Author: shari

(xposted, edited)
The other day, I was happy to see this good response  by Barbara Ehrenreich,  of the Nickle and Dimed fame, now under attack by Dobson et al who has labelled her as a “homewrecker”.

Barbara doesn’t miss a beat. She niftily pinpoints what was projected onto her and blasts back, countering that the real homewreckers are corporations whose policies don’t provide adequate wages, requiring workers to work long hours and/or work two jobs or more.

What she does works well. My hope: let there be tons more responses like Barbara’s out there.

My second point: this attack on her is a good illustration of a key attack strategy the corporate-Republican tribe uses, namely projection.

But first, to clarify, I’m referring to projection as the psychological defense mechanism, as defined below.
From wikipedia:

it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one “projects” one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings–basically parts of oneself–onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.

As used by the corporo-Republican tribe, this has morphed into a deliberately nasty switch-and-bait process to screw with your mind. Not surprising. I think projection is just one of many mindbending ruses common in families unable to cope with secrets such as untreated alcoholism. In many ways, I’m struck by how much the Republican tribe is like a such a family but here I’m getting off the topic.

Back to projection: I know you all know it, and we all could dig up truckloads of egregious examples. But here’s a few recent ones rolling around in the media:

o O’Reilly uses projection like candy, scroll down to the paragraph on cowardshere on Mediamatters. O’Reilly accuses others of being cowards for not wanting to appear on his show yet he refuses to allow David Brock, who’s requested an appearance, to be on his show.  Okay, so who’s the real coward?

o Here, Limbaugh questions the patriotism of the left, from Mediamatters.

o Gingrich projecting onto the Dems what the Repubs do (that would be: putting politics first).

o An older example: O’Reilly’s coward list from Mediamatters. Geej, what is with O’Reilly and cowards? He must really suspect he’s the real coward.

o New example: the attacks on Cindy Sheehan (as pointed out by dkos commenter), identifying her as anti-patriotic.

o New example: the general projection that Democrats are weak on national security.  

o New: came across this post by tristero at digby’s on projection. The example: BushCo accusing others of rewriting history, a classic projection. Who really rewrote history? It was BushCo, as tristero points out, who is ‘rewriting the WMD search out of history’.

Why does projection work? To be sure, a lot more can be said on this but it works well when we’ve become a nation of nice passive sheep, untrained in the ability to critically analyze and think, unlike all of you who are the larger blogging community.

I know the bloggers who rock are the ones who routinely identify the process, the larger picture of what’s going on, not just the content. (Two whom I consider exceptional, however, are Digby and paperwight).

But more to the point of why projection works: one singular problem has been our lack of response when the target, that’ll be our side, is attacked.

Barbara provides a great example of how to counter projection, something I’d like to see more from our leaders.  She does it by identifying it (tho not specifically as projection) and then fighting back with the truth. As you read her piece, you’ll see she supplies the proper soundbite and reframe (that the real homewreckers are the corporations) to counter the projection. Very effective. More of this please, from our leaders and from us.  

If you live near Boston MA, you can join the wonderful nurses, fire fighters and teachers on August 21 in their protest of Gov. Schwarzenegger.  

Nurses, Fire Fighters, and Teachers will Protest
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the upcoming
Rolling Stones Concert
Sunday August 21
Fenway Park – 4 Yawkey Way   –  Boston
                 Meet at entrance to glass elevator
                         T-Stop – Kenmore Square
5 pm

Sunday August 21rst, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be hosting a fund raiser during the kick off of the Rolling Stones concert tour at Fen Way Park in Boston .  He will be taking over section B4 which was donated to by Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation, one of the tour’s sponsors and one of Arnold ‘s biggest contributors.  His guests will likely to include some of Massachusetts’s biggest corporations and most devoted Republican supporters who will be paying up to $100k to sit with the Governor.   The money raised is going to cut school funding, attack nurses and other union members, subsidize drug companies, and restrict choice/privacy rights.  

More on this fundraiser sponsored by Ameriquest Mortgage at SFChron and WaPo.  

FYI: Ameriquest Mortgage, one hell of a sociopathic outfit, turned out to be one of the main sources of funding behind Prop. 75, the anti-union initiative, a main Grover Norquist agenda item.

