May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Slightly Skeptical View on Neoliberal Transformation of University Education
Previously education was mostly about "finding yourself" -- developing understanding of the world
and yourself, as well as developing those set of abilities that you was gifted most. And deciding what
you want to do in the future, within contins of job market and your abilities. Neoliberalism has changed that dramatically. Education now is just in
"investment" into your "entrepreneurial self" to increase your value as "human capital" holder and
this your value in the "labout market." (Symptomatic
Redness -Philip Mirowski - YouTube). That's bullsh*t, but people already brainwashed by
neoliberals from the middle school buy it uncritically.
Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, predatory health care providers, all of them out for
themselves…. Neoliberalism is the philosophy of the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street
titans who gave so much to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign…. They are pretend to belong to so called "creative vlass", but in reality
are self-interested, parasitical, and predatory. Common people are not admissible to this new aristocracy even if they have two
university educations.
In the current circumstances education is no longer the answer to rising inequality. Instead of serving
as a social lift it, it designed to propagate the current status of parents and at least in some cases, became more of a social trap
converting poorer or more reckless (as in specializing in areas were job market is not existent) graduates into debt slaves without
chances to repay the loans. All this is connected with neoliberal
transformation of education. With the collapse of post-war public funded educational model and privatization
of the University education students face a pretty cruel world. World in which they are cows to milk.
Now universities became institutions very similar to McDonalds ( or, in less politically correct terms,
Bordellos of Higher Learning). Like McDonalds they need to price their services so that to receive nice
profit and they to make themselves more attractive to industry they intentionally feed students with
overspecialized curriculum instead of concentrating on fundamentals and the developing the ability to
understand the world. Which was the hallmark of university education of the past.
Since 1970th Neo-Liberal
University model replaced public funded university model (Dewey model). It is
now collapsing as there are not that many students, who are able (and now with lower job prospects and
persistent tales of graduates working as bartenders) to pay inflated tuition fees. Foreigners somewhat compensates for this , but
with current high prices Canada, UK and Europe are more attractive for all but the most rich parents. That means that
higher education again by-and-large became privilege of the rich and upper middle class.
Lower student enrollment first hit after dot-com boom, when the number of students who want to be programmers decines
several times. Expensive private colleges start hunting
for people with government support (such a former members of Arm forces). The
elite universities, which traditionally serve the top 1% and rich foreigners fared better but were also hit. As David Schultz wrote
in his article (Logos,
2012):
Yet the Dewey model began to collapse in middle of the 1970s. Perhaps it was the retrenchment
of the SUNY and CUNY systems in New York under Governor Hugh Carey in 1976 that began the end
of the democratic university.What caused its retrenchment was the fiscal crisis of the
1970s.
The fiscal crisis of the 1970s was born of numerous problems. Inflationary pressures caused by
Vietnam and the energy embargoes of the 1970s, and recessionary forces from relative declines in
American economic productivity produced significant economic shocks, including to the public sector
where many state and local governments edged toward bankruptcy.
Efforts to relieve declining corporate profits and productivity initiated efforts to restructure
the economy, including cutting back on government services. The response, first in England under
Margaret Thatcher and then in the United States under Ronald Reagan, was an effort to retrench the
state by a package that included decreases in government expenditures for social welfare programs,
cutbacks on business regulations, resistance to labor rights, and tax cuts. Collectively these
proposals are referred to as Neo-liberalism and their aim was to restore profitability and autonomy
to free markets with the belief that unfettered by the government that would restore productivity.
Neo-liberalism had a major impact on higher education. First beginning under President
Carter and then more so under Ronald Reagan, the federal and state governments cut taxes and public
expenditures. The combination of the two meant a halt to the Dewey business model as support
for public institutions decreased and federal money dried up.
From a high in the 1960s and early 70s when states and the federal government provided generous
funding to expand their public systems to educate the Baby Boomers, state universities now receive
only a small percentage of their money from the government. As I pointed out in my 2005 Logos “The
Corporate University in American Society” article in 1991, 74% of the funding for public universities
came from states, in 2004; it was down to 64%, with state systems in Illinois, Michigan and Virginia
down to 25%, 18%, and 8% respectively. Since then, the percentages have shrunk even more, rendering
state universities public institutions more in name than in funding.
Higher education under Neo-liberalism needed a new business model and it found it in the corporate
university. The corporate university is one where colleges increasingly use corporate structures
and management styles to run the university. This includes abandoning the American Association
of University Professors (AAUP) shared governance model where faculty had an equal voice in the running
of the school, including over curriculum, selection of department chairs, deans, and presidents,
and determination of many of the other policies affecting the academy. The corporate university
replaced the shared governance model with one more typical of a business corporation.
For the corporate university, many decisions, including increasingly those affecting curriculum,
are determined by a top-down pyramid style of authority. University administration often composed
not of typical academics but those with business or corporate backgrounds had pre-empted many of
the decisions faculty used to make. Under a corporate model, the trustees, increasingly composed
of more business leaders than before, select, often with minimal input from the faculty, the president
who, in turn, again with minimal or no faculty voice, select the deans, department heads, and other
administrative personnel.
Neoliberalism professes the idea the personal greed can serve positive society goals, which is reflected
in famous neoliberal slogan "greed is good". And university presidents listen. Now presidents of neoliberal
universities do not want to get $100K per year salary, they want one, or better several, million dollars -- the
salary of the CEO of major corporation (Student Debt
Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - NYTimes.com)
At the 25 public universities with the highest-paid presidents, both student debt and the use
of part-time adjunct faculty grew far faster than at the average state university from 2005 to 2012,
according to a new
study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning Washington research group.
The study, “The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt
and Low-Wage Faculty Labor,” examined the relationship between executive pay, student debt and
low-wage faculty labor at the 25 top-paying public universities.
The co-authors, Andrew Erwin and Marjorie Wood, found that administrative expenditures at the
highest-paying universities outpaced spending on scholarships by more than two to one. And while
adjunct faculty members became more numerous at the 25 universities, the share of permanent faculty
declined drastically.
