| Number 106 | February 16, 2001 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, The first four issues of Nygaard Notes for the year 2001 were dated January 5, 19, 26, and February 2nd, 2000. Just to set the record straight, those editions were not produced a year ago. It was a simple case of four instances of the same error, which neither your Editor-In-Chief, Head Proofreader, nor Office Manager Extraordinaire managed to catch. Judging from the complete lack of mention of these errors by anyone at all, I guess they weren't too important. But, like the major media, I always like to publicly acknowledge my errors, since it implies that anything which I don't publicly acknowledge is correct. The members of the Context Club wanted to make sure that potential newcomers to the group know that they would be welcome. We seem to have about 6-8 people at each group, although a couple times it has been fewer. One time was an ice storm. Group members stress that there is a wide range of levels of knowledge of politics in the group, so you don't need to feel like you have to be "smart enough" to come to meetings. Also, even though we have a theme each week, it's not like we are in the middle of something that you would not understand. Each meeting sort of stands on its own. So get on the CC list if you want to, and come to a meeting. In solidarity, Nygaard |
|
In an article in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) reporting on Governor Jesse "The Libertarian" Ventura attempting to defend his massive budget cuts on a recent trip to Duluth. Ventura told the crowd that his budget reflects the "fact" that there is a "limited amount of money available," a citizen responded that "We do have a huge budget surplus, Governor." The Star Trib then reported that:
Nygaard Notes readers know better. |
|
In Nygaard Notes #102 I quoted "President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as saying that "American foreign policy in a Republican administration should refocus the United States on the national interest...There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect." This imperialist mentality also exists on the local level, apparently with a similar lack of outrage at the self-serving use of power by those who have most of it. Increasingly, that means corporations, as a short article in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of December 12th well illustrates. The article, "Target Corp. to End Its Support of Minneapolis School," appeared on the 3rd page of the Metro section, and told the story of how local mega-retailer The Target Corporation has decided to stop sponsoring a downtown Minneapolis "public" school, "ending a decade-long partnership that was a national model for business-school relations." It was a model, all right – illustrating the difference between a "business" interest and the public interest. It seems that Target had been paying many of the operating costs of the school, called Mill City Montessori, which "was set up to serve mainly parents who worked at Target's downtown headquarters." And serve them it did. In the words of a recent Minneapolis Public Schools report "[Mill City's] small student population (125 students) allows for strong parent-teacher relationships. Its ideal location allows parents working downtown to stay connected to their child's school. The school's test scores are above the district average at all grade levels. In addition, the school boasts nearly 100% parent participation in conferences." Not bad, as we say here in Minnesota. It Comes Down to Business Now, however, Target officials have "decided to stop sponsoring the school." Why? It doesn't benefit Target enough. Fewer than half of the kids at Mill City now are the kids of Target workers, so to hell with them, says Target. They don't phrase it quite that way, of course, preferring to say, "Unfortunately, the school program can reach comparatively few Target parents, and we feel it is time to extend the reach of these financial resources to more Target members." These are the words of Target spokeswoman Carolyn Brookter in a letter to superintendent Carol Johnson. "It comes down to being a business decision. It wasn't a heavily used program," says Brookter. In fact, it was a heavily used program, and a successful one, and it still is. The problem is that the people using it are regular old parents and kids. Brookter's mind, like all good corporate minds, is only able to register what she calls "Target parents." Like Condoleezza Rice, the benefits to the community that the school provides are no more than "second-order effects," and must necessarily come second to the needs of the corporation. This type of thinking is not unique to Target, I'm just using them as an example. Any corporation that wishes to be "successful" will think the same way. Just like Condoleezza Rice and her "President," Target knows that there is "nothing wrong" with funding a successful school that benefits the community. But it's not the point. The point is to provide a highly-visible perk to attract good workers and maintain the positive image that Target (formerly Dayton's) has always had in this town. It seems to be working. Some might expect a bit of outrage at such a callous "business decision." But if such emotion exists, it cannot be expressed for fear of alienating what has become a major source of "public-school" funding. Superintendent Johnson, for example, responded by saying "Target Corporation has been extremely generous. We want to continue to work with Target and find ways they can support our learning efforts." Principal Nancy McKinley adds "I am confident that we will be able to attract another corporate sponsor to continue the fine tradition we have established." Johnson and McKinley are well aware that there is no public money for schools these days, so they don't even mention that as a possible response to Target's cutoff of funds (and I checked the minutes of a number of Board of Education meetings to see). Like everyone else, they know that our governor (like many others around the country) considers it more important to "give the surplus back to the taxpayers." That's presumably so we will have more money to spend at Target. Hey, some of these rebate recipients are "Target Parents," after all, and a full one percent of their credit card purchases will be donated to their own kids' school, as I will explain next week. |
