Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Blaming Victims, Prez Lowbar Calls for "Excellent Teachers"



Yer ol' Perfesser worked in the Teacher Ed field for 15 years, so I feel supremely confident when I call "BULLSHIT" on Prez Febreez S. Lowbar and his ass-whole pal, Arne Duncan, the dyed-in-the-wool corporatist stooge and lackey of the privatizers, for this cheap fucking trick. Nothing is beneath them!

By putting the onus on teachers, he transfers responsibility from the 'institution' of schooling'--to which the ECONOMIC forces contribute far more than academic ones--onto the persons most vulnerable and easiest to scapegoat: teachers..."Access to excellence" is just another fucking PR gimmick to blame teachers for conditions over which they have no fucking control.

There are exceptions, but in general, beyond elementary school, no individual teacher has any (enough) exposure to the VAST majority of their students beyond the hour or so when they're in class.

Yet the Obama/Duncan Ed Dept--at the behest of Broad, Pearson, Gates, and the rest--wanna blame teachers for ALL the social failures that descend on unfortunate kids.

I'm positive/SURE that this camouflages another attack on teachers' unions...GayronTEED chers.
TEACHERS are NOT the "PROBLEM."

TEACHERS are NOT the "SOLUTION," either.

But focusing on teachers is a very useful stratagem for blaming the least powerful members of the educational equation for the problems which thje wider ECONOMIC culture will NOT address.

The ONLY thing Lowbar S. Febreez is worried about, now, is his "legacy."

That is gonna depend on the MSM/SCUM press's assessments of his performance.

And that's gonna depend on how closely he cleaves to the requirements of the oligarchs like Gates, Broad, Pearson and the rest of the privatizers.

One can NEVER go far wrong if you impute the basest of motives to the grandest proposals of the Ed. Dept/CorpoRat deformers. One may NEVER be too cynical about this.

They DON'T care about "students" except as profit centers.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Winners & Losers.



Woody'd only note, however, that the majority of those achievements were accomplished BEFORE the ascent of the Raygoons; many, indeed were "won" in the 19th Century or in the New Deal, and are steadily being rolled back. The record, lately, is far bleaker:

Conservatives opposed single payer health-care.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives opposed extending unemployment benefits.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost...
Conservatives opposed equal pay for equal work.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives oppose closing Gitmo.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives opposed regulations on campaign spending.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives oppose immigration reform.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives proposed reducing SNAP.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives opposed VW unionization in Tennessee.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives proposed reducing EPA funding and cutting inspection.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives proposed gutting the Voting Rights Act.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives proposed MORE restrictions on women's choice.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost..
Conservatives propose privatizing public services, including schools.
Conservatives are winning/Liberals lost.
Conservatives oppose thye separation of Church & State.
Conservatives are winning
/Liberals lost.

Conservatives support private prisons.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost.
Conservatives oppose taxing the wealthy.
Conservatives win/Liberals lost.
Conservatives opposed prosecuting banksters for the 2008 "crash."
Conservatives won/Liberals lost.
Conservatives support corporate personhood.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost.
Conservatives support GMO farming, oppose GMO labeling.
Conservatives won/Liberals lost...
Shall I go on?

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Way We "ARE"!

Here's how propaganda works, in less than three minutes. Everything you ever wanted to know. Do you feel great yet?

Friday, February 14, 2014

The Road to Skye...

In Scotland, the back-roads are almost all one-lane wide, with turn-outs about every quarter mile. On-coming traffic races one another to get past the closest turn-out before the auto coming from the other direction does, thereby forcing them to stop and wait for you. That's where this guy, former world F-1 and Indy champion, Jackie Stewart, learned to do it. This video, which I don't own, and claim only fair use consideration for, features Stewart narrating a tour around the "old" Nurburgring, in the hills and forests of the Rhineland, south of Bonn. This is the track which Stewart , himself, memorably named"The Green Hell." Growing up on Scottish roads would have prepared him well. I attended races there in '65 (Jim Clark won) and '66 (Jack Brabham), and in between got to drive the circuit--it's public roads, or it was then--in a speedy little Fiat coupe...

Welcome To The NFL: Not Sams' Club?

How Woody Seezit: The Dallas sports guy, Hansen, has got it spot on. Bingo. Cha-Ching.

But, unfortunately, I believe the NFL will exact a punishment on Sams, for making an "issue" of his sexuality, and making the league face the issue head-on. He holds up a mirror to the league, and they don't like how they look.  By his announcement, Sams made the NFL "look bad."

