Allies in the struggle? Not so fast

  Skipping right over rap/hip-hop, uninvolved and irresponsible parents, and video games, the usual scapegoats blamed for all social evils, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently placed much of the blame on the declining quality of US schools and education at the feet of the nation's schools, colleges, and departments of Education.

In a speech last Thursday at Columbia University's Teachers College, the nation's oldest and largest School of Education, Sec Duncan described what he sees as the role that the majority of teacher preparation programs play in producing mediocre teachers who then produce mediocre students.

Though he did note that there were exceptions, Sec Duncan's speech was an evisceration of higher education programs that seek to train future teachers. If you closed your eyes and tried hard enough you might have thought you were listening to the group who wrote A Nation at Risk in 1983.

It's good to know that as much as things may change, some things remain forever constant - always blame those in lower positions than you.

The Dept of Education press release describing the speech may be found here, and the full text of Sec Duncan's speech may be viewed here. You may also download a video of the speech here. The video is free, but you do need itunes. Time magazine ran an article on the Secretary's speech and the current administration's views on education.

Take a good look: This is the right

Not everyone whose political beliefs fall somewhere on the right side of the spectrum are racist, ignorant, violent people. But unless and until the smart, sane, and humane folks on the right stand up and speak out, this is the face of their movement. The pictures here come from a collection of similar beauties. Please take a look at these horrifying pictures from the DC this weekend and pass them on.

And do not think for a moment that this will simply go away. Ignoring hate and violence has NEVER resulted in it disappearing.

Special thanks to Tim Wise for the heads-up on these pics. And more broadly, thanks to Tim for being an articulate, intelligent voice trying to draw attention to dire state of affairs related to our collective social consciousness, or more appropriately the lack thereof.

And check out Tim's latest appearance on CNN yesterday. Reacting to this segment and the several others Tim has done recently, today Lou Dobbs called Tim a "self-loathing creep." Responding to this comment, one that he takes as a compliment, Tim said, "Once again, to say that a white person condemning white racism is 'self-loathing' is like saying the very essence of being white is to BE a racist: that loving oneself as a white person requires endorsing white racism. Wow, Lou apparently doesn't think very much of white people...ironic, dontcha' think."

Religion, lovely religion

Been slacking on the posting, so thought I'd post something to feel better about myself. Seems sort of redundant to say that, as having a blog is presumably all about engaging in activities in the general realm feeling better about yourself.

Nevertheless, working on a post that, like all my other posts, is much longer than I anticipated. I'm such a long-winded gasbag. Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to a couple items in the media from the past couple days that caught my eye.

First is a great piece in yesterday's (Sept 13) NY Times Sunday Magazine on the advocacy/activist/lobbying group J-Street. J-Street is pro-Israel group that acts as an alternative to AIPAC and other such hawkish, neo-con, anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim groups. As Founder & Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami said in the piece

We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, 'Israel, right or wrong.'

You should check out the piece and contribute to the work J-Street is doing.

The second piece is from Friday's online version of the Daily Telegraph. The piece discusses the difficulties a British film about Charles Darwin is having finding a distributor in the US because folks in the film industry think the subject is too controversial. In other words, the US is too religious and conservative to understand and appreciate a film about a man whose scientific discoveries came at a time after a profound crisis of faith. Or, and perhaps more to the point, too many Americans believe in magic, people returning from the dead, giant boats that housed two of every animal, and talking shrubbery (ie are dumb as shit) to even see a movie that may question their beliefs.

And you thought the tea party dumbasses were an aberration? Come on now.

Disrespecting the dead: Healthcare Reform and Kennedy's legacy

Back from hiatus, more crumudgeony than ever.

I appreciate the sentiment of those who have suggested that if/when our esteemed members of Congress pass healthcare reform that the legislation be named after the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But appreciating this sentiment does not mean that I agree with it.

