Editor Sachetti’s recent choice for an “education reform” Op-Ed is thin on fact and long on thinly veiled propaganda for America, Inc.’s newest appropriation of a public good: education. “Online schools do more with less” by The Heartland Institute’s Ben Boychuk and Bruno Behrend is a billboard for privatizing public education by replacing it with enterprises that use tax dollars to fund FOR-PROFIT ventures (Think: Phoenix). The “hybrid” examples B&B offer—the Khan Academy, for example—aren’t the schools your children would attend if B&B had their way (unless you’re rich).
In fact, there’d be no PUBLIC education at all, and this is the real message of this editorial.
The Heartland Institute: a rightwing think-tank whose “Tea Party Tool Box” mission is to promote corporate interests (major donors: Big-Tabacco/Big-Energy) and the conversion of public services into for-profits. In addition to denying climate change, opposing all environmental regulation (including clean water laws), and promoting the deregulation of healthcare, Heartland advocates “education reform” that would funnel tax dollars to private schools, including parochial schools.
Setting aside violations of the Establishment Clause, “letting the money follow the child,” and “parental choice” is code for transforming tax dollars into venture capital. As the hybrid examples show, moreover, “privatize” is code for transforming “brick and mortar” into cyberspace, and hence into a caricature of what an excellent educational experience should be.
No doubt, public education in the United States needs to be far better, but the notion that the solution is to privatize and corporatize a fundamental public good, vanquishing the classroom, makes about as much sense as allowing BP, Phillip-Morris, Aetna, the natural gas industry, or Bank of America to regulate themselves. We all know who gets screwed—our kid’s futures.
Privatizing public education is inconsistent with democratic principle: without the pressure of good public education accessible to every child, (a) curriculum will be determined by ideological, religious and/or market demands, and (b) only the wealthy will have the opportunity to become truly educated. Heartland includes pictures of brown kids on their website, but this isn’t because they’re looking to equalize education for the disadvantaged; it’s because they can leverage the fears of economically vulnerable families (and the racism that equates “brown” with “poor”) into accepting an inferior on-line “education” that comes with the false promise of jobs.
Boychuk claims that because the Constitution says nothing explicitly about education, it should be left to the states, that doing so will “empower parents.” Nonsense. He knows tax dollars siphoned away from public schools by edu-corporations will insure their demise, and thus the demise of their unions, the real obstacle to the rise of the edu-industry. He knows that poor kids will be left to the public schools whose languishing revenues will not be able to keep up with America, Inc’s education “market,” a “market” every bit as free as Big-Energy, Big-Box, Big-Bank, Big-Pharma, and Big-Health—that is, it will have us by the proverbial cojones.
No surprise, of course, that Sachetti would choose this editorial—if it opposes education, who cares about motives? But you’d think he’d do better research. Boychuk’s “Constitutionalism” is a lie; he advocates repealing the 14th amendment: “Birthright citizenship, a medieval idea, has no place in our Constitution.” He calls it “wrong and crazy,” revealing his real motives—a nation of citizens selected for their “rightness” for America, that is, for their ability to pay for America Inc’s newest product: education—Inc.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (571 words)
Showing posts with label Anti-Islamic bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Islamic bigotry. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
I can’t imagine a better example of hypocrisy than the hysterically racist reaction to the building of an Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero.
Catered via FOX Schmew’s political hacks—Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck (who claims to channel “The Spirit”), this non-issue has become the Summer Blockbuster for the Republican Tea Party whose corporate sponsors will do anything to win seats in the November mid-term elections.
And they might; they play the “sucker born every day” card very well.
Contrary to the claim that Tea Partiers are “pimps for the plutocracy,” they’re really just prostitutes for corporate America suckered by euphemisms about how they’re standing up for liberty; the only thing they’re standing up for is their own continued exploitation by America, Inc. Corporate sponsors like Rupert Murdoch, Dick Armey, and the Koch brothers are the pimps—making millions by suckering white folks into believing that the world as we know it is coming to an end, and the people to blame are the poor and/or the brown, and/or Muslim.
