The Real Class War

Average pre-tax incomes in 2006 jumped by about $60,000 (5.8 percent) for the top 1 percent of households, but just $430 (1.4 percent) for the bottom 90 percent, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new update in the groundbreaking series on income inequality by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Their analysis of newly released IRS data shows that in 2006, the shares of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of households were higher than in any year since 1928.

Average Income in 2006 up $60,000 for Top 1 Percent of Households, Just $430 for Bottom 90 Percent. Chye-Ching Huang and Chad Stone, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

I was watching Fox News on Saturday, after Senator Obama’s vice-presidential announcement, and William Crystal, that weird rolly-polly gnome of the right, called Senator Biden the perfect candidate to start the class war. They mean, of course, that Biden is pro-union and pro-women, generally speaking, and can start hammering away at McCain’s “welfare for the rich” economic programs.

It’s classic right-wing rhetorical Judo, as Huang and Stone’s work shows. You take the truth– that there’s been a radical shift of wealth from the poor, working, and middle-classes to the rich– and you insist on the opposite. If you repeat it often enough, it starts to sound like the truth. The farther you get from the actual truth, you more you need to exaggerate. Thus, “The Audacity of Socialism.

Employee Free Choice Act 1, Walmart 0

Wal-Mart’s worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. “We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time,” Mr. Tovar said. “We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do.”

Other companies and groups are also making a case against the legislation to workers. Laundry company Cintas Corp., which has been fighting a multiyear organizing campaign by Unite Here, relaunched a Web site July 14 called CintasVotes. The site instructs visitors to take action by telling members of Congress to oppose the legislation.

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win – WSJ.com

It sounds bad, but this is actually very good news, in that it indicates that our corporate pals, who do read the fine print, seem certain that the Employee Free Choice Act will pass very soon in an Obama administration. Among other things, the EFCA would put some teeth in the protections for unionizing workers and greatly simplify the union ratification process.

A quick search on the act yields links to every right-wing site Orwellian mishmash on the web; another good sign for the efficacy of the bill. The AFL-CIO site is the best place to vaccinate yourself with the facts and the basic ideas before you take a dip in la la land.

The reason for all of this below-the-radar fuss is that if the obstacles to union membership were reduced, there might be a huge swell in organizing. One Gallup poll done a few years ago suggested that 58% of Americans would join a union if they could. That would be change well beyond Obama.

You’re Never Alone in Second Life

A glimpse into the world of the N-Gen’s texts seems to indicate that these learners have grown up doing the very things that traditional pedagogy discourages. When viewed in this context, the N-Gen student may appear deficient, lacking the skills necessary to succeed in the academic world. Texts that do not look like books or essays and that are structured in unfamiliar ways may leave educators with the perception that the authors of these texts lack necessary literacy skills. Are these students missing something, or are they coming to us with skills as researchers, readers, writers, and critical thinkers that have been developed in a context that faculty members may not understand and appreciate? The striking differences between the linear, print-based texts of instructors and the interactive, fluctuating, hyperlinked texts of the N-Gen student may keep instructors from fully appreciating the thought processes behind these texts. Learning how to teach the wired student requires a two-pronged effort: to understand how N-Gen student understand and process texts and to create a pedagogy that leverages the learning skills of this type of learner.

Innovate: Why Professor Johnny Can’t Read: Understanding the Net Generation’s Texts -Mark Mabrito and Rebecca Medley, Innovate, August/September, 2008.

This is one of those solid, common-sense articles that appear now and again, reminding teachers that their students are different and pedagogy must adapt, etc. It’s probably more true at this moment in history– given the flood of technological change– than it’s been since the 1960s.

It’s a helpful reminder, especially for those teachers who continue to bemoan the ill effects of the computer on writing, or who resist it’s introduction into the classroom. On the other hand, all of the efforts to teach to the “first generation of kids raised on television” did not really come to much.

It seems reasonable, then, to be skeptical, at least until the economics behind these phenomena play themselves out a bit longer. Right now it seems faddish at best when schools set up Second Life campuses; maybe in a decade or more it will seem evolutionary.

What I look for, too, is some sense that the teachers are pushing back against the market in a productive way. This article has little of that, I’m afraid. The market wants constant change, movement, obsolescence; we need to offer contemplation, reflection, even solitude.

I’m not sure how we go about doing that, given that the culture of education seems so polarized between a kind of willful anarchism and a willy-nilly embrace of each and every new product that comes along. My guess is that good sense is out there somewhere, uncelebrated but productive.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

We have seen, for example, that after nearly thirty years of bipartisan government-bashing, even in the wake of massive catastrophes like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the notion of public obligation to provide for the citizenry’s well-being is steadily being wiped out of public consciousness. (And, by the way, those precocious NGO engineers are energetically instrumental in doing a lot of the wiping.) And it’s crucially important for those who identify with the left to recognize that there is no designated moment at which the crisis becomes intolerable and “the People” either “wake up” or “rise.” That is simply not the way politics works. Absent concerted, organized intervention, it could go on indefinitely, with all kinds of inventive scapegoating available to stigmatize the previous rounds of losers and provide desperate reassurances to the next. And that would be a political situation and social order likely to grow ever uglier and more dangerous.

blackagendareport.com –Where Obamaism Seems to be Going, Adolph Reed, Jr.

Obama has seemed to me, from the very start, as a Liberal’s Liberal. At one level he’s inspiring, if for no other reason than the fact that he’s an African American man seemingly doing the impossible. I’ll vote for he for that reason alone.

On the other hand, he’s gone from vague to right-of-center faster than anyone would have predicted. One reading might suggest that he tried to look progressive to beat Senator Clinton, and is not trying to look like Senator Clinton in order to beat Senator McCain.

That seems logical to me and it makes me angry. I think this is what I hear in Reed’s rant against fake progressive politics. What we don’t know, yet, is just how deep Obamma’s pragmatism runs or in what vein. I just don’t believe he’s an empty opportunist, although he is clearly ambitious.

Phil Ochs saw this sort of opportunism in the Liberals who opposed the war only in so far and it could get them elected. They were certainly responsible for keeping the Vietnam War alive years longer than public sentiment and common sense would dictate.

On the other hand, I won’t believe he has truly progressive intentions until, say, he get’s elected and changes his mind in favor of a single-payer plan. I won’t believe his progressive intentions until he outlines an true green jobs program. The list could go on forever.

The point is that I will vote for Obama, even if I suspect that he’s more liberal than left, because I think it’s less risky than voting for McCain/Bush. McCain is never going to shut down those bases in Iraq, no matter what public sentiment says; he’ll Hoover away as the economy goes down in flames.