How is it that we have the best higher education in the world and a weaker K-through-12 system? What's the difference? Why does one operate so well and the other not nearly as well? American higher education is based on a quintessential American principle—choice. —Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliano campaigning in New Hampshire, as reported by Michael Shear

The systems of higher education and K-through-12 are not analogous. The corrupt Giuliani is trying to befuddle the public, destroy public education and promote vouchers as the solution to the problems of public school education.

That voucher money Giuliani proposes to dole out is intended for the Christian academy-cum-madrasah nearest you for the training of Christofascists, who upon graduation in as little as two or three years, will be swelling the ranks of the Christo-Republican Party. Giuliani's support for vouchers must be seen for what it is: an essential part of an ongoing effort by the Republican leadership to use K-through-12 education to swell the Republican base.

Ironically, Giuliani hit upon one of the major differences between education in the public schools and higher education: choice. But the choice that differentiates them is not a choice made by the students or their parents, as Giuliani implies, but by the schools. University administrators can choose their students up to the limit the market allows. Public school administrators have no choice.

In a post from 2006 I wrote —

The struggle over education is ultimately a struggle over political direction and control. Conservatives, by and large, do not fare well among the educated classes. To obtain majorities they require a mass of people who may be led to vote against their own interests.

In the U.S. racism, sexism and religion have been the Three Keys to Success for Republicans. And conservatives need to maintain a body of voters motivated by these "values." Conservatives correctly perceive that a broad public education is not in their interests. Unfortunately the Left has been slow to recognize how essential public education is to the maintenance of any pretense of democracy.

I'm more convinced of this than ever.

Previous posts
Encouraging wassatiya in the schools (6/10/04)
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to church... (8/18/04)
Dumb your child down the Republican way (8/18/04)
Bush's education legacy in Texas: More cheating and lying (12/21/04)
Addicting students to fascism (1/10/05)
Sermon of the Day (1/13/05)
More charter school failure—this time on Jeb's watch (3/10/05)
Scottish bishop, Australian school marm acting up (3/21/05)
Department of Defense teaches creationism in DoD highschools (4/15/05)
Lower education in Iraq (5/9/05)
The 15 most harmful people? (6/2/05)
Christo-Republican cadres (6/22/05)
No college graduate left behind (12/17/05)
Slippery Slope of the Day (4/18/06)
Market Failure of the Day (5/23/06)

Posts relating to Giuliani
Another reason I won't be supporting Hillary for President in 2008 (12/13/04)
A moment to ponder (9/11/05)
One more reason not to vote for Giuliani: He's gone Neocon (7/20/07)
Buddies of the Day: Ailes and Giuliani (8/3/07)

Tags: * school choice education vouchers Rudolph Giuliani Christofascism private schools Republicans Presidential campaign Election 2008

If you want to know something as simple as who heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, don’t bother to ask the safety agency’s communications office. Without special permission, officials there are no longer allowed to provide information to reporters except on a background basis, which means it cannot be attributed to a spokesman. —NY Times reporter Christopher Jensen writing on his blog in "What’s Off the Record at N.H.T.S.A.? Almost Everything"

Jensen continues,

The agency’s new policy effectively means that some of the world’s top safety researchers are no longer allowed to talk to reporters or to be freely quoted about automotive safety issues that affect pretty much everybody.

Clearly the Times reporter has not considered what terrorists might do if they could get their hands on this information. I'd tell you, but then I'd be compromising your security, wouldn't I?

Related post
A typical American family? (8/24/07)

Tags: * National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA government secrecy information control media control

—A view from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

It's hard to say exactly what they're doing. Watching TV maybe? From a government perspective, the nice thing about them is how they just sit there.

Tags: * humor

The big splash in today's science news is that two groups of European researchers, in separate experiments, have succeeded in producing experiences in human subjects that share many features with the "out-of-body experience" commonly reported by people near death, stroke victims, epileptics and acidheads.

This is not your everyday ivory-tower research that cavalierly ignores the needs of capitalists. The BBC tells us that—

The researchers say their findings could have practical applications, such as helping take video games to the next level of virtuality so the players feel as if they are actually inside the game.

Neil Osterweil reports that in one study "participants reported varied feelings of 'weirdness' or 'strangeness,' and some found the experiment irritating."

For the full-blown effect they should try reading the news.

Related post
Little Shop of Horrors: Get ready to puke (8/08/07)

Tags: * extracorporeality psychology neuropsychology visual effects extra-sensory perception ESP

Yesterday morning I flipped through the channels of cable news—CNN, Fox, CNN Headlines, MSNBC—and was struck by the lack of coverage of any topic other than Hurricane Dean and dog-basher Michael Vick's plea bargain.