The SacBee article above identifies Ameriquest Capital as one of the big donors. Just to clarify, Ameriquest Mortgage is a subsidiary of Ameriquest Capital.

Scrutiny of the Governor’s business affairs should be regular and normal policy, but I think too many were caught up in the shine of his movie star image to even question his financial dealings and income. We should question why it has taken so long for this vetting process to happen, two years into his term.  

SFChron finds Gov. Schwarzenegger taking advantage of another loophole.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, taking advantage of a technicality in campaign finance laws, has been collecting rent from political action committees that he controls.

During the past three years, campaign committees controlled by Schwarzenegger have paid $166,859 in rent to Main Street Plaza, a three-story building in Santa Monica that the governor owns.

SFChron covers the import of the ethics lawsuit filed by the CA Democratic party. They have filed an ethics complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission, asking for an investigation of his financial holdings for illegal honoraria.

The CA Dems take note of the Governor’s extremely inappropriate remarks regarding his wife

referring to Schwarzenegger’s flippant remark that his wife was worried that the governor’s decision to cancel his contact with American Media, Inc. would mean “less diamonds” for her].

and to ask the Governor to give the money back. At the very least, he can donate the money, such as to the public schools.

Not surprisingly, I saw from dkos via Political Wire that PPIC’s new poll shows his approval ratings at a record low, 34%.

Results of the study by Lubienski and Lubienski, published by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, are simply too stunning to ignore. And I haven’t ignored it. I read about it first over at Joe Thomas’ at Shut up and Teach, also noted at Bill’s place (Endless Faculty Meeting), and more recently over at Education at the Brink (good discussion over at his place).

Medical News
Dallas News
PDK

Pdf

Short of repeating everyone else, I’d like to point this bit out: Lubienski and Lubienski set out to test ‘market theory’, the theory underlying the school choice trend sold to us as the superior way, the basic assumption being private schools are more effective than public schools at educating kids.  

Their question: does the evidence support market-style ‘reform’?

The results surprised Lubienski and Lubienski. When they controlled for social class (or SES, socioeconomic status, as measured by 6 items, with the best writeup of this by the Dallas education guy), public school students consistently scored better than private school students.

So they built a way to try to remove social class as a factor. They gathered up data on the students taking the test. Were they poor enough to qualify for free school lunch? Did they have a computer at home? Did their parents graduate from college, or did they drop out of high school? They then compared how public and private schools fared when these socioeconomic factors were stripped away.

They found that, at all class levels, public schools had a small but consistent edge over privates. Their suspicions were supported by the numbers: The reason private schools look better on paper is because they serve more middle- and upper-class kids.

Or, to be even plainer: Poor kids in public schools did better than poor kids in private schools. Middle-class kids in public schools did better than middle-class kids in private schools. And rich kids in public schools did better than rich kids in private schools.

Stunning.

And note this irony.  Using standardized test scores, which is, as you all know, the currency du jour used to define ‘achievement’, this study’s results debunk market theory. This is so funny I forgot to laugh.

If this study gets more traction, I’ll predict we’ll see the usual suspects ensconced in their cushy conservative thinktanks ferociously debunking the results.  This happens quite regularly, most spectacularly last summer when NYT wrote about one certain charter school study.

The implications merit ferocity, I suppose. What else do you do when empirical data doesn’t support the theory underlying everything you’re pushing?

Anyway, the last word on this is by Joe Thomas (via Education at the Brink):

If we really (and I mean really) want to make a difference in America, we will agree that the “problems” in public schools are in truth problems of society and merely easier to see in the context of public schools.

At that point we can implement the family services and adult education and training needed to break the cycle of poverty, increase the reach of social mobility, and provide all Americans the “opportunity” we know a democratic society can provide– if its citizens demand it.

At present, we demand ‘accountability’ but refuse to provide the appropriate resources to achieve our lofty goals.

Xposted at my blog

Update [2005-7-3 12:53:22 by shari]:This link leads to a page on Space.com where you can check out live webcasts.

My inner science geek will be checking this out this 4th of July weekend: NASA’s Deep Impact project, the 8th Discovery mission.

