OlsonOnline

More Wingard

(Again thanks to Ken Libby.)

Wingard denies global warming with a "clever" House floor speech.



You may be wondering how Wingard was elected to the state legislature. Well, he wasn't, at least not initially. He was appointed by the Washington County Commission in a trumped up proceeding that made a mockery of the democratic process.

A month later he ran as an incumbent and squeaked by with less that half the vote.

Now Rep. Wingard is doing his libertarian best to push school choice (the Rose Friedman Educational Opportunity Tax Credit Act) --and charter schools-- through the legislature.

Matt Wingard (Libertarian- Cascade Policy Institute) defends virtual charter school

And in the process, Wingard trashes Portland's Jefferson High as the "worst performing high school in Oregon."



(Thanks to Ken Libby.)

More endorsements: Not Trudy, not Martin for school board

I note that Ruth Adkins has endorsed both Trudy Sargent and Martin Gonzales, both school board incumbents, for reelection. 

I say so what.  What's Ruth going to do?  Go on record as opposing her board colleagues, one of whom --Trudy-- is assured of winning since she has no challenger?  Martin, too, is quite likely to retain his seat.

It would be political suicide for Ruth to badmouth either.  (She did endorse Scott Bailey.)

I have no such qualms.  Neither Trudy nor Martin are likely to support any change of substance in the next four years to ensure that all students in the district, regardless of circumstance, have the same  educational opportunities.  Poor schools will continue to lose enrollment and programs.  Wealthy schools will continue to grow in popularity --and enrollment.

In short, unless some decisive changes are made in the district's transfer policy, nothing will change.  Therefore, I oppose the reelection of either incumbent.

Since Trudy has no opponent, the only option is a protest write-in vote.  One name that has emerged is a fellow named Moss Drake.  People tell me he's smart.  When he speaks he's worth listening to.

As for Zone 4, both Steve Buel and Rita Moore are challenging Martin Gonzales.  Since both are active in the PPS Equity community, I won't recommend one over the other.  Buel would likely spoil the school board tea party with his outspokenness, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at all.

Rita would undoubtedly prove more collegial.  But no one can question her commitment to equity.  And she's got a Ph.D from Columbia, for godssakes!

Vote for either Buel or Moore for Zone 4.  If neither actually wins, their combined total vote might well surpass Martin's total.

That would send a message, wouldn't it?

Kafoury v. Kafoury

The Portland school board race in Zone 5 not only pits Scott Bailey (whom I endorsed yesterday) against Pam Knowles, it also further splits,  along political lines, the ex-husband and wife team of two locally prominent Kafoury's.

Gretchen Kafoury, you see, supports Bailey.  Her ex, world's worst person Stephen Kafoury, has endorsed Bailey's opponent, the business candidate Knowles.  I don't want to read too much into what these competing endorsements mean except to say this: 

Given Steve Kafoury's endorsement and the fact that he represents in Oregon a chain of virtual charter schools, one might speculate that Knowles may be more amenable to school charterization --even partial privatization-- than one would like to see in a public school board director. 

That makes me feel more confident in my support of Scott Bailey. 

There's another Kafoury involved in this intra-familial political dust-up --Steve and Gretchen's daughter, Deborah.  The newly-elected Multnomah County Commissioner sides with her father --and Knowles.  (What do you suppose her mother must think?)

Oh yeah.  Bailey also has the enthusiastic support of Steve Novick, the little man with the wicked left hook and possible Oregon gubernatorial candidate. 

Gretchen and Steve --Novick, that is-- are quite the powerful political team.  And that's good for Scott Bailey.

Scott Bailey for school board

Although I once called Community and Parents for Public Schools (CPPS), the organization Scott Bailey formerly headed,  "lapdogs for school choice*," Bailey is clearly the better of the two candidates running for the Zone 5 school board position. And never mind the useless endorsements given his opponent by the Oregonian and Willamette Week.

Here's why.

I still don't know exactly where Bailey stands on choice and the district transfer policy.  Nevertheless he has certainly abandoned the Vicki Phillips-can-do-no-wrong stance he seemed to espouse when I first encountered him at one of Phillips' infamous "community conversations" at Sellwood Middle School a few years back. 

A case in point is Bailey's criticism of Phillips' much-ballyhooed K-8 reconfigurations.  He calls the K-8 reconfiguration "poorly planned, done too quickly, and ... poorly executed."  He's right.  He's also correct in pointing out the enrollment imbalances K-8's create, as well as the obvious inequities they promote in poorer sections of the district. 

Bailey is also upfront about the underfunding of schools in Oregon and what we can do about it.  He writes,

"Part of the problem is we’re a low tax state, particularly for businesses."

He then calls for "...raising the corporate minimum tax, or ... increasing the corporate tax rate."  He also proposes an increase in the "general level of personal taxes" and  getting rid of the "kicker".  

