Saturday, February 28, 2004

The Miami Herald | 02/28/2004 | Our teachers are warriors, not terrorists

and a good editorial with a nice finish:
Educators, however, are increasingly critical that such reform places too much emphasis on the wrong things. They have loudly complained that the administration has not put its money where its mouth is. And so, the teachers' union, which has sought changes to the law, plans to sue over funding and how the law is enforced.

"Maybe in Paige's book, this kind of dissent makes people terrorists. Teachers, though, would probably say that what the 2002 law does is send warriors off to battle without the proper planning or the necessary backup.

Then again, aren't we already doing that halfway around the world?"
The Black Commentator - Bush Assaults Teacher Standards - Issue 79

Another interesting analysis of Paige's comments--but with a lot more context
BET.com - Head of the Nation's Largest Teacher Union Calls for Education Secretary to Resign

It is amazing to compare the BET version of this story about Rod Paige calling the NEA "Terrorists" with the CNN Version. While BET gives some credence to his remarks, they give the NEA the space to defend themselves against these charges. On the other hand, CNN frames it basically as a slip of words he shouldn't have said but ends with a series of quotes--not from the NEA themselves, explaining what it is they are upset about at the current moment, but from some stats such as "The NEA is headquartered in Washington where every year the organization spends about $1 million lobbying, according to The Associated Press" which seems to underhandedly support the secretary's frustration as legitimate. This is nothing compared to their lead in to the story:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" Monday as he argued that the country's largest teachers union often acts at odds with the wishes of rank-and-file teachers regarding school standards and accountability."

CNN leaves this sentiment out there and lets it be the unspoken truth. It goes on to basically continue with this framing of the NEA as some sort of democratic lobby group, only briefly quoting the NEA director, but instead quoting only Democratic party officials who had criticism for the Secretary. More importantly, CNN makes absolutely no mention of the No Child Left Behind Act which is the center of the debate, instead framing it as only a political issue between intractable polemical positions. Nevertheless, since the Secretary and the Bush administration are given most of the space at the beginning of the story, the frame is set up so that there is obviously a more correct political position to be had--and what a familiar position it is: you are either with us or you are with the terrorists.



Friday, February 27, 2004

The Process of Elimination

In my north Texas high school, one of the strategies we were taught for taking the ever present standardized test was the process of elimination: since there were a limited number of options on each question, if you didn’t know the right answer, you could start by trying to rule out all the answers that were obviously not right. After crossing off a number of the options, it would, theoretically clarify the decision making process and, perhaps, give you a greater chance of guessing correctly. Of course, for this strategy to work, there have to be a very limited number of options and you have to be able to eliminate some of those options right off the bat. Nevertheless, since it is presented as a viable option during those days before the test prep, it keeps you from having to learn too much ahead of time: you can just forge ahead with what you already know to be true, eliminating obviously false answers to a question.

Earlier this week, we witnessed Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan using his own process of elimination for how to handle the astounding deficit our charming president and his skilled plutocrats have produced for the coming year. Since we now live in a world where the logic of neo-liberal monetarism prevails, there were a number of options that were eliminated right off the bat. For instance, repealing the tax cuts given to the upper class was seen as an obviously wrong answer: we can eliminate that one without thinking because it is obviously the wrong thing to do.

Why is it the wrong thing to do? Well according to this line of thinking, tax cuts are designed to pump up the economy because, if rich people have more money, they will do something productive with it and we will all get a slice. Of course all of this is assuming that they use the money (not just putting it in savings or in a tax shelter offshore [it’s not a coincidence and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are just behind the USA in per capita GDP— http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html]) and they use it here (not setting up production in another country with a lower “competitive advantage” on labor.) But that is not for us to say: once the government gives them back “their” money, there isn’t much we can say about it. Nevertheless, the repeal of these cuts is eliminated as an option.

Likewise, cutting expenditures on the military is also off the table. The $430 billion combined expenditures of Homeland Security and the Defense Department which represent increases of 9.7% and 7.1% over last year, are not considered excessive (though $3 billion in veterans’ benefits did make it on the cutting room floor). No, despite the fact that defense is our largest discretionary expenditure, Reaganomics dictates that one must build that military ever larger, year by year (though now this military Keynsianism is again crippled since defense contractors can outsource their work to other countries with cheaper labor so even the argument that it creates jobs isn’t available: it’s just another hole in the sieve.) The current culture of fear seems to legitimize this expenditure—though it would seem much more likely to the average American that they will lose their home to a foreclosure due to job loss than in some weird scenario where someone brings a nuke into the country through an insecure port.

