Monday, September 29, 2014
It is natural for desperate folks to look backwards to deceased executives for models and/or inspirations of democratic behavior. In yer ol' perfesser'z judgment, hagiographizing not withstanding, Truman's not one to emulate.
Harry pretended to be a friend of the workingman. An he did initiate the great work of integrating USer military forces, which arguably led withing a decade to the Black civil rights movement.
But HST also BEGAN the chore--which Raygoon and the Raygunsels completed to thoroughly 30 years later--of rolling back, undermining, dismantling and eventually all-but eliminating the gains USer labor had made in the previous 30 years. He vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act, which eviscerated Union activities, and then enforced it 12 times in the next four years after his veto was--as he knew from the start it would be--overturned.
HST also unleashed the National Security State, via the National Security Act of 1947.
It effectively truncated the authority of the Constitution to EXCLUDE "security" and established MOST of the most troublesome institutions in the toils of which we now try to salvage a bare modicum of privacy in our own lives."
It was these facts which Eisenhower's eulogy in his farewell address, the "militaryu-industrial complex" speech mourned and bemoaned.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Testing has driven the curriculum ever since the Raygoons came to power. It has only grown in impact and influence since then.
"Accountability," it was called, back then. It was already a disputatious topic, even then (early-mid 80s, when I was in Grad School, working on a PhD in Ed). The first book on it that I read was this:
Accountability in American education: A critique (January 1, 1976), by Martin, Overholt and Urban.Though nearly 40 years old, it could be well revived, inasmuch as it answers almost ALL of the red herrings, straw men and other fallacies which the proponents extol still today.
So-called 'accountability' was "demanded" by "reformers" who piled it atop the mythology that teachers have/had soft jobs, short hours, and "3-months-vacation a year!"
And the growing realization, even then, that there was a whole fcking PILE of money to be plundered.
Oh, and union busting.
Testing today has become an end in itself. Tests today mainly exist to provide psychomeretricians with fresh data with which to construct newer, more revealing tests. The only interest that Bill Gates has in education at all is to corner the market in educational software and to own the licenses to all the IT curricular applications.
But the "accountabalists" STILL want teachers' performances assessed and judged by how well their students perform on essentially meaningless instruments designed mainly to elicit information to write more tests.
We're not "poor," we're temproarily embarrassed millionaires, as Steinbeck put it.
And this attitude is the product of the longest, continuous, uninterrupted stimulus-response experiment in history. We live in a gigantic Skinner-box--and the myriad others which we mistake for 'individuality'--the walls of which are comprised of the flickering blue screens with which we surround ourselves, and from which we are never far.
Divisa et impera.
The Ipod, and it's ilk, has very nearly completed the task, creating the millions and billions of "niche" markets which are the definitions of our shopping desires: The apotheosis of atomization--which is the mist, as dispersed and divided one CAN be.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Yer ol Perfesser's gotten really weary of this meme:
The "deficit" is only reduced two ways:
1) Increase revenues.
2) Decrease expenditures.
Clinton raised some taxes, but he also cut services; he had a regime change in Yugoslavia to finance.
Lowbar hasn't raised taxes (GOPhux obstructionism)...and the wars just keep adding up.
Ergo, to reduce the 'deficit,' they HAD to reduce expenditures.
Clinton nominally raised taxes, but slick accountants (Arthur Anderson, anyone) and tax attorneys had work-arounds in place before the ink was dry. Services were cut, though rhetorically disguised in several ways, like 'ending welfare as we know it.'
Lowbar went full-on austerity, freezing gummint salaries and hiring, cutting programs, reducing services.
I'll give ya a hint: It WASN'T the military, the banks, the corporats, or wealthy white people.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Yer ol' perfesser (amply supplied with degrees (three and a half of 'em), all of which were paid for by the State, one way or another, what with the GI Bill, scholarships and assistantships) hopes everybody already knows that correlation does not imply causation?
Yes, the 'level' of one's formal education is to some (greater or lesser) extent correlated with income: a "higher level" of (formal) education is often part of the resume of wealthier, more 'successful' people.
But industry, gummint, and the Owners have constructed a mythology and an 'industry' (for-profit "colleges") around that correlation and have marketed it as if the relation were causal, when it is NOT.
Getting a "degree" will NOT lead to financial/economic/career "success."