Think the “grass roots uprising” over the “9-11 mosque” was some spontaneous outcry for 9-11 victims? Think again. This charade is bankrolled by Murdoch and Koch who, by fanning the flames of religious bigotry, have exploited the horror of 9-11 for their profit margins. Why pay attention to Koch’s John Birch Society legacy? Why worry the environmental/human-health impact of his stalwart resistance to any regulation at his pollution-spewing factories? Why worry about Murdoch’s takeover of the media?
No—we have Muslims to hate, and a First Amendment to despoil.
Tea Party Republican bigotry doesn’t end at the “mosque.” The same folks who believe that Feisal Abdul Rauf is bent on training terrorists on U.S. soil are likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim (terrorist), that he’s not an American citizen, that “death panels” are part of healthcare reform, that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9-11 and/or harbored WMDs, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different historical roots, and that the first amendment’s establishment clause excludes “radical” religions.
We need search no further than 30 Seconds’ Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-Lysk, Got-guns-Heller, How-about-genocide-Brobst, Ditch-the-14th-amendment-Pushinaitis, and Brown-people-are-herd-animals-Harter to see what prostitution for America, Inc. looks like. According to a recent Newsweek article (www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe), one in three Americans would deny freedom of religion to “fringe” faiths. Yet, 21% believe in “sorcerers, conjurers, and warlocks,” 41% in ESP, 32% in ghosts, and 25% in astrology.
Is it any wonder that we’re so easily suckered by America, Inc.’s exploitation of fear, suspicion, and bigotry?
No wonder at all, even when there’s no issue: the first amendment is no more subject to hand-wringing about our feelings than is my right to speak in a public venue, however unpopular.
There’s no more mystery about whether Muslims have a right to build a community center than there is in the fourteenth amendment about who counts as a citizen. Our Constitution guarantees us religious freedom; the fourteenth amendment insures that birth in the U.S. grants citizenship. Yet those who cry loudest for a return to the founders, who insist on “strict constitutionalism,” are the first to interject riders and exceptions—suckered by pimps like Glenn Beck whose, as John Stewart puts it, “I Have a Scheme” rally not only aims to bastardize the legacy of Martin Luther King, but make millions off “reclaiming” the civil rights movement—for white people.
Think the dollars from this event will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation? Think again, and read the rider: After the events bills are paid. AKA: After Beck, Palin, and their corporate sponsors get “theirs.”
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (597 words)
Catered via FOX Schmew’s political hacks—Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck (who claims to channel “The Spirit”), this non-issue has become the Summer Blockbuster for the Republican Tea Party whose corporate sponsors will do anything to win seats in the November mid-term elections.
And they might; they play the “sucker born every day” card very well.
Contrary to the claim that Tea Partiers are “pimps for the plutocracy,” they’re really just prostitutes for corporate America suckered by euphemisms about how they’re standing up for liberty; the only thing they’re standing up for is their own continued exploitation by America, Inc. Corporate sponsors like Rupert Murdoch, Dick Armey, and the Koch brothers are the pimps—making millions by suckering white folks into believing that the world as we know it is coming to an end, and the people to blame are the poor and/or the brown, and/or Muslim.
Think the “grass roots uprising” over the “9-11 mosque” was some spontaneous outcry for 9-11 victims? Think again. This charade is bankrolled by Murdoch and Koch who, by fanning the flames of religious bigotry, have exploited the horror of 9-11 for their profit margins. Why pay attention to Koch’s John Birch Society legacy? Why worry the environmental/human-health impact of his stalwart resistance to any regulation at his pollution-spewing factories? Why worry about Murdoch’s takeover of the media?
No—we have Muslims to hate, and a First Amendment to despoil.
Tea Party Republican bigotry doesn’t end at the “mosque.” The same folks who believe that Feisal Abdul Rauf is bent on training terrorists on U.S. soil are likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim (terrorist), that he’s not an American citizen, that “death panels” are part of healthcare reform, that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9-11 and/or harbored WMDs, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different historical roots, and that the first amendment’s establishment clause excludes “radical” religions.