“The high executive pay obviously isn’t the direct cause of higher student debt, or cuts in labor
spending,” Ms. Wood said. “But if you think about it in terms of the allocation of resources, it
does seem to be the tip of a very large iceberg, with universities that have top-heavy executive
spending also having more adjuncts, more tuition increases and more administrative spending.”
... ... ...
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual
survey of public university presidents’ compensation, also released Sunday, found that nine chief
executives earned more than $1 million in total compensation in 2012-13, up from four the previous
year, and three in 2010-11. The median total compensation of the 256 presidents in the survey was
$478,896, a 5 percent increase over the previous year.
... ... ...
As in several past years, the highest-compensated president, at $6,057,615 in this period,
was E. Gordon Gee, who
resigned from Ohio State last summer amid trustee complaints about frequent gaffes. He has since
become the president of West Virginia University.
This trick requires dramatic raising of tuition costs. University bureaucracy also got taste for
better salaries and all those deans, etc want to be remunerated like vice presidents. So raising the
tuition costs became the key existential idea of neoliberal university. Not quality of education, but
tuition costs now are the key criteria of success. And if you can charge students $40K per semester
it is very, very good. If does not matter that most population get less then $20 an hour.
The same is true for professors, who proved to be no less corruptible. And some of them, such as
economic departments, simply serve as prostitutes for financial oligarchy. So they were corrupted even
before that rat race for profit. Of course there are exceptions. But they only prove the rule.
As the result university tuition inflation outpaced inflation by leaps and bounds. At some point
amount that you pay (and the level of debt after graduation) becomes an important factor in choosing
the university. So children of "have" and "have nots" get into different educational institutions and
do not meet each other. In a way aristocracy returned via back door.
Neoliberal university professes "deep specialization" to create "ready for the job market" graduates.
And that creates another problem: education became more like stock market game and that makes more difficult
for you to change your specialization late in the education cycle. But too early choice entails typical stock
market problem: you might miss the peak of the market or worse get into prolonged slump, as graduates
in finance learned all too well in 2008.
That's why it is important not to accumulate too much debt: large debt after graduation put you in situation like "all in" play in poker. You essentially bet that in
the chosen specialty there will
be open positions with high salary, when you graduate. If you lose this bet , you became a debt slave for considerable period of
your life.
As a result of this "reaction to the market trends" by neoliberal universities, when universities
became appendixes of HR of large corporations students need to be more aware of real university machinery,
then students in 50th or 60th of the last century. And first student should not assume that the university is functioning for their benefits.
One problem for a student is that there are now way too many variables that you do not control. Among
them:
Will it be a sizable market for graduates for the given specialty in four years from now
(late specialization and attempt to get a job after bachelor degree might help here; in this
case the selection of the master degree specialization can become more realistic).
What will be the general health of national economy on the moment of graduation? Remember
about students who graduated in 2008.
The total price of education (and by extension the size of the debt you get on the day
of graduation from the college).
Whether you become a victim of rip offs sponsored by the university administration. Although
this is a slight exaggeration, but the working hypothesis for student a modern neoliberal university
should probably be "This is a hostile environment ! Beware financial rip-offs". That might
involve gentle pushing you into obtaining worthless specialty or other intricate ways to screw you
based on your lack of life experience, poor understanding of academic environment and natural youth
maximalism. Loading you with loans to the max is another dirty trick. In private universities this
is a new art that is polished to perfection and widely practiced on unsuspecting lemmings.
On the deep level neoliberal university is not interested to help you to find specialization and
place in life where can unleash your talents. You are just a paying customers much like in McDonalds,
and university interests are such they might try to push you in wrong direction or load you with too
much debt.
If there is deep mismatch as was with computer science graduates after crash of dot-com boom, or
simply bad job market due to economy stagnation and
you can't find the job for your new specialty
(or if you got "junk" specialty with inherent high level of unemployment among professionals) and you
have substantial education debt, then waiting tables or having some other MacJob is a real disaster
for you. As with such salaries you simply can't pay it back. So controlling the level of debt is very
important and in this sense parents financial help is now necessary. In other words education became
more and more "rich kids game".
That does not mean that university education should be avoided for those from families with modest
means. On the contrary it provides unique experience and help a person to mature in multiple ways difficult
to achieve without it. It is still one of the best ways to get vertical mobility. But unless parents
can support you need to try to find the most economical way to obtain it without acquiring too much
debt. This is you first university exam. And if you fail it you are in trouble.
For example, computer science education is a great way to learn quite a few things necessary for
a modern life. But the price does matter and prestige of the university institution that you attend
is just one of the factors you should consider in your evaluation. It should not be the major factor
("vanity fair") unless your parents are rich and can support you. If you are good you can get later
a master degree in a prestigious university after graduation from a regular college. Or even Ph.D.
County colleges are greatly underappreciated and generally provide pretty high standard of education,
giving ability to students to save money for the first two years before transferring to a four year
college. They also smooth the transition as finding yourself among people who are only equal or superior
then you (and have access to financial resource that you don't have) is a huge stress. The proverb say
that it is better to be first in the village then last in the town has some truth in it. Prestigious
universities might provide a career boost (high fly companies usually accept resumes only from Ivy League
members), but they cost so much that you need to be a son or daughter of well-to-do parents to feel
comfortably in them. Or extremely talented. Also amount of career boost that elite universities provide
depends on whom your parents are and what connections they have. It does not depend solely on you and
the university. Again, I would like to stress that you should resist "vanity fair" approach to your
education: a much better way is to try to obtain BS in a regular university and them try to obtain MS
and then, if you are good, PHD, in a prestigious university. Here is a fragment of an interesting discussion
that covers this topic (Low Mobility Is Not a Social Tragedy?, Feb 13, 2013
; I recommend you to read the whole discussion ):
kievite:
I would like to defend Greg Clack.
I think that Greg Clack point is that the number of gifted children is limited and that
exceptionally gifted children have some chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical
societies (story of Alexander Hamilton was really fascinating for me, the story of Mikhail
Lomonosov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov
was another one -- he went from the very bottom to the top of Russian aristocracy just on the
strength of his abilities as a scientist). In no way the ability to "hold its own" (typical for
rich families kids) against which many here expressed some resentment represents social mobility.
