand, are all over it. Here's a piece, for example from Medea Benjamin who was in Caracas as an election observer. She knew Chavez would win big:

"I knew Chavez would win the referendum when I met Olivia Delfino in a poor Caracas barrio that our international election delegation visited. Olivia came running out of her tiny house and grabbed my arm. 'Tell the people of your country that we love Hugo Chavez,' she insisted. She went on to tell me how her life had changed since he came to power. After living in the barrio for 40 years, she now had a formal title to her home and a bank loan to fix the roof so it wouldn't leak. Thanks to the Cuban dentists and a program called 'Rescatando la sonrisa' – recovering the smile – for the first time in her life she was able to get her teeth fixed. And her daughter is in a job training program to become a nurse's assistant."

Chavez has close ties with Fidel Castro-- apparently he's brought in 10,000 Cuban doctors--which is enough in itself to turn the American government against him. According to Tariq Ali, in this article for Counterpunch, many foreign correspondents have convinced themselves that Chavez is an "oppressive caudillo" and that Venezuela teeters on the brink of a "totalitarian tragedy".
Ali has a completely different take:

"It became clear to me that what Chavez is attempting is nothing more or less than the creation of a radical, social-democracy in Venezuela that seeks to empower the lowest strata of society. In these times of deregulation, privatisation and the Anglo-Saxon model of wealth subsuming politics, Chavez' aims are regarded as revolutionary, even though the measures proposed are no different to those of the post-war Attlee government in Britain. Some of the oil-wealth is being spent to educate and heal the poor."

Tariq Ali is an Oxford educated Pakistani, once a Marxist, but still a radical. In this interview for The Progressive, he explains why the original American support for the Taliban in Afghanistan has been all but forgotten:

"We have populations now in the West with a very short memory span. One reason for this short memory span is that television over the last fifteen years has seen a big decline in the coverage of the rest of the world. History, when they do it, is ancient history, and they sensationalize even that. Contemporary history is virtually ignored on television. If you see what passes as the news on the networks in the United States, there's virtually no coverage of the rest of the world, not even of neighboring countries like Mexico or neighboring continents like Latin America. It's essentially a very provincial culture, and that breeds ignorance. This ignorance is very useful in times of war because you can whip up a rapid rage in ill-informed populations and go to war against almost any country. That is a very frightening process."

One person who didn't forget was Michael Moore. In his film Fahrenheit 911, representatives from the Taliban were shown conferring with oil executives in Houston. That was an eye opener for me, so I guess I must confess to "provincial ignorance" as well.

Intelligence

My school teacher niece informed me a while back that there are eight kinds of intelligence (I thought there were seven), but this post is about the spy (CIA) kind of intelligence that has been in the news lately, and about the lack of educational intelligence that permits the media and elected officials to blather on about "failing" schools based on NCLB and its utterly stupid test score guidelines.

I'll start with the schools because the local media, meaning the Oregonian, is full of dire gibberish about all the schools that failed to meet the NCLB performance standards, including all of Portland's high schools (even Lincoln!) and a chunk of its middle schools, which coincidentally serve the poorest of the district's students. Which is precisely why they failed under the NCLB's ridiculously stringent standards. Look at the data. The test score failures are clustered in these subgroups: students with disabilities, ESL students, Hispanics, and low income students, a category which probably strongly overlaps the others.

But Portland officials shouldn't feel so bad. Out in the suburbs west of Portland, virtually all the middle schools and high schools flunked. And for the same reasons.

The real travesty in NCLB is the misuse of standardized testing to judge the "performance" of schools, which I've written about a zillion or so times. So I'll just share part of an e-mail from Kenneth Bernstein that I included in my April 8 Joe's School post:

"Of course, none of this even addresses the idea of the fallacy of attempting to use a test of individuals and using those scores to evaluate the school. Most professional organizations having anything to do with either education or measurement criticize such an approach - the same instrument does not allow one to draw valid inferences at two different levels, even if we did not have the further problem that such one-shot tests are themselves subject to large errors of measurement, that the disaggregation of scores required under NCLB leads to such small subgroups that variance year to year may simply be an artifact of the different membership of those groups year to year, and that by and large there is no control in any of the testing for factors outside of the control of schools or teachers that have impact on such scores, such as prior knowledge, access, or lack thereof, to reinforcing activities outside the school, etc."

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

As for spy intelligence, Lawrence Korb (he worked for the Reagan Administration) says that calls for an "intelligence czar" misses the real point:

"The reports of the Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence missed the real problem facing the intelligence community, which is not organization or culture but something known as the 'Team B' concept. And the real villains are the hard-liners who created the concept out of an unwillingness to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals."