So, by process of elimination, Greenspan looked to one of the largest non-discretionary spending programs (i.e the mandatory program of Social Security) and recommended cutting those expenditures. One can look at this highly unpopular recommendation in several ways. One is that Greenspan is simply avoiding any critique of tax cuts or military expenditures because he is cowed by his term nearing an end. To continue as his role as the most powerful man in the world, he needs to be reappointed by Bush when his term ends on June 20. Thus he is trying not to say anything too overly critical lest he be deposed. This is a fairly cynical proposition, but not one I am prepared to fully dismiss. He may be an Objectivist, but the kind of power he has is rare and the prospect of having it revoked must be a heavy burden upon his shoulders: in this case, he shrugged. Its not that surprising since, even if he doesn’t get reappointed, he probably won’t be trying to make it until his next SS check comes.

On the other hand, one could read Greenspan’s message against the grain: in saying that we should keep the tax cuts, he doesn’t give Bush or his economic advisors any overt static and he stays the neo-liberal course. On the other hand, he gives them a very unpleasant option as a fixer. If we have to eliminate the elimination of the tax cuts, he seems to be saying, that’s fine: but in order to do that, we’ll just have to cut out the benefits that we’ve all been paying through our payroll taxes for years. By making what should have been an absolutely wrong solution (it’s a mandatory program) the only possibly answer, Greenspan could be indicating that, perhaps, he eliminated one answer prematurely. And, of course, whether he meant to say this or not, that is the message we should be reading from his proposal.

Of course the ultimate problem is that, as any educator worth their salt will tell you, all standardized tests are in some way biased. This one gives us a very limited number of options for fixing a slow economy so that the real process of elimination comes in the options that are not presented at all. The post-war economic models of using deficits to increase domestic production and purchasing power are off the table completely. Why not increase the minimum wage so that more people are included in the national economy and then there is a higher percentage of money flowing into the social security system? In the current free market system, this risks sending those corporations packing, off to other, more exploitable sources of labor (we should, of course, accept this movement of corporations as natural, inevitable, and unquestionable and any attempt to question it is a form of nationalist protectionism which we should now outgrow as it is outmoded and unscientific.) It helps this argument that people are already witnessing this happening even without raising minimum wage. Finally, right now, everyone who makes over $87,500 pays the same amount into Social Security: why not make people who earn more pay a higher percentage into Social Security? Well that’s a silly proposition: if we were going to do that, we might as well repeal that tax cut we gave a few of those people earlier this year.

No it would seem that, in the current era of standardized thinking, process of elimination tells us that this government can do little to help the current workforce: when the only recommendation to the current deficits is that we take money away from people who’ve already worked, process of elimination tells us that this government will probably do very little to help people who want to work now. Process of elimination should tell all of us that the first thing we should eliminate is a government such as this.

Thursday, February 26, 2004

As a side note, last day of the unit was today...and it should be quite a relief. However, what I realize is that I was working as hard and as long as I need to be working on a regular basis. I need to adjust my repair time or figure out a way to balance things so that I can get as much work done as I have in the past ew weeks--only this time more for myself. In retrospect, I can't remember anything I was working on or reading--or at least have lost the rhythm--before all of this started. I need to get back in that mindset and save all my wasting time for when Jill is around or there are things I have to do for me. Right now all of my pressure valve activities are wasteful uses of time. And time is short. Every day I get older and it is one more day I am not working towards my goals. Oh, and I need to establish some goals!

Field proposal for communication, culture, social formation: April 1--with bibliography and web-page set up
Field proposal for global political economy: June 1--bib and web page.

Feeling a bit pressed right now because there is simply so much to do and so little time to do it. Suddenly this course is over and it is time to start planning for the next two (or three if I count the intersession class.) This summer may be a bust of sorts unless I get a rhythm going on these fields. But I suppose it will be good if I am getting paid to teach two courses and getting the experience as well.

