why i don’t live at the p.o.
Posted by vlorbik on March 25, 2010
i’m making zines again for trading
in the mail. much the usual thing
when i made my *last* zines, years
ago, was to withhold information
about one’s *residential* address
and publish only a p.o. box number.
so i wanted a p.o. box.
now, i’ve still got the apartment
just outside bexley (in what would
be its upper-right-hand corner
if bexley *formed* such a corner;
but instead there’s an area
of a few blocks including my
apartment complex that’s been
“cut out” in drawing the lines
on the map, so i’m in columbus…
but next to the fine new
bexley jail… where i suppose
it’s only a matter of time…).
but i *live* here on east livingston
with madeline in *her* house and use
the apartment mostly to house my cat
and books and provide a getaway so
madeline doesn’t become my hostage
in her own home like my manymany
wives (and a few of my exgirlfriends
as well). i figured it would be
a good idea to go ahead and set up
the new p.o. box at this end of
town at the livingston branch
a short bus ride up this main
thoroughfare through this slummy
part of the east side. dead wrong.
i ended up making four trips
and standing in four lines
and filling in two forms,
twice each, before i gave up.
and went back and got a box
at the bexley p.o. (in one
try). box 9679 cols oh 43209
(send stuff).
first time: okay, show two forms of ID…
what would have already been enough to
stop me cold a few years ago…
no problem. and fill in some forms,
also no problem. my residence is
in a different ZIP served by a different
branch of the p.o., though, so they’ve
got to run everything past *that*
branch and get back to me.
or not; i don’t remember what they
told me about that. anyhow,
they *didn’t* get back to me and
after a while i went back to inquire
as to the status of my application.
which was, evidently: fallen through
the cracks.
now, this isn’t a complaint about
the service at the livingston branch.
in fact, the woman i dealt with on this
second trip of my four-effort failure
went well beyond the call of duty in making
me feel welcome. she asked me right
away based on my appearance if i was
a photographer. now, if i’d've been
just a *little* faster on the uptake,
of course i’d've said something like,
“that depends, are you a model?”…
but anyhow i recognized it as flattering
and beamed my most winning grin at her
and engaged in some idle banter about
art and life… there was no line
behind me that day… before she’d
checked here and there for some evidence
of feedback from the bexley branch
and told me she’d send a reminder
around to them; come back monday.
but on the monday, there *was* a long line
and the worker i worked with couldn’t find
any record of any of my work so far.
start again: two IDs, fill in these forms.
and i’m pretty much convinced already:
okay, this system’s broken. i don’t
like to have wasted the trip through
the line though so i filed the forms
and came home and tried to forget the
whole sorry business.
you can just *see* what goes wrong.
everybody’s been overloaded with the
work of two people. *naturally*
when some out-of-the-ordinary
business from livingston branch
appears in bexley branch, it gets
shoved aside to be dealt with
when the rush dies. and forgotten.
there’s no *malice* here…
just government-mandated incompetence.
if the system *worked*, they’d
have to break it by overloading
it some more: this is the reaganite
doctrine, “government doesn’t work”
(so let’s continue to tax everyone
while insisting that they get their
actual *services* from for-profit
providers; this has now been perfected
with the so-called insurance reform).
but a little while later, i get a phone call.
it’s set up; come on down and get it.
i was very touched by this personal service.
somebody had noticed my frustration and
overcome the usual get-away-and-stay-away
reaction quite commendably and gone out
of her way to make me feel that, anyhow,
livingston branch takes personal service
seriously and i was *wanted* there.
i’m very nearly teary-eyed, in fact.
“thanks… this means a lot to me.”
god-damn fool.
and the next day i go and wait in the
longish line and no dice. so i give up.
we could probably have worked it out
that day i admit… almost certainly
i’d've been set up in one *more* try.
but this is just one heck of a long
way from good enough. this is the
service you get *before* you give
‘em any money after all when there’s
still some reason to try to impress us.
and i was impressed all right.
it’s the same way in my exjob, of course.
hell, it’s the same *everywhere*.
you get to the end of a long line
at the god-damn grocery? the machine
breaks and of course the cashier
can’t fix it: sorry. try your
luck at the wrong end of *another*
of these long lines. or, what we
*really* want, deal directly with
the machine-that-doesn’t-work
*yourself*, so we can fire the worker
that can’t *work* the machine
(that, by design, doesn’t work).
any job where you actually *help* people?
you’ve *got* to be slowed down in doing so
so people can be charged more for *real* help
from our fully-qualified kickers-up-to-the-dons.