What's "Team B"? It's essentially an alternative to the CIA set up by neoconservatives (think Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld) who disagreed with the professionals at the official spy agency. Its current manifestation is the Office of Special Plans that operates out of the Pentagon:

"It is no secret now that Douglas Feith, George W. Bush's undersecretary of Defense for policy, set up his own intelligence operation in the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans. According to current and former Pentagon officials, Feith believed that the CIA and other intelligence agencies dangerously underestimated threats to U.S. interests."

Think that's going to change if we get four more years of Bush?

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

Speaking of Bush, if he continues to allow surrogates to attack John Kerry's war record, then it's only fair that the Dems revisit Bush's thoroughly dishonorable, and well documented, evasion of Vietnam combat through National Guard service. Or lack thereof. Here's an article, courtesy of the Center for American Progress, that does just that-- revisits Bush's "AWOL problem". And it encourages other progressives to take off the gloves. It even links to a site quoting the above mentioned Lawrence Korb, who says:

"If you don't show up, you're absent-without-leave by definition. You would be put on active duty and sent wherever they needed you."

Bush at Harvard

The Harvard Crimson--the student newspaper at Harvard--published a piece last Friday about George W.'s performance at Harvard Business School as remembered by one of his teachers there.

Yoshihiro Tsurumi, now at NYU, recalls Bush as a smug, smart-alecky student of less than modest abilities:

"Thirty years after teaching the class, Tsurumi said the twenty-something Bush’s statements and behavior—'always very shallow'—still stand out in his mind.

“ 'Whenever [Bush] just bumped into me, he had some flippant statement to make,' said Tsurumi when reached at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. 'The comments he made were revealing of his prejudice.' ”

Bush was as right-wing then as he has shown himself to be now, despite all the blather about "compassionate conservatism", and running as a "uniter, not a divider":

"Tsurumi said he particularly recalls Bush’s right-wing extremism at the time, which he said was reflected in off-hand comments equating the New Deal of the 1930s with socialism and the corporation-regulating Securities and Exchange Commission with 'an enemy of capitalism'.”

“ 'I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor because they’re lazy,' Tsurumi said."

Why do I quote The Harvard Crimson? It's as reliable a source as any. The students writers are smart, they're energetic, and they don't have any "hidden" agendas, like writing stuff to please their bosses/publishers/editors for fear of losing their jobs, or their prestige. In other words, as Russell Baker said, "The capacity for outrage has [not yet] been bred out of them."

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

Perhaps it's just my imagination, or my incipient Anglophilia, but I can't help but believe that British columnists are just plain better than their American counterparts. They seem smarter, wittier, better educated, and just more ... literate than the pundits the American press routinely serves
up. To read some of them (via the internet, of course) is like conjuring Jane Austin as a modern journalist.

Those few of you who read this blog know of my fondness for George Monbiot. But consider this piece by fellow Guardian columnist Zoe Williams. It's classic both in style and content, this part in particular:

"Whether for or against, any mention at all of this decade demonstrates a lack of rigour in thought and argument. It conjures up an era whose definition is no more palpable or precise than 'it was all a bit wild and liberal'. It rarely provides a preferable decade - the repressed 50s? Surely not the even-more-liberal 70s? How about the relentlessly self-seeking 80s? Above all, it relies on the fact that a lot of us can't remember it because we weren't there, and everyone else can't remember it ... well, we all know why they can't remember it - because they tell us all the time. As a total aside, oh baby boomers, get over yourselves .

"So, in his new crime-fighting initiative, Blair promises us 'the end of the 1960s liberal consensus on law and order', in place of which the values of the law-abiding majority will henceforth govern the criminal justice system. This in itself is weird - law-abiders come in all shapes and sizes. You could argue that the only value we demonstrably share is that of abiding by the law. So the law is to be tailored to the values of people whose only shared value is not breaking the law. It's not even doublethink; it's half-asleep-in-the-bath-think."

Does anyone seriously think that Ellen Goodman or Maureen Dowd
could write something like this? Maybe Dowd, but it's a stretch. A long stretch.

Here's another columnist from the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, who also charms me.

Both columnists, incidentally, take on Tony Blair the way some of our left-leaning pundits take on Bush, but with more panache, and with more wit. That's instructive for American readers who may not be aware of the depth of British opposition to Blair's policies.

As one who likes the parliamentary system of government, Freedland's column is also instructive, for me, in what he says about the "over-mighty executive":

"This is not a personal point about Blair. It has long been a feature of the British system. Indeed, the 'over-mighty executive' may well be a leftover from the days of monarchical rule. But that it lives on, with dire and bloody consequences, has rarely been clearer.