…Deep Impact’s Impactor probe — an 820-pound (372-kilogram), camera-equipped chunk of copper — will be placed in Tempel 1’s path and ultimately slam into the comet at about 23,000 miles an hour (37,014 kilometers an hour). Snapping images until the last, Impactor is designed to give researchers their closest look yet at a comet’s surface.

“We hope to get 15 centimeters resolution,” Yeomans told SPACE.com, adding that extreme dust conditions could still limit Impactor’s camera. “That’s unprecedented resolution.”

Meanwhile, Flyby will record the event — along with a myriad of Earth-based and orbital instruments — with telescopes capable of two-meter resolution and an infrared spectrometer to determine the mineral make-up of Tempel 1’s innards.

For us on the Pacific Coast, it’ll happen a little before 11 PM, and on the East Coast, in the wee morning hours of July 4th.

May want to check out the astronomy sites for the latest buzz.

SkyandTelescope.com
JPL’s site

My personal reaction, getting some distance from my inner science geek, is to wonder why they couldn’t figure out a less invasive way of doing this.

Now that parents are waking up to the existence of the NCLB legislated database,  our good government has decided to come up with a brand new military recruiting database,  separate from the NCLB database.

I know lots have been written about this already, but I want to highlight a few singular features .

1.  Unlike the NCLB database, you really can’t get your kids off this one even though you can request a preference not to be contacted.  Regarding the personal information itself, there is no opting out, no loopholes, no nothing. That’s right, parents, your kid’s info still remains in the database unless you have the luxury to be able to pay for private education.
2.  There is no privacy policy, and privacy protections are very weak.
3.  The proposal is to use the info for “routine uses” unrelated to military recruitment.
4.  They want to collect: SSN, email addresses, ethnicity, and other personal info.

Mark Rotenberg, on Democracy Now:

I mean, there have been a lot of conflicting statements, even at the press conference last evening when they were talking about the database. They said on the one hand, it was not going to be used to call recruits directly until someone pointed out that, in fact, they were collecting telephone numbers. So they’re having a bit of difficulty, I think, you know, getting the story straight.

But one of the important things about the Privacy Act, and this really does go to your question, is that it requires the federal agencies to explain how they propose to use the information.

So the Department of Defense says that in the first instance the information will be used for recruiting purposes, and then they set out what are called the Privacy Act Exceptions. And they list 13 different categories of additional use of the information, including a possible use for law enforcement purposes. They have, in effect, by this notice already announced that they reserve the right to use all of this data that they’re collecting for law enforcement purposes and to transfer to law enforcement agencies.

Makes the mind reel with the possibilities, eh?

If you are alarmed as I am about this proposal, hop on over to your Congressperson’s site and let them know about your concerns.  

To make it easier on them, send them these questions they can ask for you:

*Why cannot this database be administered by government employees, who are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Privacy Act for misuse of personal information?
*How will the DOD exercise adequate supervision over the employees of this private company?
*What qualifies the employees of this company to handle the SSNs of tens of millions?
*How can we trust that the employees of this company will not misuse the data?  
*How can we trust that this company has appropriate administrative, physical, and electronic safeguards to prevent and detect misuse of the data?  
*If a security breach does occur, will individuals receive notice, as is required when a bank inappropriately gives access to customer information?  
*How will individuals obtain an auditing of disclosures of their personal information?  

Oh, and you can still sign the NCLB petition for Mike Honda’s HR 551, which alters NCLB so you have to give permission to the government in order to get your child on their list.

No, not from my nose but I do remember when my child came down with every single friggin’ cold in the entire universe.  Of course, then the rest of us came down with it at which point we could rightly say we’ve got a house of mucous.  

On the other hand, I so dig these underwater houses made of mucous.

Scientists have discovered giant sinking mucus “houses” that double the amount of food on the sea floor.

The mucus houses, or “sinkers,” are produced by tadpole-like animals not much bigger than your index finger. As sinkers drop to the sea floor, small sea critters and other food particles get stuck to the mucus and end up on the bottom of the ocean.

And as is my wont, I spy a NCLB lesson in this: traditional means of exploration never would have detected these very cool things. I still don’t see how we can trust that standardized tests will truly measure all aspects of an excellent education.