That's because "The League" (really, a single, corporate entity with 30 franchises) would rather not have to deal with this. Their dilemma is that by accepting Sams, they risk alienating a pretty large portion of their "fan base," many of whom are of the same persuasion as those cracker asswholes who murdered Matthew Shepard a decade ago and hung his body on a fence like vermin. They'll balk at paying to watch "faggots" on the field, and it would hurt revenues.

But if they don't accept Sams--named and widely acknowledged the BEST defensive player in the BEST conference in the country, the SEC--then they look like the intolerant cracker asswholes--which. of course, they consumately are--but that sort of admission, even de facto, will generate acres of bad press, too.

So Sams coming out put the "League"  in a "no win" situation, and they can be expected to extract some sort of vengeance.

Which is why I think there's a high probably he will NOT be drafted at all, and almost CERTAINLY not in the high rounds, where his signing would be seen as a signal of at least tacit approval.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

The Breitbartian Taint: Snowden, Greenwald, and Secrecy



Woody has been remarkably and commendably circumspect about Edward Snowden and Greenwald's free-lance espionage escapades to this point. Much of interest has been revealed, much more--one suspects--has not.

As you'd know, if they still taught history when you were in school, our government has been doing shit like this since at LEAST the 1870s. Only then it was the Wobblies, or the nigras, or the Irish, then Italian immigrants, or the socialists, or suffragettes, or the Mexicans, or some other acceptably marginalized group (civil rights workers, student activists, more recently), so that the good burghers didn't feel imposed upon. Now those complacent burghers feel like they're being cast with the ni**ers and the rest of the undesirables, and they don't like it; their tits are in the wringer, and they're squealing.

But it's too late for that. That ship done sailed...

For now, many, many people have very, very much different stuff invested in the Greenwald version of the story. It seems to be a huge cudgel to wield against o'er-weening power of the State. But Greenwald's a libertarian bomb-thrower, and I doubt his allegiance to principle of any kind other than self-interest. Though he's a brilliant self-promoter, you have to give that to him...

And, I've felt all along like something about Snowden "clanged." Something was "off," something was "not right."

It turns out there may have been quite a LOT was and is "off," about both of them AND the story. Its author, Milt Shook, is not an unimpeachable source, either, being accused by detractors of indiscriminately fellating the leadership of the DLC, upon occasion.

Still, I have said and felt since Day 1 of this affair that there was always the troubling whiff of the dissembling, Breitbartian provocateur about Snowden and about the whole proceeding, like Jamie O'Keefe and ACORN, the skeevey little shit "proving" a fallacious point just to create shitstorms of trouble for ideological foes. Greenwald's enough of an opportunist to exploit (or even plot) it.

So I do not give perfect credence to EITHER account. I have my own confirmation bias to deal with; but, I believe I stand confirmed in my doubts, if we may believe this report in any of its particulars...

Which is debatable, of course. Indeed, someone inquired why I should believe this account, or give it more credence than reports by Snowden's coworkers as to his "humble brilliance?"

I said, I see no reason to "believe in" the persona Snowden's projected 'at work,' where, he has as much as admitted he was working as a mole.

Yes indeed, the revelations may  spawn a necessary "national dialogue"--though it should have happened generations ago. It was a common-place among the members of the counter-culture for their business to be reported by moles and impostures. We complained. It didn't stop.

I'll gladly, NOW, admit the need for 'dialogue" on the subject, though it is altogether, utterly unlikely to result in significantly curtailing intel-gathering and analysis activities of all 16 federal bureaus and 2000(+) private corporations doing the Gummint's snooping and analysis. (and arguably, dangerous in a world where EVERY nation possesses and deploys all the intelligence-gathering resources they can afford to posses in pursuit of the same goals).

It may be that  am too cynical, but I'm not sure what's gonne result from this "national debate."
We have 'em all the time, and they're generally fruitless:
Guns, Choice, Wars, Safety Net, Banks/Markets, Corporat Personhood?
We are supposed to have had robust, national debates about all of those. Yet pretty much, the status quo ante obtains.

And, as the FISA/Church Act reforms demonstrated in their failure to prevent the expansion of the Intel mission, the exigencies of global real-politik will compelled (within the epistemic structure of the institution)  them to "stretch" and even break the law. As the "State" is the natal ground of the ends-justifying-means rationality, it is a bit hypocritical to blame it for that means of being, no matter how much we abhor it.

Here's a list of the the countries which have espionage/intel agencies. Many are maintained by nations which are adversaries and/or enemies of the US Empire. For a nation and empire--the largest, richest, most powerful, most despised, most dangerous in history-- which stands (still) atop the pyramid of global power, unilateral disarmament on this front would be as foolhardy, as dangerous as unilaterally disarming the military.

And that's NAGAHAPUN, either.