“competition” in the “service economy”.
i don’t have to wait for my body to break to imagine
the service i’m going to get from obamacare:
back of the line. i’ve seen a few good men
ruined already by lack of worker’s compensation
and now government has jumped with both feet
into the service-denial industry to “compete”
with the protection rackets. and i just wish
my liberal friends would stop trying to get me
to approve. that is all.

John Fonk said
Isn’t the government ridiculous with their rules! They now need to verify your address if you happen to request a P.O. Box outside of the local post office zone where you live. The postal delivery person has to personally verify it. How stupid. What is he going to do peep through my window to see if I actually live where I receive mail? B.B. is trying to keep track of your whereabouts. I had to make a trip to my post office to get them to sign some stupid form and return it the the other post office where I got my P.O. Box. You can’t buy a stamp in a lobby any longer unless you have a credit card. I told the local postmaster this week not having stamps in machines is a step backwards. He said, ‘You can pick up stamps at the big grocery store chains’…, a step forward.
Sue VanHattum said
preach it, brother!
vlorbik said
“big grocery store chains” are well and good for those with cars. but sure not a step forward for me. i’ve had madeline get me stamps over the net but i don’t exactly consider this a step forward either. i’ll be getting most of mine over the counter i expect since i’ll have regular dealings with bexley p.o. concerning zine stuff. coins that aren’t good for anything is one of the greatest outrages ever perpetrated on a stunningly clueless populace but why mention it now too late too late. virtual money can be pushed around at the whim of those with power over digital data but realworld three-dee stuff shows bothersome tendencies-to-stay-the-same-as-they-actually-are. so you can’t get stuff for cash. “legal tender for all debts” what a sorry joke you can’t even buy a fucking bus transfer in fucking chicago for fucking money from what i hear. doom doom doom.
vlorbik said
the poor pay more
shall be the whole
of the law.
vlorbik said
they’ll slowplay you in principle
and claim they can’t possibly
afford to do it any other way;
next year will be worse because
“grow or die”… in *every available way*…
is built into their DNA.
http://vlorblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/gottagottagottagottagottagottagottagottagottagottagottagivemhope/
(okay… how do you make those dinky url’s again?)
vlorbik said
Neo-Liberalism and the Assault on Public Education
By George Wright, BlackCommentator.com Guest
Commentator Black Commentator May 1, 2010
http://www.blackcommentator.com/373/373_neo_liberals_public_education_wright_guest.php
The nearly four decade-long effort to restructure
public education along Neo-Liberal guidelines has
accelerated since President Barack Obama assumed
office. Neo-Liberalism is an ideology that calls for
“limited government” and a market-driven economy. This
project is being carried out on the federal, state, and
local levels, while targeting publicly-financed K-12
schools and higher education.
Some of the objectives for restructuring public
education include:
1) shifting the cost of education on to students, while
increasing their debt burden to the benefit of banks;
2) promoting the expansion of privately-managed charter
schools;
3) deepening the access to public educational resources
for corporate-interests;
4) smashing teacher unions, thus weakening the
political power of those unions, and cutting the cost
of teachers; and,
5) eliminating multicultural, revisionist, inter-
nationalist, and critical perspectives from the school
curricula.
On the K-12 level, this agenda has been promoted under
the guise of “competitiveness;” “national standards;”
“accountability,” “basic skills,” “excellence,” and
standardized testing; while the assault on higher
education includes budget reductions, “assessments,”
“merit pay,” and curriculum reform. The 2008 collapse
of the financial system, amplified by chronic
overlapping federal, state and local budgetary crises,
has provided a “window of opportunity” to intensify
this assault.
What are the roots of the assault on public
education?;” How has that assault been manifested?;
And, Why has that assault accelerated in the past two
years?