We need search no further than 30 Seconds’ Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-Lysk, Got-guns-Heller, How-about-genocide-Brobst, Ditch-the-14th-amendment-Pushinaitis, and Brown-people-are-herd-animals-Harter to see what prostitution for America, Inc. looks like. According to a recent Newsweek article (www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe), one in three Americans would deny freedom of religion to “fringe” faiths. Yet, 21% believe in “sorcerers, conjurers, and warlocks,” 41% in ESP, 32% in ghosts, and 25% in astrology.
Is it any wonder that we’re so easily suckered by America, Inc.’s exploitation of fear, suspicion, and bigotry?
No wonder at all, even when there’s no issue: the first amendment is no more subject to hand-wringing about our feelings than is my right to speak in a public venue, however unpopular.
There’s no more mystery about whether Muslims have a right to build a community center than there is in the fourteenth amendment about who counts as a citizen. Our Constitution guarantees us religious freedom; the fourteenth amendment insures that birth in the U.S. grants citizenship. Yet those who cry loudest for a return to the founders, who insist on “strict constitutionalism,” are the first to interject riders and exceptions—suckered by pimps like Glenn Beck whose, as John Stewart puts it, “I Have a Scheme” rally not only aims to bastardize the legacy of Martin Luther King, but make millions off “reclaiming” the civil rights movement—for white people.
Think the dollars from this event will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation? Think again, and read the rider: After the events bills are paid. AKA: After Beck, Palin, and their corporate sponsors get “theirs.”
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (597 words)
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Case Study in the Forfeiture of Journalistic Intergrity: The Press Enterprise's Jim Sachetti
To the editor,
Were there any doubt that Jim Sachetti should be replaced as PE-Editor, that is now settled. The publishing of Carter Clews’ misleading, racist “Barack Hussein Obama” tirade concerning the Fort Hood massacre leaves no room to speculate on Sachetti’s editorial irresponsibility.
Clews’ claim that Obama “soft-peddles” on Islamic terrorism is false. Obama, 7.25.08, Berlin: “This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan…The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda…We have too much at stake to turn back now.” What Carter really means is that anyone who opposed invading Iraq, rejects the “Bush Doctrine,” or is circumspect about whether sending more troops to Afghanistan is a good idea, amount to “soft-peddlers.”
Despite Carter’s denials, the history of immigration in the U.S. includes a “dark underbelly”; the sacrifice of ethnic and religious diversity, including the 4,000 Muslim soldiers serving in the U.S. military, would be a tragedy. But this doesn’t prevent Carter, and now Sachetti, from fanning the flames of bigotry. Indeed, for those looking for an excuse to spew anti-Islamic hatred in the interest of promoting their own religious agenda, Hasan is a gift.
Clews deliberately conflates terrorizing actions with the motives of a terrorist. That Hasan’s rampage was horrific and inexcusable is clear—and he will be prosecuted accordingly. However, that he saw the war on terror to be anti-Islamic or that he attended services at a mosque whose Iman held Anti-American views (how does Clews know Hasan listened with “rapt attention”?) does not meet the criteria for what counts as a terrorist according to U.S. law: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents (U.S. Code, Title 22, Ch. 38, para. 2656f(d)).
There is no evidence that Hasan belonged to such a group; neither his mosque attendance or the people with whom he communicated demonstrates this. There’s no evidence that his actions were politically motivated; showing this requires evidence that Hasan was directed not merely by his apparent antipathy, but by an ideology he shared with others with whom he had planned the attack. There is copious evidence that Hasan suffered from psychopathology that went untreated, and while this is no excuse, it raises important questions that will remain unanswered while we busy ourselves barking up the wrong tree.