But the number of kids who went down is low -- that's actually proves Greg Clack point:
(1) Studies of social mobility using surnames suggest two things. Social mobility rates
are much lower than conventionally estimated. And social mobility rates estimated in this way
vary little across societies and time periods. Sweden is no more mobile than contemporary England
and the USA, or even than medieval England. Social mobility rates seem to be independent of
social institutions (see the other studies on China, India, Japan and the USA now linked here).
Francisco Ferreira rejects this interpretation, and restates the idea that there is a strong
link between social mobility rates and inequality in his interesting post.
What is wrong with the data Ferreira cites? Conventional estimates of social mobility, which
look at just single aspects of social status such as income, are contaminated by noise. If
we measure mobility on one aspect of status such as income, it will seem rapid.
But this is because income is a very noisy measure of the underlying status of families.
The status of families is a combination of their education, occupation, income, wealth, health,
and residence. They will often trade off income for some other aspect of status such as occupation.
A child can be as socially successful as a low paid philosophy professor as a high paid car
salesman. Thus if we measure just one aspect of status such as income we are going to confuse
the random fluctuations of income across generations, influenced by such things as career choices
between business and philosophy, with true generalised social mobility.
If these estimates of social mobility were anywhere near correct as indicating true
underlying rates of social mobility, then we would not find that the aristocrats of 1700 in
Sweden are still overrepresented in all elite occupations of Sweden. Further, the more
equal is income in a society, the less signal will income give of the true social status of
families. In a society such as Sweden, where the difference in income between bus drivers and
philosophy professors is modest, income tells us little about the social status of families.
It is contaminated much more by random noise. Thus it will appear if we measure social status
just by income that mobility is much greater in Sweden than in the USA, because in the USA
income is a much better indicator of the true overall status of families.
The last two paragraphs of Greg Clark article cited by Mark Thoma are badly written and actually
are somewhat disconnected with his line of thinking as I understand it as well as with the general
line of argumentation of the paper.
Again, I would like to stress that a low intergenerational mobility includes the ability
of kids with silver spoon in their mouth to keep a status close to their parent. The fact
that they a have different starting point then kids from lower strata of society does not change
that.
I think that the key argument that needs testing is that the number of challengers from lower
strata of the society is always pretty low and is to a large extent accommodated by the societies
we know (of course some societies are better then others).
Actually it would be interesting to look at the social mobility data of the USSR from this
point of view.
But in no way, say, Mark Thoma was a regular kid, although circumstances for vertical mobility
at this time were definitely better then now. He did possessed some qualities which made possible
his upward move although his choice of economics was probably a mistake ;-).
Whether those qualities were enough in more restrictive environments we simply don't know,
but circumstances for him were difficult enough as they were.
I stopped reading after that. I teach at a high school in a town with a real mix of highly
elite families, working class families, and poor families, and I can tell you that the children
of affluent parents are not obviously more gifted than the children of poor families. They
do, however, have a lot more social capital, and they have vastly more success. But the limitations
on being "gifted" are irrelevant.
According to an extensive study (Turkheimer et al., 2003) of 50,000 pregnant women and the
children they went on to have (including enough sets of twins to be able to study the role of
innate genetic differences), variation in IQ among the affluent seems to be largely genetic.
Among the poor, however, IQ has very little to do with genes -- probably because the genetic
differences are swamped and suppressed by the environmental differences, as few poor kids
are able to develop as fully as they would in less constrained circumstances.
All you said is true. I completely agree that "...few poor kids are able to develop as fully
as they would in less constrained circumstances." So there are losses here and we should openly
talk about them.
Also it goes without saying that social capital is extremely important for a child. That's
why downward mobility of children from upper classes is suppressed, despite the fact that some
of them are plain vanilla stupid.
But how this disproves the point made that"exceptionally gifted children have some
chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical societies"? I
think you just jumped the gun...
mrrunangun:
The early boomers benefitted from the happy confluence of the postwar boom, LBJ's Great
Society efforts toward financial assistance for those seeking to advance their educations, and
the 1964 Civil Rights Act which opened opportunities for marginalized social groups in institutions
largely closed to them under the prewar social customs in the US.
The US Supreme Court is made up of only Jews and Catholics as of this writing, a circumstance
inconceivable in the prewar America. Catholics were largely relegated to separate and unequal
institutions. Jews' opportunities were limited by quotas and had a separate set of institutions
of their own where their numbers could support such. Where their numbers were not sufficient,
they were often relegated to second rate institutions.
Jewish doctors frequently became the leading men in the Catholic hospitals in Midwestern industrial
towns where they were unwelcome in the towns' main hospitals. Schools, clubs, hospitals, professional
and commercial organizations often had quota or exclusionary policies. Meritocracy has its
drawbacks, but we've seen worse in living memory.
Of course bad things that happened to you during your university years are soon forgotten and nostalgia
colors everything in role tones, but the truth is that the modern university is a very cruel world.
Now more then ever.Here are some random observations of the subject (See also my Diploma Millspage about high education sharks for which
sucking you dry financially is the main goal ):
The number of talented teachers is very limited. Your chances to get one in a modern university
are pretty slim. And chances of personally interacting with one which in old time was tremendous
source of personal growth for university students are even slimmer. And level of salaries can change
this number only insignificantly as people with an outstanding talent to teach usually try to find
the way into teaching in any case. High salaries attract more careerists and psychopaths, so they
are mixed blessing. Differences of compensation do not automatically translates into differences
in quality of teaching. Please note that in the USSR the entry-level salary of a teacher was on the
same level as the salary of a casher in supermarket (in other words they were semi-starved) and still
the level of education provided was pretty decent. They were really poor by all standards. But social
status of teaching profession was very high and probably due to this people who get into teaching
were by-and-large very dedicated. So complete absence of money stimulus does not completely kills
inflow of good teachers. Moreover, after the USSR dissolved and new Russian state experienced huge
difficulties with paying salaries to government workers, most teachers did not get salary for half
a year or more and still almost 100% of them continued to teach students of daily basis.