There are two major motives that seem to be driving folks to call for such an action. The first is fairly straightforward – Kennedy spent much of his career and life fighting for equity, and healthcare was one of his primary foci. Naming healthcare reform after him would be a symbolic move that would forever link his legacy to the legislation he fought so long and hard for. Though he died before it became a reality, naming the legislation after him would serve as a reminder for what can happen when you fight the good fight. This line of thinking is well intentioned, but is guided by an incredible amount of naivety, ignorance, romanticism, and sentimentalism. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

The other motive for attaching Kennedy’s name to healthcare reform is far more pragmatic. When the final draft of the bill(s) that represents healthcare reform finally makes it to the floors of the House and Senate, most assume it will not include a public option. Progressives (there are some left) have voiced their displeasure with this possibility, with many stating that they will not vote on such a bill. Attaching Kennedy’s name to the bill will then put progressives in the unenviable position of having to vote against a piece of legislation with a title like “The Kennedy Healthcare Reform Act”.

Voting with a conscience, instead of with an eye on reelection and superficiality will certainly have consequences. The media will harp on the name and how unconscionable it is to disrespect the legacy of Kennedy by voting against a bill with his name attached to it; they will pat little attention to the reasons why a Representative or Senator might engage in such a dangerous political act. It will be difficult for these elected officials to explain such a move to their constituents, the vast majority of whom get their news from said asinine sources and have no real understanding of what is and isn’t in the legislation, to say nothing of their ignorance of Kennedy and his beliefs. And here is the bridge between this point and the first motive I spoke about.

Much larger than this individual issue is the issue of the American public’s lack of understanding of history and social policy. I’m not suggesting that these are the only areas where we are an ignorant nation, but they are particularly troubling, and particularly relevant to this discussion.

Whether you like Ted Kennedy or not, and whether you favor a publicly funded health insurance system is not important in this context. What is important is that you at least understand and acknowledge that Ted Kennedy believed in and fought for the creation of a healthcare system that would provide healthcare to all. He believed in universal care, plain and simple. He didn’t fight to lower the costs and increase access a little bit. He believed that all people should be treated the same when it comes to quality of medical care. Your income (or inheritance) should not afford you better care. He understood that not all enterprises should be for-profit, and he named healthcare as one.

Unfortunately we live in a world where the government is seen as evil. Anything government-run is seen as evidence of a turn towards socialism, and socialism is constructed as a system akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. These overly simplistic representations of complex ideologies serve as a means to perpetuate a capitalist system that has lead us down a road of widening disparity, while simultaneously dumbing us down. Ask Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Malkin, and the rest just how much Marx they’ve read. Then ask yourself. Now tell me how qualified you are to name any system or policy as socialist, let alone connect a connotation to it.

We have to own up to the fact that we have become a dumb, fat, and lazy culture. The internet has provided us with the means for virtually unlimited discovery. But instead of being more informed of the nuances of policy or delving into examinations and critiques of the social conditions we live in, we want more news on the Bachelor and Jon & Kate. It’s pathetic; but it’s not nearly as pathetic as naming healthcare reform without a public mandate (fuck that option shit) after Ted Kennedy would be.

And spare me with the Kennedy saw Obama as the savior, and if this is Obama’s plan Kennedy would be cool with it talk. Kennedy supported Obama because the only real lefty with a remote possibility of getting the nomination (John Edwards) was quickly jettisoned from the conversation of realistic candidates. Two candidates for one party’s nomination was already too much for the media to handle. Throw in a third candidate who was taking about issues the others weren’t – like poverty and racism – and the collective talking heads would combust. So Kennedy backed Obama, in large part because his healthcare plan looked more like Edwards’ than Hillary’s did.

But soon after being elected Obama showed himself for who he is, who his record shows him to be – a good, honest, often well-intentioned person who is a capitalist at the trough just like virtually everyone else on The Hill. He believes insurance should be a for-profit enterprise. Saying otherwise might get us somewhere, but he’d have to believe it first.

I’m not the biggest Ted Kennedy fan in the world. I think he did some wonderful things as a legislator, and I think he did some not-so-wonderful things too – No Child Left Behind comes to mind when I think of the latter. But I’m knowledgeable enough about what he stood for, what he believed in, and what he fought for, to know that any healthcare reform that continues to perpetuate the existing system of a few people getting rich at the expense of the poor health of the many is not something he would champion. I’m not glad he died, but I am glad he didn’t have to live to see this.