I am also feeling a bit pressed because I have so many projects I am working on (or need to be working on) and all of them are feeling a bit trite in the grand scheme of things. Ants marching, building little castles of information and knowledge for the next generation (or someone tomorrow) to knock over (or, I suppose, build upon.) I have less and less faith, however, in the forward progress of humanity: technology may improve, but people keep doing the same stupid s**t over and over. (Not saying s**t here because suddenly remembered I'm posting this to GMU's site and they probably have spiders all over it to catch anything indecent.)

In other news, Catherine, my cousin, has once again landed a great job. She must be amazing and she is obviously the jewel in the crown of her family--and for good reason: it was certainly a group effort in many ways to get her where she is. Of course most of this is the result of her hard work and talent. I hope that this job (working on General Hospital w/ a four year contract) does great things for her and her career. Or, more correctly, I am interested to see what someone as amazing as her will do with a part on daily TV. As talented as she is, she has a passionate flair for melodrama which even the soap opera world may be too small to contain. Either way, I am sure she'll have fun.

(I wish I could be more happy for her--and only just happy for her--but there is this part of me that, again, as always, feels completely inadequate, like I'm not pushing hard enough, which, of course, is true. But then again, catherine is supercharged, magnetized with some rare spiritual force that draws you into her orbit. I don't exude that charisma right now. I need to be screaming more, finding that fire in my gut, being henry not hugo. Henry not hugo. Or at least finding the henry to my hugo and letting him out more.)

MSNBC - My Turn: What I Never Learned at 'Mommy and Me'

In this latest Newsweek, there is an article by a Kathy Stevenson...she writes in the "My Turn Section" that is reserved for individuals to write in on their lives or experiences. I don't know much about the selection process or how Stevenson was given the space to air her views, but her article is striking as a contemporary perspective of the American parent.

Her basic argument--or woe, as it is better described--is that, basically, she thought that she (and her generation) had made a better life for their children, one where they wouldn't have to be afraid of opening letters or flying on airplanes:

I feel guilty because my generation seems to have been looking the other way, and we let our children down. Or maybe we weren't looking at all. We got blind-sided, sucker-punched in the worst way. We really did think we had it all: healthy IRA accounts and prosperity always on the horizon, Volvos in the driveway, college funds for our children, vacations at dude ranches.

But, of course, September 11 changed all of that. Now she wants to tell her son how sorry she is "that he has to hear words as terrible as jihad and anthrax." Where she once saw the world in its Volvoesque
perfection and rationality (and, of course, safety), she now feels this strong sense of parental guilt--not only because life seems less safe, but because it cannot be explained:

There is no way to explain what can't be explained. I have yet to hear any rational person explain how a young mother could attach explosives to her body, kiss her children goodbye and hours later blow herself up along with innocent civilians.

Again, the event which has suddenly shattered her worldview is predictable: "true logic, as I knew it, flew out the window on September 11."

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Troubling...grading student essays...come across this statement on alternative histories:

"There are two ways to look at history. There is the dominant way and the alternative way. The dominant way would be looking at it through the most common perspective and the alternative way would be having a different voice or opinion about the subject. A good example of this is the incident of 9-11. Americans look at this as a day that we were betrayed and attacked without warning. On the other hand, the Iraqis look at this as a day that they died for what they believed in, as a day of victory. The dominant history would be the one of the Americans and of many other countries where we felt that we were attacked abruptly and very harshly with our own weapons. We felt that this was a very tragic day where a lot of good innocent people died. On the other hand, the alternate to this history is that the Iraqis led by Sadam Hussein felt that this day was very victorious and some even died for this cause. Alternative history is something that we have been discussing all week in class and have read about a lot. I am going to be using some of the readings to explain this topic and give examples."

This student refuses to read almost anything for the class so I can imagine how difficult it would be to sway her opinion with something like an alternative newspaper. This view was not created by any one source; it would seem to be the development of a defense mechanism of some kind, a willfull deception to prevent the cognitive dissonance that would come with admitting you are at war with another country for no reason at all. Further, the sort of radical relativism that she and other students adopt also seems to go hand in hand with this. Students (Americans? People?) who have only been schooled by unread textbooks and the evening news and can initially only absorb the perspectives of an alternative history if they can equally dismiss them as simply a counterbalance or as an "alternative" that one can simply choose not to consume completely--like alternative rock or an alternative lifestyle: it's fine for them, but it's not my cup of tea.