The number of talented students is very limitedtoo. This numbercan't be
easily changed by monetary stimulus to teachers or students. Development of a talented student
only partially is dependent on the quality of the teacher and the school as a whole. They to
a certain extent are "self-propelled" and after initial "boost" (often when the interest to the subject
was sparked by contact with talented dedicated teacher in high school who loves his subject, recognized
their abilities and treated them accordingly) do not significantly increase or lower their results
on additional effort or money that are spent on their education. One interesting factor is that presence
of talented students in the class raises the level of other students and they often provide influence
similar to talented teachers.
While family support matters, excessive push typical, for example, for parents of South Asian
students can be detrimental. I attended a school for mathematically gifted children and they
pushed us so hard that none of the students became a professional mathematician, despite obvious
high natural abilities ;-). Most of us got an allergy to the mathematics for the rest of their lives.
The other extreme when student "is on your own" is also bad. Difficulties in college are substantial
and parents support matters a lot. It is a factor success.
There is also a certain number of students who do not respond well to educational effort no
matter how hard the teacher tries. So, paradoxically, requiring certain average level of achievement
for the class essentially redirects teacher effort from more talented students, who are fewer in
number but might benefit from these efforts, toward less capable and/or less motivated, but who are
more numerically significant part of the class and affect the average that is measured.
Motivation is a huge problem for certain social groups. I think tremendous level of family
pressure partially explains higher level of education success of Jewish, Asian and Eastern European
students. Parents, especially first generation emigrant parents often transfer very high level of
expectations typical for their native countries to the child. In Eastern Europe the level of educational
achievement of a child often serves as a stamp of social approval of the parents, so the pressure
can be excessive and hurt the child. Paradoxically, negative stimulus might work well too. One probable
reason that the level of education in the USSR was reasonably high despite overcrowded and poorly
equipped schools was the fact that those male students who failed entrance exam to the university
twice after the graduation from high school (year of the graduation and the next year) were drafted
to Red Army. For urban youth that was essentially a punishment for educational failure as by-and-large
they were pro-western oriented and were afraid to be drafted. For the same reason the fact that the
number of seats at the universities was limited and insufficient to absorb all high-school graduates
created huge competition when parents hired teachers to prepare students to the university entrance
exams spending often the last money they have.
All those attempts to quantify and measure the quality of a teacher are limited and pretty
controversial. Too much zeal in attempt to quantify teachers performance convert those metrics
into something completely opposite -- detrimental to the teaching bureaucratic fetish as most of
average teachers quickly redirected their efforts from teaching toward meeting those often completely
detached from reality criteria. "Number racket" can even kill incentives for better teachers up to
driving them out of particular "obsessed with measurements" school to other educational institutions.
US schools have huge problems with the quality of the curriculum. They are especially
acute in high schools. Attempts to meet demands of the lower half of student population and disadvantaged
students became so pervasive that in certain subjects students no longer get adequate education at
all (only advanced classes provide European level of exposure to physics, chemistry, biology
and history).
The US schools have pathological fear of failure of students. That depreciates the level
and effort of high achievers. SAT further complicates the picture as in no way it is equivalent to
two exams in math (one written and one taken by human examiners -- usually for an hour), written
composition skills exam and an oral exam in physics that is taken by human examiners (university
staff) which is the way students used to pass the entrance exam to the university in the USSR area.
Level of some teachers is really dismal. So dismal that I, as a university teacher, do
not understand how they managed to graduate from the university. I know a high school math teacher
who teaches at the local high school who was/is unable to solve textbook problems she assigned to
students and thus unable to see if the student solved the problem correctly if students' solution
differed from the provided in teacher's supplement to the textbook.
Unions always have negative aspects like any bureaucracy and any professional guild, but it
is less drag of the society then lobbyists for, say, investment banks. The problem of getting
rid of ridiculously bad teachers is solvable with unions. At the same time teacher union do provide
useful protection from the school administrators and litigious parents (there was a sad, but pretty
telling story that some family sued the school when their daughter was not selected as valedictorian
:-), who otherwise are completely unchecked, like old Greek tyrants.
Number of students who graduates from the university is much higher then the number of position
that require such level of education. That lead to devaluation of education with BS becoming
equivalent of high school diploma.
Computers do provide profound influence on education but this influence not always a positive
one. They greatly stimulated structured tests and "tele-teaching". The latter creates some interesting
possibilities and ability to reuse lectures and reach much broader audience (thousands of students
in case of lectures is not a problem). Also attempt to write lecture notes using computer usually
is less efficient then writing them in an old fashioned way with pen or pencil. IMHO transcription
of hand-written notes to computer notes should be a separate step. The main advantage of computer
notes is that they can be searched, but they have several drawbacks -- browsing is more difficult,
highlighting is practiced less consistently and usage became "less personal".
The personality of the teacher as a real human next to you with whom you can talk and real class
that meets each week are important factors in educational success. You lose those factors with tele-teaching.
It became more like tele-preaching :-). A huge drawback of distant learning based on telecommunication
is that personality of the teacher became sterilized and contacts with students way too formal. Essentially
teacher becomes a cartoon on the screen.
Also even one bright student in a physical class often does more then a teacher to stimulate
learning of others. This effect is completely absent in tele-audiences when everybody is
essentially an isolated, atomic unit. That also eliminate large part of fun of being student as network
of human contacts on campus, contacts that you acquire by attending classes together is a vital part
of student life. It also severe important link with teacher -- brightest students is one of the important
channels teachers learn new things :-)
Another important factor that limits the effectiveness of tele-learning is the feedback loop is
much weaker. For example, when with the audience, the teacher can adapt the presentation to the audience
in a way that is more difficult, more expensive or just impossible in tele-teaching environment.
That requires full duplex tele-presence which is a very expensive proposition, that eats quickly
any financial advantages of tele-teaching.