Lindsey Graham's Shocking Defense of Choice

Was Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) using yesterday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as an opportunity to announce to the world that he has changed his mind on the issue of reproductive rights? Is the noted and outspoken anti-choice zealot now pro-choice? Check out this quote from yesterday:

Here's what I will say about you. I don't know how you're going to come out on [a second amendment case]. Because I think fundamentally, Judge, you're able, after all these years of being a judge, to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself, to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you but for the group, they're necessary. That is my hope for you. That's what makes you to me more acceptable as a judge and not an activist because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change America through the Supreme Court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.

As you can tell by the brackets used to refer to the context in which he was speaking, Graham's statement was not made in reference to the issue of a woman's right to choose. No, it was made in reference to an issue Graham (and Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, Corburn, and the rest of the oppressed white guy gang) find far more important - the right to own a gun.

Political and social issues should be examined individually; no individual issue is the same as any other, and it is far too easy to make false analogies. Similarly, the rationale we all use to come to conclusions on where we stand on individual issues is not always the same. Sometimes the rationale we use to explain our position on one issue seems to contradict the rationale we use for another.

But the philosophical rationale Graham states is a somewhat transitive one. Essentially he is advocating for the need to recognize the fact that belonging to any group necessitates embracing the notion that individuals within the group should be allowed to make choices that you may find to be problematic, perhaps even antithetical to your own sense of morality. This is particularly the case when it comes to reproductive rights, where so many on the anti-choice side base their position on theological beliefs and/or a belief in when human life begins. Neither of these are provable or universally held.

The ideology Graham articulates is exactly what the pro-choice movement is all about, and it is why the anti-choice folks' use of the term pro-abortion to describe those who are pro-choice couldn't be more inappropriate.

The clip was difficult to find, and the only place I could find it was on C-SPAN's website. I embedded the clip below, and you can also link to the clip here.

The quote above comes from around the 46:55 mark. Enjoy.

Compromise on Public Option is Not Acceptable

Since June we've known that there are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) that plan to vote against any healthcare legislation that does not provide for a robust public option. Yesterday we finally saw the list of the 50 members of the House who plan to hold firm to their belief that a Democrat in the White House and 60 in the Senate is the right time to advance legislation that actually meets the needs of the 47 million Americans without healthcare. The list may be seen here. Follow the link and you will also see a list of an additional 11 members who are apparently leaning towards voting against a plan without a robust public option.

Firedoglake has been instrumental in putting pressure on the members of the CPC, as well as reporting on the issue. They have a great tool on their site that provides the names and contact info of all the CPC members and where they stand on the issue. Please contact these folks and urge them to hold firm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the argument is that the federal government can't do anything right, why is the right so worried about private insurance companies' inability to compete with a government program? If the ideology is all about competition, and the government can provide better and cheaper services, why is that a bad thing?

I know that part of the answer is that it is unfair for the federal government to use its size and accompanying power to essentially create a monopoly that makes it unfair and virtually impossible for private businesses to compete. In fact, we have anti-trust laws that prohibit such actions. But if we engage in a meaningful and critical discussion about this particular issue, and don't simply accept this rationale on face-value, we then must ask if healthcare is just like every other commodity and/or service, or if it is inherently different?

To equate healhcare with any other enterprise (and that is unfortunately what it has become) is to dehumanize us all, particularly low-income folks and people of color who are disproportionately impacted by the disparities in access to and quality of care. We must stop prioritizing the GNP, GDP, and shareholders' needs over the fundamental right all people in every other indutrialized nation currently have to healthcare. Let's join the ranks already.

And it's enough already with the government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor bullshit defense of for-profit insurance. The imagery of people dying in emergency waiting rooms and while they wait for approval for a necessary procedure is real, it's just misplaced. It's happening now as insurance companies look for ways to beef up their bottom lines, no matter the human costs. These costs, after all, are just another number on a ledger. Who thinks the current system that places a profit-driven technocrat between you and your doctor is working well? Find a doctor or a person who is not wealthy that does and get back to me.