"Under our system, the rule is straightforward: if the prime minister wants something badly enough, he gets it. In the Iraq case, his laser-like resolve to stand with George Bush burned through every obstacle: the JIC, the cabinet, parliament, British public opinion. He overcame them all.

"What is the solution? I have a maximalist answer and a more modest one. The former would call for a constitutional overhaul, giving this country what most democracies take for granted: true separation of powers. Britain's problem is that there are no rival power centres. The legislature, which should be one, is dominated by the executive. Only a radical new settlement could change that."

Buckley bucks Bush

As Josh Marshall reports, the intellectual dean of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley,  has come to believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake:

“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”

Of course, many conservatives, from libertarians to John Birchers, have opposed the adventurous foreign policy of the Bush Administration.  But Buckley is a breed apart.  Almost all conservatives pay homage to the seminal ideas articulated by this truly intellectual conservative icon. Although I always disagreed with Buckley on the issues, I loved to watch his weekly show Firing Line with its Brandenburg Concerto theme music.  It was far different in tone and substance from the the shouting and sheer demagoguery that characterize virtually all of the political media offerings available today.  Now with Bill Moyers  is an exception.  So is C-Span's Booknotes with Brian Lamb, even if that show, although informative and entertaining, at least to me, is not always political in nature.

Hmmm.  I wonder if Buckley has seen Fahrenheit 9/11? 

L'affaire Goldschmidt (plus Bush wins another detractor)

Is there anyone of political importance or influence in the state of Oregon who isn't a crony, a friend, or a confidante of Neil Goldschmidt?  Apparently not, judging by the revelations in the latest column by the Tribune's Phil Stanford.

According to Stanford, Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto was not only Goldschmidt's official state police driver, he "developed a relationship" with Goldschmidt's wife, Margie, while chauffeuring the Governor around. Relationship as in affair. 

But as close as he was to the Goldschmidts, Bernie denies knowing about the liaison with the 14-year-old girl that brought Goldschmidt down, even though Goldschmidt's speechwriter says otherwise.  Either way this latest tidbit from Oregon's biggest political scandal illustrates just how well-connected Goldschmidt was in the small world of Oregon's "movers and shakers".

Here are two additional stories from the Tribune about Goldschmidt.  Click here and here.

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

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Georgie Anne Geyer wonders why the American people "hardly complained" about the war in Iraq in the early stages of the planning and execution of the invasion.  Now, at long last, voices are being raised in opposition to the whole Bush foreign policy:

"But finally a group of our finest public servants, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, has this week officially issued a letter to the nation that they have served so well, often in dangerous and crucial posts. The signers pull no punches, stating that the entire structure of diplomatic and military power 'is crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it. Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy.' "

Signatories to the letter include former presidential advisors, diplomats, and retired military officers.  The latter group is especially concerned about a "Vietnam-type erosion" of the U.S. military:

"From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies and disdainful of the United Nations. ... Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."

First Thomas Friedman, and now Georgie Anne Geyer?   I don't see how Bush can win in November.

UPDATE:

Joe Conason also wrote about the letter, calling it "extraordinary" because it was written by "professional diplomats":

"They regard partisanship as poisonous to the trust that an elected President must repose in them to execute U.S. policy abroad, and to their own careers as well. They hope to maintain influence and status no matter which party holds power. Their habit of speaking carefully and quietly tends to continue even into retirement."

I love the part about the "habit of speaking carefully and quietly".  My brother is a "diplomat", and I've noticed his tendency to defend rather reflexively any State Department policy that I've had the temertiy to criticize.  I call him Boucher, after career diplomat and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

Conason has no such diplomatic qualms.  He characterizes the letter as an  "...explicit call for Americans to eject George W. Bush on Election Day. Although their brief statement does not endorse John Kerry, the implication will be plain enough. (None of them is likely to vote for Ralph Nader.) "

Conason of course is the author of the anti-Bush (and excellent) book Big Lies and the book about the right-wing Clinton witch hunt, The Hunting of the President, which is coming out as a movie, this week I think.  Can't wait!

Portland: Big league, or merely provincial?

Forget about baseball.

If Portland wants to become a "big league town", it has to do something about the Rose Festival. Like get rid of it. Or revamp it. Completely.

Take the Grand Floral Parade, for example. It's stodgy. It's boring. Its format hasn't changed in eons.
Here's what you see after staking out a spot on the route (which includes chaining chairs, posting signs, and sleeping overnight on the sidewalk --- now that is an innovation):

Float -- band -- equestrian unit -- float -- band -- equestrian unit -- float -- band -- equestrian unit. Or, if you manage to stay awake and stay put, you'll see this sequence, just to break up the monotony:

Float -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- float -- band -- float -- band -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- float, followed by some llamas, then , so the crowd doesn't get too excited, -- float -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- equestrian unit -- float -- band -- and, hold on--
Mayor Vera Katz in a car.