Yes another interesting aspect is that cheating and plagiarism became much more prominent.
There are two factors here.
First of all absence of physical contact lowers moral norms. It became more of a poker game.
And the second is the lure of possibilities created by distant exams: you can never tell who
is taking your remote exam and what they use in a process :-)
Cases when students from online class in real audience in later classes demonstrated C or D-level
of knowledge despite getting high grades in the remote course they just took are more common that
people think.
I can tell you that even for such ideally suited subject for tele-teaching as computer science,
it creates almost as many problems as it solves. So net might be neutral or negative.
Most teachers and Professors in the university are good, honest people who are trying to make some
contribution to science and teach students (difficult things to mix). But not all. One of the most dangerous
feature of neoliberal university are influx of people who represent a toxic mix of teacher, snake oil
seller, careerist and cult follower. They are not teachers but brainwashers, hired guns -- propagandists
masquerading as University professors. That is why we have witnessed such a corruption and politicization
of science and rising proportion of research and theories taught at the universities that are fraudulent.
Previously teacher was a person somewhat similar to a monk. A person who consciously traded the ability
to work in science to the possibility of acquiring material wealth, at least excessive material wealth.
As Ernest Rutherford once
reminded Pyotr Kapitsa "No
one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to
the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:24)
But in neoliberal university way too many teachers/researchers took Faustian bargain when one trades
the academic independence for above average personal wealth, influence, for the power grab. And despite
popular image of scientists and university professors they proved to be as corruptible by money as Wall
Street traders ;-). This is because the sponsors of their research such as big business, non-governmental
organizations (NGO) and government vie to publish reports and results that put the sponsors in the best
light. Good example is relations of
pharmaceutical industry and academia
“The answer to that question is at once both predictable and shocking: For the past two decades,
medical research has been quietly corrupted by cash from private industry. Most doctors and academic
researchers aren't corrupt in the sense of intending to defraud the public or harm patients, but
rather, more insidiously, guilty of allowing the pharmaceutical and biotech industries to manipulate
medical science through financial relationships, in effect tainting the system that is supposed to
further the understanding of disease and protect patients from ineffective or dangerous drugs. More
than 60 percent of clinical studies--those involving human subjects--are now funded not by the federal
government, but by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. That means that the studies published
in scientific journals like Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine--those critical reference
points for thousands of clinicians deciding what drugs to prescribe patients, as well as for individuals
trying to educate themselves about conditions and science reporters from the popular media who will
publicize the findings--are increasingly likely to be designed, controlled, and sometimes even
ghost-written by marketing departments, rather than academic scientists. Companies routinely
delay or prevent the publication of data that show their drugs are ineffective.
...
“ Novartis, stepped in and provided additional funding for development. In 1984, private companies
contributed a mere $26 million to university research budgets. By 2000, they were ponying up $2.3
billion, an increase of 9000 percent that provided much needed funds to universities at a time when
the cost of doing medical research was skyrocketing.”
Historically the scientific community is held together through its joint acceptance of the same fundamental
principles of conducting research (and teaching those results) and ethics. Scientific research is best
practiced in a voluntary, honest and free atmosphere. But this idyllic arrangement as well as scientific
ethics now belongs to the past (
The Corruption of Science
)
“It’s a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is
scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University
of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours.
The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and
might be particularly high in medical research.
...There is immense pressure on scientists to produce results, to publish, to seek glory, or just
to get tenure. Scientists are human beings, after all, and sometimes they approach their field with
preconceptions or biases. Politics certainly comes into play; consider eugenics in the United States
at the beginning of the 20th century, or eugenics in Nazi Germany.
Now we can talk only about the level of political and economical pressure and corresponding level
of corruption on professors and scientists, not so much about presence or absence of corruption in science
and education. What really matters for students is that when they feel that a professor is a scum, they
nevertheless try to imitate. See for example
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia.
Historically the situation started to change even before neoliberal university became a dominant
educational institution. Previously, despite the fact that money for science were in short supply, scientists
maintained a self-discipline. That changed after WWII. Prior to World War II there was little government
financial support for science. A graduate student working on a Ph.D. degree was expected to make a new
discovery to earn that degree. And if somebody else came first he needed to find a new theme and to
restart his work.
But with the advent of NSF scientists started to "propose" directions of research to get funding.
And be sure this instill atmosphere of sycophantism and political correctness. This process accelerated
dramatically since 1980th with the ascendance of neoliberalism as a dominant USA ideology, when greed
became playing significant role in US universities. It should be understood that now the university
professor is no longer is a teacher and a scientist, but predominantly "grants provider" for the university
and that means that he/she is in the first place a political agent, a manipulator on a mission from
the external agent (typically the state via NSF or other agency, see
The
Corruption of Science in America -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net)
For the unwashed masses University professor career still represents the ultimate carrier of truth
for a given discipline, so his opinion have a distinct political weight. And the architects of our neoliberal
world fully use this "superstition". Like we can see with neoclassical economics, economists have
turned into an instrument of cognitive manipulation, when under the guise of science financial
oligarchy promote beneficial to itself but false and simplistic picture of the world, using University
professors to brainwash the masses into "correct" thinking.
Professors literally became a religious figures, and cult members or even cult leaders. The first
sign of this dangerous disease of the modern university was probably
Lysenkoism in the USSR. In this sense one can say that Lysenkoism
represented a natural side effect of shrinking of freedom of the scientific community and growing influence
of political power on science. As by Frederick Seitz noted in his
The Present Danger To
Science and Society
Everyone knows that the scientific community faces financial problems at the present time. If
that were its only problem, some form of restructuring and allocation of funds, perhaps along lines
well tested in Europe and modified in characteristic American ways, might provide solutions that
would lead to stability and balance well into the next century. Unfortunately, the situation is more
complex, made so by the fact that the scientific establishment has become the object of controversy
from both outside and inside its special domain. The most important aspects of the controversy
are of a new kind and direct attention away from matters that are sufficiently urgent to be the focus
of a great deal of the community's attention.
The assaults on science from the outside arise from such movements as the ugly form of "political
correctness" that has taken root in important portions of our academic community. There are to be
found, in addition, certain tendencies toward a home-grown variant of the anti-intellectual Lysenkoism
that afflicted science in the Stalinist Soviet Union. So-called fraud cases are being dealt with
in new, bureaucratic ways that cut across the traditional methods of arriving at truth in science.
From inside the scientific community, meanwhile, there are challenges that go far beyond those
that arise from the intense competition for the limited funds that are available to nourish the country's
scientific endeavor.
The critical issue of arriving at a balanced approach to funding for science is being subordinated
to issues made to seem urgent by unhealthy alliances of scientists and bureaucrats. Science
and the integrity of its practitioners are under attack and, increasingly, legislators and bureaucrats
shape the decisions that determine which paths scientific research should take. There is, in
addition, a sinister tendency, especially in environmental affairs, toward considering the undertaking
of expensive projects that are proposed by some scientists to remedy worst-case formulations of problems
before the radical and expensive remedies are proven to be needed. They are viewed seriously
though they are based on the advice of opportunistic alarmists in science who leap ahead of what
is learned from solid research to encourage support for the expensive remedies they perceive to be
necessary. The potential for very great damage to science and society is real.
Unfortunately a large part of the textbook market in the USA has all signs of corrupted monopoly
infested with cronyism and incompetence to the extent that Standard Oil practices looks pretty benign
in comparison. As the site
MakeTextbooksAffordable.com
states on its font page:
The report found that even though students already
pay $900 year for textbooks, textbook publishers artificially inflate the price of textbooks by adding
bells and whistles to the current texts, and forcing cheaper used books off the market by producing
expensive new editions of textbooks that are barely different from the previous edition.
And some university professors are part of these scheme. Congressmen David Wu sites the opinion of
the publisher in his letter"If a student is paying hundreds of dollars for a book, it's because the professor has ordered the
Cadillac edition". But that might be true only for CS where any professor can easily find a cheaper
high quality substitute from publishers like O'Reilly (and students can do this too, see
Softpanorama Bookshelf actually about finding the best CS book
(and some other) at reasonable prices. In other disciplines like mathematics situation is a real racket:
The cost of a common calculus textbook is over $100 in the USA. This is a blatant, open
rip-off. Economics is probably even worse with some useless junk selling for almost $300 per book.
But here one needs to see a bigger picture: low quality of recommended textbooks and, especially,
the quality of university instruction makes it necessary buying additional textbooks. Also the ownership
of best textbooks often makes the difference between success and failure in the particular course. In
this sense additional $100 spending for books for each course makes economic sense as the common alternative
is to drop the course, which often means $1K of more loss.
There are several ways to save on additional textbooks that hopefully can somewhat compensate for
the low quality of tuition in a typical university. With some effort a student can often save approximately
50% of the cover price. Again my Links2bookstores page
contains more information.
At the same time if the instructor is weak, or, worse, belongs to "fundamentalists", a category of
instructors that does not distinguish between important and unimportant things and overloads the course
with "useless overcomplexity" additional books are one of few countermeasures against
this typical university-style rip-off. Dropping the course is a difficult maneuver that requires perfect
timing and problems with instructor and the course content usually do not surface during the first month
of the study when you can still do it for free or with minimal damage.
College textbook publishing became a racket with the growth of neoliberalism. And it is pretty dirty
racket with willing accomplishes in form of so called professors like Greg Mankiw. For instance, you
can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under $4.00, while a new 7th edition
costs over $200. An interesting discussion of this problem can be found at
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks'
Tim Taylor on why textbooks cost so much:
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks: High textbook prices are a pebble in the shoe of many college
students. Sure, it's not the biggest financial issue they face, But it's a real and nagging annoyance
that for hinders performance for many students. ...
David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein at National Public Radio took up this question recently on
one of their "Planet Money" podcasts. ... For economists, a highlight is that they converse
with Greg Mankiw, author of what is currently the best-selling introductory economics textbook,
which as they point out is selling for $286 on Amazon. Maybe this is a good place to point out
that I am not a neutral observer in this argument: The third edition of my own Principles of Economics
textbook is available through Textbook
Media.
The pricing
varies from $25 for online access to the book, up through $60 for both a paper copy (soft-cover,
black and white) and online access.
Several explanations for high textbook prices are on offer.
The standard arguments are that textbook companies are marketing selling to professors, not to
students, and professors are not necessarily very sensitive to textbook prices. (Indeed, one can
argue that before the rapid rise in textbook prices in the last couple of decades, it made sense
for professors not to focus too much on textbook prices.) Competition in the textbook market is
limited, and the big publishers load up their books with features that might appeal to professors:
multi-colored hardcover books, with DVDs and online access, together with test banks that allow
professors to give quizzes and tests that can be machine-graded. At many colleges and universities,
the intro econ class is taught in a large lecture format, which can include hundreds or even several
thousand students, as well as a flock of teaching assistants, so some form of computerized grading
and feedback is almost a necessity. Some of the marketing by textbook companies involves paying
professors for reviewing chapters--of course in the hope that such reviewers will adopt the book.
The NPR show casts much of this dynamic as a "principal-agent problem," the name for a situation
in which one person (the "principal") wants another person (the "agent") to act on their behalf,
but lacks the ability to observe or evaluate the actions of the agent in a complete way. Principal-agent
analysis is often used, for example, to think about the problem of a manager motivating employees.
But it can also be used to consider the issue of students (the "principals") wanting the professor
(the "agent") to choose the book that will best suit the needs of the students, with all factors
of price and quality duly taken into account. The NPR reporters quote one expert saying that the
profit margin for high school textbooks is 5-10%, because those books decisions are made by school
districts and states that negotiate hard. However, profit margins on college textbooks--where
the textbook choice is often made by a professor who may not even know the price that students
will pay--are more like 20%.