During the late-1960′s industrial-based corporations
began to experience falling rates of profits. The
reasons for this decline are complex, but at the core
were:
1) exhaustion of the automobile-industrial-complex
profit accumulation model; and,
2) deficit spending the Johnson administration carried
out fighting the Vietnam War and promoting “Great
Society” reforms.
This resultant structural economic crisis caused both
stagnant growth and inflation.
Simultaneously, United States’ post-World War II global
economic dominance was being weakened. Causes for this
weakening include:
1) the United States defeat in Vietnam;
2) the emergence of West European and Japanese economic
competition; and,
3) the rise of Third World economic nationalism.
This structural economic crisis led to state and local
governments experiencing chronic deficits, leading to
recurring cuts for public services, including public
education.
This reality was felt in California as early as the
late-1960′s. In fact, in 1967 Governor Ronald Reagan
made cuts in education spending, impacting both higher
education and K-12. In response to the chronic fiscal
crisis the University of California, the state
colleges, and the community colleges began to increase
tuition and rely on non-union part-time teachers. The
University of California also sought more corporate and
government funding for research purposes. K-12 schools
had to regularly lay teachers off; expand teacher-
student classroom ratios; and cut curriculum offerings,
such as art and physical education. The education
crisis in California would become chronically acute
after 1978 when Proposition 13 was passed,
significantly reducing the local property tax base.
Furthermore, the structural economic crisis led
corporations to search for a new accumulation model to
generate acceptable profits. The profit accumulation
model between 1932 and 1970 was based on government
managing and regulating the industrial-based economy,
while promoting redistribution of wealth to the working
class. The hegemonic ideology which shaped that period
was Corporate-Liberalism.
The accumulation model settled on by the late-1970′s
consisted of:
1) shifting the manufacturing sector to the United
States Sun-Belt and the Third World, where labor was
non-union, costs were cheaper, and there were no labor
or environmental regulations;
2) restructuring the country into a non-union
service-based economy;
3) promoting the expansion of credit;
4) carrying out conglomerate mergers;
5) expanding real estate speculation; and,
6) intensifying financial speculation.
This model was underscored by massive military
spending, providing profits for arms producers and
commercial banks.
Implementing the new accumulation model also involved
constructing a new hegemonic ideology that would
rationalize the new model. Thus, Neo-Liberalism was
constructed during the 1970′s to serve that purpose. As
David Harvey explains in Neo-Liberalism: A Brief
History, this “consensus building” process involved
corporations, foundations, media, public relations
firms, and Republican politicians, combined with the
emerging Right-Wing forces, including the Sun-Belt
wealth, “free-market” economists, anti-tax activists,
the Religious-Right, and Neo-conservatives.
The policy guidelines Neo-Liberalism established are:
1) deregulation;
2) reducing the public sector;
3) cutting taxes for the wealthy;
4) privatizing public services; and,
5) smashing unions.
The political implementation of these guidelines aimed
to transfer income from the public sector and the
working class to the wealthiest people in the country.
The Reagan administration institutionalized Neo-
Liberalism, a hegemonic ideology which has shaped
United States politics since.
The move to restructure public education in the
interests of corporate-dominated Neo-Liberalism came
into fruition in 1983 when the Reagan-appointed
National Commission on Excellence in Education issued A
Nation at Risk. The report assessed the decline in
student achievement scores and warned that that decline
was an “internal threat that was more serious than
Soviet Union communism.” Using language not unlike
Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric, the report added that, “the
educational foundations of our society are presently
being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that
threatens our very future as a nation and as a people.”
The report aimed to restructure the governance,
organization, and curriculum of public education. This
would be accomplished by changing educational values
and curriculum goals.
Significantly, ANAR blamed the performance of public
high schools for the economic crisis, while ignoring
global and national economic, political, social,
cultural, and technological factors that, in fact, were
more to the point.
The report called for: “excellence;” making schools and
teachers “accountable;” national curriculum standards;
“core courses;” and standardized testing. The report
also called for federal leadership and more corporate
involvement in public education; confronting educators
(and a public) who wanted to promote more democracy and
diversity.