Oh, yes. There are cars interspersed among the 33 equestrian units, 25 floats, and 18 bands. The cars carry such luminaries as the Royal Rosarian Prime Minister, the Rose Festival Association President, and the Portland Rose Society President. Can a parade get any more riveting?

All of the high school bands in the parade received some award, with the exception of the Portland All-City Band, cobbled together from the six city high schools that still have bands. Individually they apparently aren't good enough to march in the big parade. Back in the early 60's, I marched in the parade four straight years with the Cleveland High School band. All the other city bands were in the parade. too.
I enjoyed the parade as a participant. The only time I actually watched the parade Zorro was the Grand Marshall. This year it was former Blazer radio announcer Bill Schonely.

The Rose Festival Association is an institution, and like all institutions, it's interested in only two things: making money and perpetuating itself. It has several full-time year-round paid employees, and unlike other private money-making organizations, it has no competition. So change is unlikely, unless the public speaks up. Of course, those who do speak up, like me, are considered dangerously "uncivic-minded". It's akin to being called unpatriotic for criticizing the war in Iraq.

Portland is a one (daily) newspaper town. Today the Oregonian published a separate section dedicated entirely to the Grand Floral Parade. The coverage begins this way:

"Anybody who pooh-poohs a parade must be culturally cuckoo."

And it concludes with this:

"And next year, don't skip the parade. You're missing life."

Hey, if the Rose Parade is life, take me to the loony bin, where I can mingle with all the other "cultural cuckoos."

CORRECTION:

I said, or implied, that the Rose Festival hasn't changed in eons. Not true. The Fun Center (the big money maker for the festival) is now called the Waterfront Village. And the girls from the local high schools that we used to call princesses are now called ambassadors.

But we still somehow manage to anoint one of them Queen of Rosaria.

Go figure.

Reagan redux

I was in living in California shortly after Ronald Reagan was elected governor and I remember writing a letter (no e-mail in those days) describing Reagan's appeal as floating on a "veneer of affability". Back then, college was free, or virtually free, for all residents of the state, and the mentally ill were housed in state mental institutions. All that changed during Reagan's governorship, and, as we know, California is the nation's trendsetter. Reagan's true "legacy" can be traced to his early political career.

But as I fully expected, the canonization of Reagan and the blurring of history continue. Anti-tax fanatic Grover Norquist is involved with the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project which wants to name something after Reagan in every county in the nation. Even left-wing journalist Todd Gitlin joins the hagiographers in calling Reagan "a great man".

The favorite motif of those claiming greatness for Reagan is that he "won the cold war", ignoring the historical truism that wars are never won, or lost, by individuals. Mikhail Gorbachev (he
won the Nobel Peace Prize, not Reagan) should be given at least some credit for his policies of glasnost and perestroika, which had a more immediate and practical effect on the fall of the Communist Party than Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric. Robert Parry believes that Reagan's "role may not have been 'winning' the Cold War, but helping to extend it":

"Although it’s largely forgotten now, Reagan’s rise within the Republican Party was as a challenge to the 'détente' strategies pursued by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger – before the Watergate scandal forced Nixon from office – and later by Gerald Ford. Détente was, in effect, an effort to ease the Cold War to an end, much as finally occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Cold Warriors Nixon and Kissinger – along with much of the U.S. intelligence community – had recognized the systemic weaknesses of the Soviet system, which was falling desperately behind the West in technology and in the ability to produce consumer goods desired by the peoples of Eastern Europe. One only needed to look at night-time satellite photos to see the disparity between the glittering city lights of North America, Western Europe and parts of Asia compared to the darkness across the Soviet bloc.

Under this analysis of Soviet weakness, the 1970s was the time for the West to accept victory and begin transitioning the Soviet Union out of its failed economic model. Not only could that approach have hastened the emergence of a new generation of Russian reformers, it would have allowed world leaders to pull back from the edge of nuclear confrontation. Third World civil wars also could have been addressed as local conflicts, not East-West tests of strength."

Some others are tring to set the record straight. Howard Kurtz reminds us of Reagan's "contentious relationship with the press." Journalists back then portrayed Reagan "as uninformed and uninterested in details, the man who said trees cause pollution and once failed to recognize his own housing secretary."

David Corn lists 66 things to think of when flying into Reagan National Airport, including "winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable," and "colluding with Guatemalan thugs."

And finally, Greg Palast, admitting that one "shouldn't speak ill of the dead", just can't restrain himself.
He calls Reagan a "killer, a conman, and a coward."

Strong words for a "great man".