The time for compromise, appeasement, and comforting rhetoric is over. The time to pass sweeping changes to healthcare is now. We all have a part to play. Now, let's play it. It is vital that we contact the elected officials who have the power to force an end to this conciliatory bullshit and make the Congress and the President act in a significant way. There are already signs of waffling, so let's get to it. If we don't act now, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Legacy Lost in the Shuffle

Been wrestling with the need to write about the passing of Robert McNamara. I just watched an episode of Charlie Rose where he replayed interviews with McNamara from episodes in 1995 and 2003. The 2003 episode was an interview with McNamara and Errol Morris. Morris is the noted documentarian who made The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning film about McNamara's life and career. I highly recommend viewing the The Fog of War, and you can see parts of the Rose interviews here:




With that said, here are some thoughts.

It's been seven days since the passing of Robert McNamara. He died Monday, July 6 at the age of 93. I know it's a recurring theme in my blog entries, but it must be noted that the media coverage of his death, and more importantly what he did during his life, has been embarrassingly scant.

McNamara served as Defense Secretary for JFK & LBJ, and is known as one of the primary architects of the Vietnam War, as well as the US bombings in Laos and Cambodia. He will forever be remembered (for those who care to give a shit about history that isn't about which celebrities are fucking each other) as being part of the brain-trust that contributed to the death of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Americans.

But it is the role he played in that circle, as a voice clamoring for death and war, for the eradication of the evils of Communism across the globe, that desperately needs attention. His legacy is that of a technocrat, far removed from the brutality and realities of war, who advanced and helped create the modern industrial military complex.

It is imperative, particularly now as we are mired in two wars (regardless of when troops pull out of city limits, we're still engaged in war) that were planned, justified, and now are being executed (in terms of the plans and accompanying PR spin) by individuals (almost exclusively white men) who built careers much like McNamara's.

McNamara is important not just because of what he did, though that certainly is important in its own right. But if we take a broader look, it is possible to view the significance of his decisions and deeds as being overshadowed by the manner by and through which he institutionalized roles and careers like his and the modern-day neocon hawks and neoliberal cheerleaders of globalization that now orchestrate, dictate, and articulate our foreign policies and the perspectives they normalize.

As someone whose just getting into this whole blog writing genre, I think it's better to collect and refer you to the writings of others who have already articulated much of what needs to be said. These things need to not only be said, but they need to be thought about, remembered, and more importantly taught.

We need to speak up about the time in our history that McNamara influenced so profoundly in an effort to illustrate how what we normalize and take for granted today related to the professionalization of careers predicated on the existence of bad guys and evil-doers, death, destruction, and the annihilation of peoples with divergent viewpoints (particularly those in poor and brown/black populated nations) is a construction that happened in a particular moment. It is not normal or natural; it has only been made to seem that way.

With that, I urge you to read the following:

Great piece by Michael Lind on Salon.com on the bipartisanship of blaming the Vietnam War on McNamara.

Joseph Galloway's commentary on taking pleasure in reading McNamara's obit.

Andrew Lam arguing that McNamara's mea culpa and purported hindsight still failed to grasp the gravity of his role in Vietnam.

Sam Smith of the Huffington Post interviews Errol Morris on his thoughts of the life of Robert McNamara.

The obit that the AP, Huff Post, and others ran.

Short piece by Joseph Nye on redemption and reflection, both of self and others.

Joe Costello offers an interesting lens through which to view McNamara by comparing and contrasting his life, legacy, and the meanings they were built on and helped build to those of Hunter S. Thompson.

And finally, I'll leave you with a weird video clip and accompanying text of McNamara reading reading Dylan Thomas' The Hand that Signed the Paper. This was a scene from the previously mentioned Errol Morris that was deleted and was not included in the final cut of the film. Self-awareness escapes us all, and all we can hope is a degree is knowledge about ourselves. Perhaps more dangerous than not engaging in this pursuit that we know will never come to an end and will only produce minimum results is the belief that you are more in touch with who you are than in fact is the case. This is all comes to life here: