OlsonOnline

More on the perils of Zionism

From a letter to Jimmy Carter written by a "Jew born in Palestine in 1941":

"As numerous Zionist leaders have openly expressed, they consider assimilation of Jews, such as mixed marriages, as the main threat to Judaism, comparable to the Holocaust: Both significantly reduce the number of Jews. To [equate] the love felt by a person of Jewish descent to another person of gentile descent with mass murder testifies to the pathologic nature of Zionist thinking. It also underlines the hysterical approach of Zionists to the phenomenon of assimilation."

                                                                        --Elias Davidsson
On the OpEdNews website, the voluble --and outspoken-- Stephen Lendman calls Zionism indefensible:

"Zionist ideology is extremist, undemocratic, and hateful. It claims Jewish supremacy, specialness, and uniqueness - God's 'chosen people.' It harms Jews and non-Jews alike."

Zionism by definition is "undemocratic".  I also fully agree that Zionism ultimately harms Jews.  Unless the Israelis want to remain in a perpetual state of war, they must eventually abandon the Zionist "ideal".

In a thoughtful article written for Tikkun, Joel Kovel asks a series of questions about the fruit of Zionism:

"What, then, is the real character of the Israeli state and the Zionism of which it is the fruit? What are we to call a project which, though it boasts of being a 'democracy,' reserves 92% of its land for Jewish people? Where one who converts to Judaism or has a Jewish great-grandmother is automatically given full rights to the land while those others whose families merely happened to have lived there for centuries are at best second-class and landless?"

He answers with another question:

"Is there any word for this except racism, institutionalized at the most fundamental level of the state?"

Of course, this post is all about the inevitability of a one state solution in Israel/Palestine, the only obstacles to which are entrenched Zionism and the continuing support of the United States for a two-state solution, which has no chance of acceptance by Palestinians given the current conditions in the West Bank. 

As the 2004 Olga Document puts it:

"Whoever has eyes to see and ears to hear knows that the choice is between another 'hundred years of conflict' ending in annihilation, and a partnership among all the inhabitants of this land. Only such a partnership is capable of turning us, the Jews of Israel, from foreigners in their country to its real inhabitants."

Peruse these articles for a better understanding of the one state solution.

Reactions to Obama's education speech

Harsh reactions, from people who know something about schools.

First up, via Education Notes Online, is San Franciscan Caroline Grannan:

"Boy, is President Obama confused. ...

"And what’s with the praise of charter schools, President Obama? Charter schools have been around for 16 years now. Some are great, some are disasters and the rest are all along the range in between – just like traditional public schools. As has been amply documented, charter schools overall do not outperform traditional public schools, despite having numerous advantages over them (including massive financial bounty from billionaire private philanthropists and the avid support of a series of public-school-disparaging presidents)."

NYC Educator has come to "despise" Obama, aka President "Merit Pay":

"I just finished grading 105 college essays written by my juniors. Can I tell you how many of those essays were about alcoholism, child abuse, sexual abuse, sickness, mental/emotional illness and other horrific things these kids have to endure every day? And now President Merit Pay wants to add another hour or two a day to their schedules because he thinks that will help them become better educated?"

And speaking of poverty, Tauna Rogers points to a report by Arizona State's David Berliner, who argues that

"... out-of-school factors related to poverty are the major cause of the achievement gap that exists between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population."

So why then is Obama scapegoating teachers and traditional public schools?  Maybe it's because, as Leonie Haimson writes, "Obama’s education advisers seem to be free-market nudniks."

(I don't know what a "nudnik" is, but I get the free market reference.  Well said Leonie!)

And that brings me to the most scathing criticism of Obama's education policy, from Tom Eley on the World Socialist Web Site.  (And what's with that?  I thought Obama was the "socialist'?)

Eley says:

"It was an ugly little speech, saturated with jingoism, free market boosterism, and moral hectoring. Obama offered not so much as a nod to the classical, universalistic, understanding of education—the cultivation of young minds in the arts and sciences toward a fuller, richer life in the service of society and humanity as a whole.

"Instead for Obama, 'the future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens.' The purpose of education is to prepare a new generation of hyper-exploited, but patriotic, workers. According to Obama, the educational system needs 'to prepare every child, everywhere in America, to out-compete any worker, anywhere in the world.' "

Eley goes on to say:

"...the humanities—art, music, literature, and history—'don't' matter' in the competition with other nations. Indeed, by developing critical, cultured human beings, the arts tend to cut against the wretched labor competition Obama champions."

 

As I said, harsh criticism, indeed.  And from my perspective, well 'merited' criticism.

Maybe Jack's off HIS rocker

Best response to Jack B's latest rant* in which he juxtaposes two stories --the first about Portland Public Schools revenue deficit; the second about its decision to lease space for a new school in the Pearl:

"What does $300K per year beginning in 2011 in an area without an elementary school, have to do with a $10mil shortfall in 2009, spurred in part not by Portland but by a recalcitrant governor?"

Good question, joe.  But then Jack is less interested in reasoned discourse than in rousing the rabble.

For the record, I haven't decided whether the lease is a good idea or a bad one. I'm hardly one to defend PPS or the school board, but here's the problem. The one neighborhood school anywhere near the Pearl District is the overcrowded Chapman.  The others are either focus options or a charter school (with a waiting list).   So if there really is a surfeit of kids living in the Pearl, maybe the lease isn't such a bad idea.

Then again, if PPS did the right thing by doing away with its transfer policy and ending its dalliance with school choice, the old Couch school, which now houses Metropolitan Learning Center, would make a fine neighborhood facility for the Pearl kids.

But that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. 

* (Rant is defined here as anything having to do with condos, streetcars, or developers.  Or any elected city official.  It should be pointed out that the school district and the City of Portland are separate entities.)

Education Tweak

It's been said that truth in politics is best revealed through comedy, as in Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.  If  you agree --I do-- then the same can be said about truth in education.

Introducing Education Tweak, a new "journal of opinion, research, and farce."  Here are some highlights from its (thus far) seven published issues:

• The reform battle --"The recent skirmish started in early December, when Kitty Wilson of Democrats Infatuated with Republican Policies (DIRP) took the lead in the reformer battle with a bold proposal to level each and every single public school with a bulldozer and then sow the ground with salt. ...

" 'Oh yeah? Well, we propose that the schools be destroyed with bombs. Big ones. With lots of loud noise and stuff.'  ...

"This healthy debate reflects progress from a mere decade ago, when people were most likely to be called reformers when they made proposals for school improvement based in research. Such people are now universally understood to be defenders of the status quo."

• Charter schools --"Prospective charter school operators today welcomed a new law allowing fast food restaurants to authorize the creation of new schools. ...

"Allen Jean, president of the advocacy group Charters Really Are Something Special
(CRASS), asserted that the current state law is unfair... .  'If authorization is only
available from organizations with knowledge and experience with schools, there’s nobody looking out for those without traditional qualifications... .' "

• School choice and funding --"The Association for Consumer Rights in
  Decision-making (ACRID) released on Monday their long-awaited and bold new proposal for a market-based solution to all our educational ills. ...

"ACRID’s president, Peter Knoll, explained, 'We currently spend about $10,000 per year on each child. We propose spending $5,000 instead, and we propose to give to the child -- not some school bureaucrat -- that money.' ... Children could then choose where to buy their education that day -- from any number of unregulated service providers."

It's way more difficult to write funny than to write serious, although the funny is often more serious than the serious. 

That's why I like A Tiny Revolution, at least the parts written by Jonathan Schwarz.  Here's his latest, taking on the Washington Post.

Or this one on Obama's hypocrisy vis-a-vis Hamas and Israel.

(Oh yeah, and I like Wacky Mommy, too.)

But she doesn't impress everybody

I swear I didn't read this until after I posted my piece on O columnist Anna Griffin.

Oh well. 

Here's another view via a comment on the column in question:

Anna,

"great article. insightful, helpful, and maybe part of inching us forward and away from language that (in the case of 'shrill,' at least) says, 'women are inferior,' and male standards of behavior and 'style' are the norm. At the same time, thanks for not backpedaling off of your perceptions of Amanda's pros and cons, as she manages her way through budgeting, learning about the bureaus, and challenging a few of her own assumptions, as she widens her experience."

Progressive versus liberal, redux

Blue Oregon's Kari Chisholm has written a provocative post on the vital connection between  progressives and labor.  The title of his piece says it all: 

"You can't be a progressive unless you're pro-labor."

Down the comment thread, it's suggested that perhaps progressive should be clearly defined  --and differentiated from the "catch all" term, liberal. 

Two years ago I did just that.  Here's what I wrote:

Progressive versus liberal

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

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

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

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

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

Worth reading

Over at Blue Oregon, I recommend reading the lively discussion of Measure 65, the "top two" open primary initiative backed by former Secretary of State Phil Keisling.  The post itself argues that the measure actually strengthens minor parties, giving them the clout to become "kingmakers" in the general election.

That's a dubious contention.  More interesting are the comments to the post by Dan Meek, an Independent Party of Oregon member, and by Paul Gronke.  Both oppose the measure.

As a proponent of non-partisan elections, Gronke's assertion that party affiliation largely  determines how people vote is of special interest to me.  Here's how he put it:

"The three main sources of political cues for voters are a) political parties, b) interest groups, and c) the mass media."

Cues are "shortcuts" voters use to make sense of the ballot.  Without the first cue --party affiliation-- interest groups become the prime electoral mover:

"You know where they end up looking? Interest groups. Yep. Those same powerful monied interests that people are so worried about." ...

"You may hope by removing (a) from the equation that you suddenly will transform the electorate into reflective, well-informed, 'independent' voters. Oregon may be so special and unique that we can buck the trend."

If Gronke is right, he undermines my argument that elections should be decided on the issues, not by the initial after the candidate's name.  It's a simple matter for me to read the voters pamphlet, or the candidates' websites, to determine what each candidate stands for.  But perhaps that's not true for all voters.