|
The Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of January 18th supplies us with a perfect illustration of how the two false ideologies of centrism and objectivity come together in the "conventional wisdom" of the day, as seen through the eyes of the liberal media. Three weeks ago, in the final part of my series on Canadian health care, I said that "It's a tried-and-true tactic of the anti-government right wing in many countries to cut program funding and then build on the public resentment that results from the program being underfunded. It's an old trick, but it seems to work." The "old trick" to which I referred is so effective that many journalists and others have come to accept it unconditionally, and to repeat it without prompting. In other words, they have "internalized" it. Once internalized, it becomes coupled with the already-internalized doctrines of "centrism," and "objectivity," and becomes useful in imposing a false legitimacy on a fundamentally conservative political system. This sounds a little mysterious, doesn't it? Well, stick with me for a moment while I make an example yet again of the Star Trib. Support Becomes "Criticism" That newspaper's January 18th article, entitled "Experts Ponder Worker Safety under Bush" and written by Washington Bureau Correspondent Greg Gordon, was a typically "balanced" report on the federal government's role in workplace safety, specifically on the work of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and even more specifically on the workplace ergonomics standards put in place by the Clinton administration just before he left office. It included comments from the AFL-CIO and other labor-friendly folks who are worried that the incoming Bush administration may not be as diligent as its predecessor in enforcing workplace safety rules, and that we can expect an increase in the rate of workplace injuries similar to what was seen under previous Republican administrations. And then it included "the other side" which says that the suggestion that there is a correlation between workplace injury rates and federal policies is "absurd." As with most of what is called "balanced" journalism, the reader is left with the idea that there are two sides to every argument (and only two, for the most part) and that the relative values of the two sides are mostly matters of faith and belief, or are in some other way arbitrary. To report that one "side" has more merit, after all, would be "biased." (I wrote about this last May in Nygaard Notes #69, "A Word About Bias.") When reporter Gordon talks about the chances of the Bush administration rolling back the Clinton-ordered ergonomics standards, he produces the following paragraph which, in a certain way, says it all. Under the heading "Criticized From All Sides," we read:
Reporter Gordon thus presents "all sides" – only two, of course – who "criticize" the agency but disagree on the reasons. This is presented as "balance," but if you read it carefully you see that it is no such thing. In fact, it's that "old trick" again, the one I referred to three weeks ago. Here's the story, and it's totally different than the reporter implies: OSHA is supposed to protect workers, and sometimes it does. Workers, as a class, tend to support this work; the people who employ the workers, as a class, almost always oppose it. When OSHA does its job, which sometimes involves putting limits on corporations, it gets criticized from that "side:" the owning and managerial classes. The other "side," the 134 million Americans who work for the owners and managers, who support the work and the mission of OSHA, are "critical," all right. But NOT OF OSHA. They are critical of the very limitations imposed on OSHA's effectiveness by the political "leaders" who have failed to support the agency by giving it sufficient funds to do its job. This is not "criticism from all sides." It is just the opposite, in fact: criticism from one side, and support from the other. What we are seeing here is one battle in the famous "class war" that elites are so worried about breaking out, but which actually has been going on since before the country was founded. Here's the dangerous illusion: That there is a "center" between the "right" and the "left," where dwells the noble reporter, who is "objective." In the "center," all sides of every argument are equal, and must be reported with equal weight by the "objective" reporter. If this were only ridiculous I wouldn't write about it. But it is also quite dangerous. Fundamentally Conservative? The political system is "fundamentally conservative" because it is run by elites who have come by their power as a result of following the rules; that's why they don't want to change those rules. One faction – the large and dominant faction – of the elite establishment is business, which hates OSHA, hates unions, and hates anything else that does or might challenge their power. The conflict over the proper role of OSHA can properly be seen, then, as evidence of a fundamental clash of interests between two classes of Americans. The illusion of "balance" requires a reporter to reduce the OSHA fight to a technical disagreement among "all sides" who are, by implication, all striving for the same thing. They're not. It's not a technical problem, it's a class-based conflict over values: Workers want to be able to survive their jobs without debilitating injury, and owners want to wring as much money out of their "human resources" as possible. To report it otherwise is to "impose a false legitimacy on a fundamentally conservative political system." That's what I'm talking about. The Star Trib article appeared in the Labor Section of the paper. Oops, there is no Labor Section, I meant the Business Section. |