The NPR report suggests this principal-agent framework to Greg Mankiw, author of the top-selling
$286 economic textbook. Mankiw points out that principal-agent problems are in no way nefarious,
but come up in many contexts. For example, when you get an operation, you rely on the doctor to
make choices that involve costs; when you get your car fixed, you rely on a mechanic to make choices
that involve costs; when you are having home repairs done, you rely on a repair person or a contractor
to make choices that involve costs. Mankiw argues that professors, acting as the agents of students,
have legitimate reason to be concerned about tradeoffs of time and money. As he notes, a high
quality book is more important "than saving them a few dollars"--and he suggests that saving $30
isn't worth it for a low-quality book.
But of course, in the real world there are more choices than a high-quality $286 book and a
low-quality $256 book. The PIRG student surveys suggest that up to two-thirds of students are
avoiding buying textbooks at all, even though they fear it will hurt their grade, or are shifting
to other classes with lower textbook costs. If a student is working 10 hours a week at a part-time
job, making $8/hour after taxes, then the difference between $286 book and a $60 book is 28.25
hours--nearly three weeks of part-time work. I am unaware of any evidence in which students were
randomly assigned different textbooks but otherwise taught and evaluated in the same way, and
kept time diaries, which would show that higher-priced books save time or improve academic performance.
It is by no means obvious that a lower-cost book (yes, like my own) works less well for students
than a higher-cost book from a big publisher. Some would put that point more strongly.
A final dynamic that may be contributing to higher-prices textbooks is a sort of vicious circle
related to the textbook resale market. The NPR report says that when selling a textbook over a
three-year edition, a typical pattern was that sales fell by half after the first year and again
by half after the second year, as students who had bought the first edition resold the book to
later students. Of course, this dynamic also means that many students who bought the book new
are not really paying full-price, but instead paying the original price minus the resale price.
The argument is that as textbooks have increased in price, the resale market has become ever-more
active, so that sales of a textbook in later years have dwindled much more quickly. Textbook companies
react to this process by charging more for the new textbook, which of course only spurs more activity
in the resale market.
A big question for the future of textbooks is how and in what ways they migrate to electronic
forms. On one side, the hope is that electronic textbooks will offer expanded functionality, as
well as being cheaper. But this future is not foreordained. At least at present, my sense is that
the functionality of reading and taking notes in online textbooks hasn't yet caught up to the
ease of reading on paper. Technology and better screens may well shift this balance over time.
But even setting aside questions of reading for long periods of time on screen, or taking notes
on screen, at present it remains harder to skip around in a computerized text between what you
are currently reading and the earlier text that you need to be checking, as well as skipping to
various graphs, tables, and definitions. To say it more simply, in a number of subjects it may
still be harder to study an on-line text than to study a paper text.
Moreover, as textbook manufacturers shift to an on-line world, they will bring with them
their full bag of tricks for getting paid. The Senack report notes:
Today’s marketplace offers more digital textbook options to the student consumer than ever.
“Etextbooks” are digitized texts that students read on a laptop or tablet. Similar to PDF documents,
e-textbooks enable students to annotate, highlight and search. The cost may be 40-50 percent
of the print retail price, and access expires after 180 days. Publishers have introduced
e-textbooks for nearly all their traditional textbook offerings. In addition, the emergence
of the ereader like the Kindle and iPad, as well as the emergence of many e-textbook rental
programs, all seemed to indicate that the e-textbook will alter the college textbook landscape
for the better.
However, despite this shift, users of e-textbooks are subject to expiration dates, on-line
codes that only work once, page printing limits, and other tactics that only serve to restrict
use and increase cost.
Unfortunately for students, the publishing companies’ venture into e-textbooks is a
continuation of the practices they use to monopolize the print market.
JohnH:
My understanding is that there are cases where the professor requires the textbook he wrote
and for which he receives royalties...
In such cases, the publisher and the professor's interests align against the student, who pays
through the teeth.
djb:
good article but i have a real problem with introductory texts on economics
they are completely biased, mostly towards supply side of the debate
meaning, of course, they are wrong
if they just contained that which is undeniably true then ok, or if they presented it as this
school of thought says this and that school of thought says the other, ok,
The Raven:
A general rule of thumb: half the selling price of a book is spent before the first impression
is made on paper. Speaking as a very small publisher, I think the main problem is that the
texts are expensive to produce.
They take a lot of editorial and design effort, so the fixed costs of textbook production are
high, the production costs are often high, and textbook bestsellers are not common, so they
don't usually make it up on volume.
Now, one could, for standard freshman and sophomore texts, aim at lower costs and higher volumes,
but that's not academic publishing, and nothing is going to help with upper-level texts; the market
is just not that big.
Excellent! With a high elasticity of demand, the increase in quantity beats the drop in price.
Unless the marginal cost of printing books is higher than I suspect it is, Mankiw's publisher
is not a profit maximizing monopolist. I'm telling you the best economics is right here and we
don't charge $286!
You'd have to market a book *hard* to get that increase in demand, though. It's not a student-by-student
sale decision; the professors have to be marketed. The other thing about publishing economics
that people outside the industry don't realize: most books don't make much money, so publishers
rely on the good-sellers and the best-sellers for much of their profits. If you've got something
you're pretty sure is going to be in demand, *you mark it up,* because in William Golding's immortal
phrase, "Nobody knows anything."
Over the past 25 or so years, the consolidation of publishing has put the money types more
and more in control of the business. And the money types always want to only market best sellers.
This is sort of like Germany saying that everyone should make money exporting. "That trick never
works."
Now, if anyone wanted to bring the price of an Econ 101 book down, one could do a no-frills
book, small, soft-covered, and strictly monochrome, or perhaps an ebook. (But watch out—only some
ebook readers support mathematics well.) It might cost $50 or so (I'm guessing—I'm not a textbook
publisher.) It would not look impressive, and this might make a problem for marketing, but students
could still learn from it. And—who knows?—it might even sell.
T.J.:
The issue is that textbook publishers release new editions every couple of years. For many
subjects, including economics, this is absurd. Sciences don't change that quickly.
For instance, you can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under
$4.00, while a new 7th edition costs over $200.