Americans for Limited Government is a fake grassroots “protest” group funded by real estate mogul Howard Rich; Clews is one of it charlatans. Clews has a colorful history: 1984, involved in the bribing of a “Spanish legislator believed to be working on energy legislation” benefitting a front corporation, Gray and Company, for which Clews was the primary lobbyist; 1985, Set up a PR firm called the Nicaraguan Refugee Fund that was directly involved in the Reagan administration’s “covert operations to supply the contras in violation of legislation passed by Congress”; 1985, “did the promotion and publicity for the World Anti-Communist League,” a fellow-traveler of the John Birch Society and associated with “assassinations, death squads, and sabotage”; 2003, sets up Laptoplobbyist.com for the Christian Coalition featuring “angry right-wing polemics aimed at stirring up visitors to send fax messages to …politicians it has selected.”
So why would Sachetti waste Op-Ed space on Clews? Is he too lazy to check out his sources? Does he agree with Clews’ ALG/JBS/WACL worldview? Will he just do anything to sell papers? The Op-Ed page IS for opinions. But surely this doesn’t mean that any syndicated pundit’s racist trash goes—unless, apparently, you’re Jim Sachetti.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu
599 words
Were there any doubt that Jim Sachetti should be replaced as PE-Editor, that is now settled. The publishing of Carter Clews’ misleading, racist “Barack Hussein Obama” tirade concerning the Fort Hood massacre leaves no room to speculate on Sachetti’s editorial irresponsibility.
Clews’ claim that Obama “soft-peddles” on Islamic terrorism is false. Obama, 7.25.08, Berlin: “This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan…The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda…We have too much at stake to turn back now.” What Carter really means is that anyone who opposed invading Iraq, rejects the “Bush Doctrine,” or is circumspect about whether sending more troops to Afghanistan is a good idea, amount to “soft-peddlers.”
Despite Carter’s denials, the history of immigration in the U.S. includes a “dark underbelly”; the sacrifice of ethnic and religious diversity, including the 4,000 Muslim soldiers serving in the U.S. military, would be a tragedy. But this doesn’t prevent Carter, and now Sachetti, from fanning the flames of bigotry. Indeed, for those looking for an excuse to spew anti-Islamic hatred in the interest of promoting their own religious agenda, Hasan is a gift.
Clews deliberately conflates terrorizing actions with the motives of a terrorist. That Hasan’s rampage was horrific and inexcusable is clear—and he will be prosecuted accordingly. However, that he saw the war on terror to be anti-Islamic or that he attended services at a mosque whose Iman held Anti-American views (how does Clews know Hasan listened with “rapt attention”?) does not meet the criteria for what counts as a terrorist according to U.S. law: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents (U.S. Code, Title 22, Ch. 38, para. 2656f(d)).
There is no evidence that Hasan belonged to such a group; neither his mosque attendance or the people with whom he communicated demonstrates this. There’s no evidence that his actions were politically motivated; showing this requires evidence that Hasan was directed not merely by his apparent antipathy, but by an ideology he shared with others with whom he had planned the attack. There is copious evidence that Hasan suffered from psychopathology that went untreated, and while this is no excuse, it raises important questions that will remain unanswered while we busy ourselves barking up the wrong tree.
Americans for Limited Government is a fake grassroots “protest” group funded by real estate mogul Howard Rich; Clews is one of it charlatans. Clews has a colorful history: 1984, involved in the bribing of a “Spanish legislator believed to be working on energy legislation” benefitting a front corporation, Gray and Company, for which Clews was the primary lobbyist; 1985, Set up a PR firm called the Nicaraguan Refugee Fund that was directly involved in the Reagan administration’s “covert operations to supply the contras in violation of legislation passed by Congress”; 1985, “did the promotion and publicity for the World Anti-Communist League,” a fellow-traveler of the John Birch Society and associated with “assassinations, death squads, and sabotage”; 2003, sets up Laptoplobbyist.com for the Christian Coalition featuring “angry right-wing polemics aimed at stirring up visitors to send fax messages to …politicians it has selected.”
So why would Sachetti waste Op-Ed space on Clews? Is he too lazy to check out his sources? Does he agree with Clews’ ALG/JBS/WACL worldview? Will he just do anything to sell papers? The Op-Ed page IS for opinions. But surely this doesn’t mean that any syndicated pundit’s racist trash goes—unless, apparently, you’re Jim Sachetti.
Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu
599 words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)