Bailey's opponent is Portland Business Alliance chief operating officer, Pam Knowles.  The contrast between the two on school funding is glaring.

Knowles says she is for "adequate and stable school funding"  but proposes little of substance to achieve that goal.  Her one concrete proposal is to adjust "the corporate minimum tax, while protecting and promoting the success of our small businesses."

"Adjust," not raise.  Spoken like a true business lobbyist.

More troubling though is Knowles' inclination to define a successful education as the ability to get a job:

"We all have the common goal of wanting a high quality education for our children so they can be productive workers and citizens. ...

"At the Portland Business Alliance I am working with PPS and Worksystems, Inc. to connect high school students with job exploration opportunities through a new program called BizConnect. I can leverage these and other relationships to increase opportunities for PPS students."

Innocent language, perhaps, but to me, Knowles emphasis on bringing businesses into the schools as partners for "job preparation" betrays a narrow vision of what a quality education is all about.

Scott Bailey is the clear choice in this election for the Zone 5 school board position.  

*(Here's a pertinent newsletter from CPPS regarding school choice.)

The Bible tells me so

I know Jesus loves me because, in the words of the children's hymn, "the Bible tells me so."

Similarly, we "know" that the land of Palestine, all of it, belongs to the Israelites because God promised it to them.  It belongs to the Jewish people alone, not the Arabs, because the "Bible tells us so."

That raises a vexing question that few American political leaders seem willing to confront, let alone answer:  Whether you're a believer or a non-believer (many Israelis are thoroughly secular), should any foreign policy be based on the Bible?

For most sane people, religious or otherwise, the answer is clearly no. 

So why does the United States, then, with its tradition of separation of church and state, back the Israeli demand that Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a "Jewish" state as a condition for peace?  "Jewish" has both religious and ethnic connotations.  Religious and ethnic homogeneity, or "purity", as an intentional cornerstone for the creation of a modern state, flies in the face of all accepted notions of democracy.

In an open letter to President Obama, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire pleads with the President to broaden his vision and to acknowledge the well-documented suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli government. 

It's time, writes Maguire, to "say to Israel ‘enough is enough'."

Closer to home, Hala Gores writes in today's Oregonian, in response to an earlier commentary in defense of Israeli "perceived sins," that history tells a different story:

"...the expulsion in 1948 of more than 750,000 Palestinian men, women and children... -- and the killing and maiming of thousands more -- because they were not Jewish, is not a 'perceived sin.' It is a historical fact documented by many, including Israeli historians. It is the core injustice of the region and one that occurred within the lifetimes of many people still living today. Moreover, Israel's continuation of this ruthless policy of ethnic exclusion is at the center of today's conflict."

Whether ones calls it "ethnic exclusion" or "ethnic cleansing,"  the Israeli persecution of Palestinians in pursuit of a "Jewish" state is an injustice that begs acknowledgment by Israel's greatest benefactor, the United States of America.  Without a change in the carte blanche American acceptance of any Israeli atrocity, there will never be peace in the Middle East. 

Obama is wrong in his opposition to the prosecution of those responsible for torture

You know where I stand, but here are the latest voices urging Obama to confront the crimes committed by those linked to torture.

First, (via Glenn Greenwald) there's Ronald Reagan:

"The core provisions of the Convention [against torture] establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Then there's former Reagan official Bruce Fein speaking on Bill Moyers Journal Friday:

"How he [Obama] can justify not moving forward with an investigation when we have a former President and Vice President openly acknowledging they authorized water boarding, what he has described as torture, is a crime.

"Or in the alternative, if he thinks that there are mitigating circumstances, and there's body language suggests that, then he should pardon them like Ford did Richard Nixon."

A pardon implies an admission of guilt.  Failing to act, whether to investigate and prosecute, or to pardon those guilty of acknowledged war crimes, is not an option for the leader of a country which signed on to the convention against torture.

So says Fein.

Finally,  Gary Kamiya argues it's time for America to face its "day of reckoning"--its "necessary dark night of the soul":

"Those opposed to reopening the book on the Bush years argue that doing so would tear the country apart. They're right -- but they forget that the country is already torn apart. ...

"This may be our great teachable moment, our one chance, Democrats and Republicans alike, to look clearly at our country and what it became under Bush. Already, people's attention is wandering, ennui is setting in, and a banal mood of easy acceptance is taking hold. If we don't act now, the chance may be lost. And then, the next time there is a terrorist attack, a cunning ideologue could once again lead America down the same primrose path."

Friedman pulls a Broder

Insufferable columnist Tom Friedman agrees with the insufferable David Broder that sanctioning torture should NOT be prosecuted as the crime that it clearly is under both international and domestic law.  He therefore applauds Obama for saying that the torture policy crafted by the Bush administration was a "mistake", not a crime warranting investigation and prosecution.