A little fantasy popped into my head of what George Bush's morning news summaries must be like: "Good news today, sir. A bridge has collapsed in Minnesota." "Good news today. There's a mine cave-in in Utah." "Good news today. There's a hurricane headed for Texas." No Iraq. No Afghanistan. No mention of the documents that Cheney, along with the White House, say they're withholding from Congress. From the Cheney-Bush viewpoint, a totally satisfying media experience.

Always the self-doubter I wondered, "Is it just me?" It turns out it wasn't. The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) has just released its quarterly report on its News Coverage Index, which—

includes an examination of 18,010 stories that appeared between April 1, 2007 and June 29, 2007. The Index encompasses 13 newspapers, eight radio outlets (a mix of talk, public radio, and headline feeds), five of the top online sites, several hours a day of all three cable news channels and both network morning and evening newscast [48 different outlets]; we believe it to be the most comprehensive ongoing audit of the American press conducted. The data for the year to date includes 35,426 stories.

Across all media PEJ concludes—

The 2008 Presidential campaign—with its crowded field and accelerated timetable—emerged as the leading story in the American news media in the second quarter of 2007, supplanting the policy debate over Iraq. And the once lopsided gap favoring Democrats over Republicans in campaign coverage became more balanced, according to a new study of the U.S. media.
....

Another major change in the period from April through June of 2007 was that press coverage of the war in Iraq declined markedly. Together the three major storylines of the war—the policy debate, events on the ground, and the impact on the U.S. homefront—filled 15% of the total newshole in the quarter, a drop of roughly a third from the first three months of the year, when it filled 22%.

In more detail they note—

.... The bulk of the decline occurred after May 24, when Congress approved funding without including troop withdrawal timetables, a move widely viewed as a White House victory. In all, the policy debate filled 7% of the space or airtime in the quarter, down from 12% in the three months of the year.

Would we be wrong to conclude that with the help of the Democrats the White House gained a victory not only over war policy but also over the media message?

There continue to be clear differences in the news judgments of different cable channels. As in the first quarter, the Fox News Channel devoted roughly half as much coverage to the war (8%) than its rivals, CNN (18%) and MSNBC (15%)....

No surprise there. But you should know that Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

Although the PEJ report covered the period ending June 29, I see no reason to believe that the downward trend of coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan won't continue, though of course General Petraeus' report to Congress in September should produce a blip on the media radar. (The White House has been trying to have Petraeus present his report in closed sessions of the various committees, better to stanch the flow of news.)

Taken altogether, hurricane season at the White House is a favorite time of year—at least till the next Katrina.

Tags: * media control cable news

Some of you will recall newspaper reports that our defense spending is only about 3.6 percent of GDP, reflecting a defense budget of only – I emphasize – only $499.4 billion. But a lot of defense-related spending is outside the Defense Department's budget. This fiscal year we will actually spend at least $934.9 billion (or about 6.8 percent of our GDP) on our military. Outside DoD, the Department of Energy will spend $16.6 billion on nuclear weapons. The State Department will disburse $25.3 billion in foreign military assistance. We will spend $69.1 billion on defense-related homeland security programs and $69.8 billion for treatment of wounded veterans. The Treasury will spend $38.5 billion on unfunded military retirements. We will pay $206.7 billion in interest on war debt. Other bits and pieces, including satellite launches, will add another $8.5 billion. Altogether, I repeat, that's about $935 billion. —Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., formerly Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs 1993-94, writing in "Can American leadership be restored?"

A few more billion here, a few more billion there, a little inflation and the "defense" budget should top a trillion in no time. Are you feeling safer?

Related post
A war we can't afford to win (1/24/07)

Tags: * military budget military spending military-industrial complex

I don't often write posts critical of posts from other blogs, but this time I must. It's about keeping the facts straight, which are illusive enough at the best of times. The Blue State, a team blog, issued a post last week entitled "Ashcroft ordered security detail not to let Gonzales or Card in hospital room again." The title summarizes the story. The problem is that it is not correct regarding Ashcroft—or to be more persnickity, it cannot be concluded from the facts as we know them.

The day after the post's appearance, Buzzflash linked it with the text "Ashcroft ordered security detail not to let Gonzales or Card in hospital room again." If you're not already familiar with Buzzflash, it's an important news aggregator for liberals/progressives and by one recent measure ranked fifth in "the percentage of online traffic to the Lifestyle - Politics category." In other words, the story has spread.