ANAR established an outline for a nationwide
educational reform movement which would permeate
schools at all levels. Very quickly most states and
local school districts began to formulate and
incorporate ANAR recommendations. Also, numerous
educational associations and unions endorsed aspects of
the report.
Thus, a new national consensus was being established
claiming that public education was in crisis and that
corporate-oriented Neo-Liberal reforms were necessary.
Moreover, the uneven, but persistent, state and local
fiscal crises, which had begun in the 1970′s, continued
to starve public education for resources. The assault
on public education would occur on two-symbiotic
tracks: the promotion of national policy and
restructuring owing to budget crises.
Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George
W. Bush expanded on the outlines of ANAR. The role of
Clinton in the education reform movement reflects the
Democratic Party’s shift from New Deal-driven
Corporate-Liberalism to “bi-partisan” acceptance of
Neo-Liberalism. Bush I proposed legislation, under
America 2000: An Educational Strategy, aimed to
standardize curriculum, and embrace school “choice.”
The America 2000 legislation died in the Senate, but
funding for education under Bush I increased
substantially.
The Clinton administration’s education policy was
framed in Goal 2000: Educate America Act, issued in
1993. That report aimed to further establish a
national consensus on goals, curriculum, and standards
of achievement.
George W. Bush intensified the Neo-Liberal policies.
This was initially seen with Bush II’s massive tax cuts
for the rich. After 9/11 occurred, Bush II deepened
that ideology in to United States foreign policy.
Moreover, Bush II’s education policy, called No Child
Left Behind, ratcheted up the assault on public
education.
NCLB legislated:
1) improved teacher training and test-based licensing;
2) annual testing in reading and mathematics in
elementary schools;
3) the chance for children in “failing” schools to
transfer.
Despite the inadequate funding the program received and
growing criticism from the education community, NCLB
was the law of the land.
The 2008 Presidential election occurred during the
worse economic crisis since the Great Depression. The
economic shock devastated state and local budgets,
causing massive reductions in public services, lay-
offs, and housing foreclosures. California, already
dealing with deficits and structural political
impediments, experienced the most severe budget deficit
of any state. Since the crisis began in 2008 Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature have
made deep education cuts.
A major reason for the 2008 financial collapse was
Clinton’s repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall
regulatory regime in 1999, which allowed commercial
banks to pursue unregulated mechanisms, such as “sub-
prime mortgages.”
Furthermore, corporate-interests recognized the crisis
was so severe that to accumulate profits they needed
government to intensify the transfer of public
resources to them. This would mean that funding for
programs which benefit the working class, elderly,
youth, the disabled, and education would be transferred
to the ruling elites in the form of bailouts,
subsidies, and debt servicing. This largely explains
why the assault on public education (as well as the
rest of the public sector) accelerated since fall,
2008.
Within that context Barack Obama was elected President.
Obama has intensified the Bush II revised version of
Neo-Liberalism: “limited government” except for Wall
Street and the corporations.
Obama’s education policy is a clear example. This is
reflected in a statement he made, in February, 2010,
after the Central Falls, Rhode Island school district
fired 93 unionized teachers, alleging that they were
responsible for “failing” standardized test scores. In
what could be considered Obama’s PATCO Moment, he
stated: “.if a school continues to fail its students
year after year after year, if it doesn’t show signs of
improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of account-
ability,.” Just like Reagan opened the door for the
attack on unions when he fired 13,000 air controllers
in 1981, unionized teachers now are increasingly
vulnerable.
Obama’s education policy is called “Race to the Top,”
although its objectives are no different than the
aforementioned Presidential educational policies.
Obama’s policy also exposes the conundrum that teacher
unions face supporting the Democratic Party.
In conclusion, under the current hegemonic ideological
and economic framework, there is no end in sight to the
assault on public education. ______________
BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator George Wright ,
PhD is the author of The Destruction of a Nation:
United States’ Policy Toward Angola Since 1945 (Pluto
Press, 1997) and Stan Wright – Track Coach (Pacifica
Sports Research Institute, 2005). He in Professor
Emeritus from the Political Science Department,
California State University, Chico. His research
interests include: International Political Economy,
African International Relations, and the Politics of
International Sport.
_____________________________________________