In short, Obama is doing precisely the right thing.  Friedman's reasons?  Prosecuting Bush would "rip the country apart."  Friedman also argues that Al Qaeda is such "a unique enemy" that it remains "undeterred by normal means."

What does that mean?  As near as I can tell, it means that any detainee associated with Al Qaeda deserved to be tortured, and to hell with the laws and international treaties that prohibit it.

Glenn Greenwald begs to differ: 

"Obama is currently and simultaneously advocating these positions:

* Bush officials ordered torture.

* Torture is a crime.

* Nobody is above the law.

"Unless you're David Broder, Fred Hiatt, Peggy Noonan or Tom Friedman, those premises of Obama's, as a matter of logical reasoning, all necessarily lead to one conclusion (hint:  it's not:  'This is a time for reflection, not retribution')."

I prefer Greenwald's logic to Friedman's 'tortured' reasoning. 

The most consistent critic of Obama's refusal to acknowledge torture as a crime has been Rachel Maddow regular and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.  Turley has said that not only is torture a crime, but that there is no option but to investigate and then, if evidence warrants, to prosecute those responsible for initiating the torture policy. 

Willamette Week gets it wrong --again!

Not to put too crude an spin on Willamette Week's latest school board endorsements, but when it comes to local educational politics, Portland's 'progressive' weekly needs to pull its head out of the sand, or an even darker place "where the sun don't shine."

Take the decision to support Portland Business Alliance honcho Pam Knowles over Scott Bailey.  Why?  Because Bailey may have a conflict of interest (his wife is a teacher at Lincoln) and --get this-- Baliey is "in love with his own voice."

Therefore, in a close race, Knowles gets the nod as the more "appropriate" replacement for Sonja Henning.

Say what?  The most "appropriate" candidate is the one who most closely resembles the board member whose seat is being contested, even if that departing board member, Henning, was wrong --dead wrong!-- on serious policy issues?  Like supporting Bill Sizemore's teacher merit pay initiative? 

If cloning departing board members is the standard by which we are to judge school board candidates, how the hell will the board ever change for the better?

Of course, Willamette Week has been wrong, laughably so, on many of its past education endorsements.  In 1990, WWeek endorsed Measure 5, the property tax limitation which effectively gutted public school funding.   And in 2003, when I ran for the board, the paper endorsed an anti-tax, anti-government charter school proponent for the Zone 1 seat eventually won by Doug Morgan and now held by Ruth Adkins.

(I finished second to Morgan then, well ahead of the WW endorsee, Ron Liljegren.)

In the other contested Portland board race, Martin Gonzales was preferred to either Rita Moore or Steve Buel.  Why?  Because Gonzales has "shown an independence" and a "willingness to dissent."

Well, maybe so.  But I'm still waiting for Gonzales to "dissent" on an issue of real importance, like school choice and the transfer policy that enables it.

 

Obama's "tortured" politics

The case for investigating the torture of 'detainees' and prosecuting those responsible is clear and irrefutable.  Here's U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak in an interview with Glenn Greenwald:

"The United States of America is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture from 1984, which clearly contains the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law... . ...

"...whoever practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court and be held accountable. That is, the torturer, him or herself, but also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation, and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention."

Those opposed to "looking backward" call the prosecution of war criminals --e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld-- a political exercise in vengeance.  David Broder in today's Oregonian, for example, asks of the Obama administration:  "Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

No, he says:

"That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice."

"Policy disagreements?"  No, David Broder.  The authorization of torture is no simple policy disagreement.  It's a criminal violation of both domestic and international law.  The United States is obligated to investigate and then, if evidence of criminal wrongdoing is found, prosecute those responsible.

There is no morally acceptable alternative.

So what's Obama afraid of?  The collapse of bipartisanship?  What bipartisanship?  The Republicans will oppose Obama no matter what he does, so why bother with the charade?

I think the real issue for Obama is the fear of these guys, nominally Democrats, but otherwise quite conservative on most of the issues that matter to Obama (health care is a big one.) 

My advice to Obama is to do the right thing.  Let the Congressional committees hold their hearings on torture.  Let the justice department investigate.  If it comes to it, allow without objection the appointment of a special prosecutor. 

In other words, Mr. President, take the moral high road.  Ignore the 'advice' of the insufferable David Broder*. 

*(Glenn Greenwald, who may be the best online columnist/blogger out there, called Broder's op-ed piece a "truly wretched screed":

"The very same pundits and establishment journalists who today are demanding that we forget all about it, not look back, not hold anyone accountable, are the very same people who -- like Broder -- played key roles in hiding, enabling and defending these crimes."