It NEVER DID.
The myth constructs/portrays the phenomenon exactly bass-ackwards.
The relation upon which the myth is premised goes back to a period when only those who were of the 'upper-middle class' and 'higher' were ABLE (or permitted) to attend institutions of higher learning. The wealthy GOT degrees, but the degrees did not confer wealth or even the opportunity to gather it. Rather, a degree was often the signature of inherited status and the wealth that that implied.
But, to gin up revenues (and, not incidentally, to supply 'industry' with another tool by which to discriminate in hiring without appearing to do so), they owners and the institutions began to portray it the OTHER way, and so it has become, in the mythology of getting ahead.
Meanwhile, as the costs of 'higher education' escalate at rates far in excess of the rates of other, recently commodified social 'goods,' those aspiring to improve their chances in the rigged "game of Life" have been convinced that it is worth it, somehow, to mortgage their futures and voluntarily indenture themselves--and their families--with loans they 1) cannot hope to repay and 2) cannot escape through bankruptcy, the revenues of which enrich shysters and grifters in an "industry" created from the fabrics of hope and despair.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Yer ol' Perfesser, though NOT an expert on Arab/Israeli relations, would make this obvious assertion: "Israel" qua 'state,' will not EVER tolerate a fully sovereign Palestinian State, on the West Bank, or Gaza, or ANYWHERE.
It simply CANNOT.
This seems incredibly obvious to yer ol' Perfesser, for reasons tied to Real-Politik, odious as it is:
1) Palestinian statehood would mean all those Palestinian whom the Israelis have wronged--if not since 1947, then at least since 1990--would immediately have a legal forum in which to seek justice. As "stateless" people, they have no such status, now.
2) Palestinian statehood would mean the Israelis would have to actually negotiate in good faith on matters like water rights, territory, and shyared resources, including the oil/nat-gas reserves which are among the things that Israel hopes to secure by making Gaza uninhabitable.
3) Palestinian statehood would mean the Israeli "settlers" would be constrained by international law from occupying new settlements, destroying Arab orchards, confiscating property, etc. Settlements might have to be abandoned or restored to the original Arab owners.
4) Palestinian statehood would carry with it the 'Right of Return." All the hundreds of thousands of Arabs displaced since 1947 would theoretically have the right to return to their 'homeland,' on and by the same logic which permits Jews that right; and if THAT weren't enough to put the chgingies to any deal....
5)Palestinian statehood would mean the Palestinians would be entitled to have a military for "defensive" purposes: army, navy & air force, with bases, armories, and weapons all INSIDE Israel..For those and a score of other reasons, Israel, qua State, CANNOT and WILL NOT accept or tolerate an autonomous, sovereign, Palestinian state, and why the "two-state solution" will forever remain part of the "peace process," since it is impossible and therefore guarantees the peace process will never end, and nothing will upset the current arrangements.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Woody'd like to reiterate:
There are, I believe, probably at least four "good"--sensible, practical, and legal--reasons why the Busheviks won't ever face prosecution for their crimes. In no particular order:
---No Precedent. Precedent matters in such things as laws and prosecutions. Never in the history of the country has a successor regime tried to punish the executives of the prior regime. That's one of the reasons that power passes so seamlessly, so peacefully. Our "continuity" has largely depended on the tacit agreement that we "Don't Look Back."
---The Defense--"National Security"--would be irrebuttable to any jury. The answer to any question: Why? Because: Terrorists! Protecting the American people! Mooslims! UmmmmBooogerty!!!
---The Jury. The Busheviks still enjoy the support of about 30% of the populace. So, chances are that three or four members of any jury selected would be (at least, silent) Busheviks themselves and would not convict even on damning evidence.
---The Future. If Prez Lowbar WERE to have the temerity to bring the Chimpertor/Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice to 'justice,' he would not be five steps outside the WhiteHouse, in Jan, 2017, before the slammer'd be closing on his black ass.
There may be others, though I haven't thought of any more. However, I am not a Lawyer; but those are enough, I think.
There does still seem a very real possibility, however, that even NOT trying to bring the Bushevik war criminals to court probably won't help Prez. LowBar, after he's no longer in Office. I think it's entirely possible that, especially when/if theGOPhukkks take the WhiteHouse in '16, the Teahadists will try to lynch him, figuratively at least.