That's one reason why I was --and still am-- a strong proponent of limitations on campaign donations.  That's why I voted yes on Measures 46 and 47 the last go around, measures opposed by powerful interest groups and by the two major political parties.  M47 passed.  It's constitutional enabler, M46, did not.

It would be nice to have elections decided not by a barrage of 30 second media spots, but by a thoughtful discussion of the issues between all qualified candidates.  That of course would necessitate removing most of the money from politics,  and opening up the airwaves, free of charge, to give equal exposure to the views of those candidates.

(Don't they do that in the United Kingdom?)

The city of Portland has taken a step toward such reforms with publicly financed elections.  The next two steps, as I see it, are to limit private expenditures, and then to force the electronic media --radio and TV-- to give free air time, as a condition of permission to use the public airwaves, to those who seek public office.

The courts --and the ACLU-- have ruled that money equals speech.  That must change if real campaign finance reform is ever to be realized.  That's why the defeat of Measure 46 was a real blow to the effort to rid politics of excessive spending.

The guts of the reform, Measure 47, did win approval, however, despite entrenched opposition.  So there's hope for the future.

"Keep the change, Obama!" --Darragh Murphy

McCain may have abandoned his assaults on Obama's character and patriotism, but not so Darragh Murphy and PUMA.

Here's the latest from her venomous blog.

As one of Murphy's legion of sycophants said on this sister PUMA post,

"Unbelievable!" 

More Sarah Palin. Better yet, more Darragh Murphy

The slightly deranged anti-Obama Hillaryite and head PUMA, Darragh Murphy, has gone completely gaga over her new feminist hero, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. 

In her latest blog post, Darragh portrays Palin as "populist" and "working class", a dynamo who has completely reframed the debate and left the Democrats "undone, outmaneuvered, and straight-up outclassed... ."

"Holy smokes, Folks. I think Sarah Palin may have delivered the tagline for a new era of political populism in her address to an “electrified” Republican party last night. ...

"This is called reframing the debate, Folks, and the Republicans have done it again. They have successfully painted the DONC as the political haven for sexists, hypocrites, weaklings, and elitists."

Folks, Darragh has been snookered.  Willingly snookered.  Not only does she recount every over-the-top stereotype thrown at the Democrats by Palin, she fails to challenge any of the many lies the wannabe veep used to burnish her image as a "reformer". 

Like opposing the "Bridge to Nowhere".   She didn't.  She was for it.  But then Palin realized the "Bridge" was a political turkey, and that opposing it would redound to her own political benefit.

Or her opposition to earmarks.  As Mayor of Wassila, Palin hired a lobbyist --a lobbyist, for god's sake-- to steer millions of dollars of earmarked pork to her small municipality with a population of probably no greater than 5000 at the time.  

The way I see it, a lie, regardless of the gender of the person who utters it, is still a lie.  And lies need to be challenged, refuted, shot down. 

Here's the alarming thing.  Darragh's post thus far has generated nearly 700 comments.

In fairness, Darragh's post is probably less about the virtues of Sarah Palin than it is about the failures of what Darragh calls the DONC.  What does that mean?  I assume it refers to the Democratic Obama National Committee.  

And Darragh has no use for Obama.  She can't forgive him for beating her beloved Hillary.  She despises the man.

How much does she despise him?  Enough to propose selling Barack Obama, in addition to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Donna Brazile, and Joe Biden, on E-Bay.

Cute, Darragh.  

ADDENDUM:  Here's a comment from one of Darragh's sycophants.

"Hillarys positions were moderate, not far left liberal like O’s [Obama]. Hillarys positions are closer to McCains than O’s.  Far left or Far right- thats no way to govern when 90% of Americans are actually moderate."

OK.  Here's another.

"The political landscape has changed and Gov. Palin is the new star. I feel the country will be in good hands with McCain/Palin. It was also nice to see the Republicans stand up for her when the media started the sexist attacks. Hope the Democrats were watching!"

Why Bayh?

Bloggers and pundits are speculating that Senator Evan Bayh, the centrist DLC Democrat from Indiana, is way up there on Barack Obama's list of possible running mates.

The question is, why? 

Why would an anti-war candidate pick a pro-war co-sponsor of the 2002 Senate resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq as his vice president?  It undermines one of Obama's signature campaign themes.

David Sirota calls Bayh "a shameless Bush parrot... ."  He is.  Yet the media typically describes him as an attractive and photogenic politician (ignoring his silly almost-parted-in-the-middle hairdo.)

Naming Bayh as his running mate risks alienating what remains of Obama's progressive support.  He can ill-afford that.

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

Speaking of pro-war politicians, slacktivist proposes replacing Andrew Jackson's murderous mug on the twenty dollar bill with ... Satchmo!

Yes, that's right --Louis Armstrong.  Fred Clark --he's the slacktivist-- says that Jackson doesn't deserve the honor.  I agree.

Too bad Armstrong is no longer with us.  He's a vice-presidential choice I'd readily accept.  Satchmo was, after all, America's jazz ambassador to the world.