Before getting to the specifics, three points:

• When we consider the full buffet of misinformation available for consumption, this dish is small potatoes.
• I have no reason to believe that the author of the post, "Chief Editor Todd," had any intention to misinform. A commenter to the post, however, noticed the mistake, and the author persisted in defending it. I also left a brief comment afterwards.
• My interest lies in protecting the left from the sorts of accusations that are often leveled against the mainstream media and the plethora of right-wing fonts of disinformation—that they misinform and that they typically refuse to acknowledge mistakes.

The matter has to do with that well-known incident of March 10, 2004, when Alberto Gonzales, then White House Counsel, and Andrew Card, then White House Chief of Staff, descended upon the hospital room of Attorney General Ashcroft in hopes of getting his re-authorization for a secret wiretapping program that Acting Attorney General James Comey had refused to sign off on. Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller also went to the hospital that evening.

On July 27 of this year, Rep. John Conyers requested Mueller's notes of his meeting with Comey and Ashcroft.1 On August 17—more than two weeks past Conyers' deadline of August 1—the FBI responded2 by sending five pages of heavily redacted documents.

These notes (PDF) are the basis for Blue State's conclusion that Ashcroft had asked the FBI Director not to allow Gonzales or Card in his room. Here's the relevant text—

Wednesday, 3/10/04:

@ 1920 [7:20 pm]: Called by DAG [Deputy Attorney General Comey] while at restaurant with wife and daughter. He is at AG's [Attorney General Ashcroft's] hospital with Goldsmith and Philbin. Tells me Card and J. Gonzales are on the way to hospital to see AG, but that AG is in no condition to see them, much less make decision to authorize continuation of the program. Asks me to come to AG's hospital to witness condition of AG.

@1940 [7:40 pm]: At hospital. Card and J. Gonzales have come and gone. Comey tells me that they saw the AG and were told by the AG that he was in no condition to decide issues, and that Comey was the Acting AG. All matters were to be taken to him, but that he supported the Acting AG's position. The AG then reviewed for them the legal concerns relating to the program. The AG also told them that he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the WH [White House]. Comey asked me to meet briefly with the AG to see his condition. He also asked that I inform the detail that no visitors, other than family, were to be allowed to see the AG without my consent. (I so informed the detail.)

@2010 [8:10 pm]: Saw AG. Janet Ashcroft [his wife] in the room. AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed.

@2020 [8:20 pm]: Departed the hospital.

The Blue State author interpreted the sentences I've highlighted to mean that Ashcroft asked Mueller to inform the FBI guard detail that no visitors other than family should be allowed in without Ashcroft's consent.

How did the blogger make this mistake? I can only conjecture of course, but I believe he became confused by the content of the first sentence: Comey asked Mueller to see Ashcroft. As if an actual visit had taken place between the two sentences, the writer then assumed that Mueller's use of "he" in the second sentence referred to Ashcroft instead of to Comey. Also, Blue State did not quote the note from 8:10 pm, which clearly shows that Mueller did not even see Ashcroft until after the note at 7:40 pm had been written. 'Nuff said about that matter.

Despite the confusion, the Blue State post was significant and was a "good catch" as bloggers like to say. It reveals Acting AG Comey's concern that Gonzales, Card or other agents of the White House might have made another attempt to take advantage of Ashcroft's weakened condition. As for Mueller honoring Comey's request to tighten security, since Comey was Acting Attorney General, he was also Mueller's boss.

But wait, there's more . . .

The text I've quoted above is the only content—other than dates, names and places—that were not redacted from the 5 pages of notes sent by the FBI.3 Yet in the context of Conyers' request, those dates, names and places take on significance.

Remember that Conyers only asked for notes "regarding a March 10, 2004, hospital visit involving former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and former Chief of Staff to the President Andrew Card." What he got back were notes dating from March 1 until March 23, 2004. Did Mueller respond overbroadly? Or do the notes—and especially those after March 10—reflect a White House preoccupation with the hospital incident?

Two days after the incident Mueller wrote, "The President called me into the side office off the Oval Office after we had concluded our morning briefing of him." And on March 23 "Meeting with Vice President at his request in his Office." The concern went all the way to the top.

The hospital incident revealed the extent to which Comey was not a "team player" when it came to a program that Cheney and his minions knew perfectly well was illegal. If the Mueller notes are an accurate response to Rep. Conyers' request, they show that the conspirators were fretting a great, great deal over legalities.

Tags: * FISA domestic surveillance domestic spying criminal conspiracy