Has principles of microeconomics changed that much over the course of 6 years? No, but textbook
companies make a few changes on the margin and charge you hundreds of dollars for a new edition.
Many times, professors require online access codes to supplement their lecture. Therefore, the
student is forced into the newer edition, in which often there is no substantial differences or
major improvements in presenting the material.
When you have that sort of market power, it is easy to achieve economic rents.
pgl -> to T.J....
"Sciences don't change that quickly". One would hope those freshwater books changed after their
utter failures to predict the most recent recession. But they likely haven't.
cm -> to T.J....
There are errata, and some content that the author has in mind doesn't make it into the first
edition, or not at the intended quality/depth. Most people who have never published something
substantial have no idea how much work it is to get non-fiction scientific/technical stuff publication
ready. Not only on the author's part but also editing and proofreading/giving feedback at a collegial
level. (Not meaning to knock down fiction, that's a different set of challenges.)
Bill Ellis:
Two Ideas I would like to see combined. A period of Universal public service that earns a free
higher and or tech education. Something like the GI bill for all.
I think making universal public service a right of passage could help us be a more unified
society. If we have kids from inner city Detroit, rural West Virginia, suburban San Francisco
and the oil fields of Oklahoma working side by side it would open their eyes to each other in
ways that are never experienced by most American kids who are living in communities of institutional
self-segregation.
Having said that.. free education is a no brainer no matter what.
To cover everyone's tuition it would only cost us about forty billion more than the feds already
spend on higher ed. That's a rounding error in terms of our total budget.
We subsidize big oil and gas to the tune of about 50 billion a year.
The maddening thing is that the national debate is not even close to taking Free Ed seriously.
Instead Liz Warren is portrayed some kind of wild eyed radical for proposing a modest cut in interest
rates on student loans and some narrow way to get some forgiveness of debt.
John Cummings:
It is part of the educational industrial complex (which include vouchers and government backed
private school industrial complex)
Educational industrial complex
Military industrial complex
Medical industrial complex
Prison industrial complex
Fred C. Dobbs:
(Evidently, 'It’s Economics 101'.)
Higher education: Why textbooks cost so much
http://econ.st/1yzDU5Z via @TheEconomist
- Aug 16th 2014
Students can learn a lot about economics when they buy Greg Mankiw’s “Principles of Economics”—even
if they don’t read it. Like many popular textbooks, it is horribly expensive: $292.17 on Amazon.
Indeed, the nominal price of textbooks has risen more than fifteen fold since 1970, three times
the rate of inflation (see chart, at link).
Like doctors prescribing drugs, professors assigning textbooks do not pay for the products
themselves, so they have little incentive to pick cheap ones. Some assign books they have written
themselves. The 20m post-secondary students in America often have little choice in the matter.
Small wonder textbooks generate megabucks.
But hope is not lost for poor scholars. Foreign editions are easy to find online and often
cheaper—sometimes by over 90%. Publishers can be litigious about this, but in 2013 the Supreme
Court ruled that Americans have the right to buy and resell copyrighted material obtained legally.
Many university bookstores now let students rent books and return them. Publishers have begun
to offer digital textbooks, which are cheaper but can’t be resold. And if all else fails, there
is always the library.
How to Cut Your Textbook Costs in Half -- or More-Kiplinger
http://po.st/nCZsxY - August 2014
(By renting e-books, donchaknow.)
(Turns out Mankiw's Econ textbook, which
currently costs $289 in hardcover from
Amazon, can be rented in Kindle format
for a mere $173 - for 180 days.)
(Hardcover rental is $70, however.)
Fred C. Dobbs -> to Fred C. Dobbs...
(Wait a second. The Federales fixed
this problem back in 2008...)
Advocates say a new set of federal provisions, aimed at driving down the cost of college textbooks,
should help students this fall. On July 1, (2010) these rules took effect:
Publishers must give professors detailed information about textbook prices, revision histories
and a list of alternate formats.
Publishers have to sell materials typically bundled with textbooks -- such as CDs, DVDs and
workbooks -- separately so students don't have to buy them.
Colleges have to include in-course schedules with required textbooks for each class, including
the book's price and International Standard Book Number, an identifying tool.
The protections, included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, are an attempt to
lessen student debt, said U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on Wednesday.
"The cost of education is of concern not only to students and families but to the nation,"
Durbin said, explaining why the government got involved in textbook prices. "Students are emerging
with more and more debt."
Textbooks have been outrageously expensive for a long time, though some of the prices quoted
in this article were astonishing to me and I used to be in the business. Nothing much has changed.
The complaints and the defenses sound very familiar. Even in the 70s and 80s, publishers groused
about how the used trade hurt their sales and the suggestion was repeatedly made that one way
around the trap was to produce much cheaper texts and make up the difference on volume. Unfortunately,
the numbers never add up for that business plan since the major textbook publishers have huge
sunk costs in the big sales forces needed to support the current model. Anyhow, good cheap books
have long been available for many big undergrad courses if profs want to assign them and don't
mind producing their own tests and other teaching aids. A handful of profs do just that and were
already doing it thirty years ago, but they are a distinct minority.
About the revision racket: the funny thing is that old editions of textbooks are often better
than more recent editions. Market research makes good books worse in much the same way that it
eventually screws up software by the relentless addition of bells and whistles. I'm a technical
writer these days and keep copies of several old classics at hand when I need to brush up: Feynman's
lectures on physics; the first edition of Freeman, Pisani, and Purves on Statistics; the 2nd edition
of Linus Pauling's Intro Chem text; Goldstein on Thermo; and a real museum piece, Sylvaner Thomas'
Calculus Made Easy. Many of these books have been reprinted by Dover and are available for peanuts.
To be fair, the high price for textbooks makes more sense in some fields than in others. The
three or four year revision cycle is absurd for math books since the math remains the same decade
after decade, but texts in areas like molecular biology really do have to be revised frequently
and substantively, a very labor-intensive task. Which is why I give a pass to the Biology editors
and the folks who struggle to update the Intermediate Accounting books with the latest FASB standards.
Can you elaborate on the revision "paradox"? Surely not only in very new fields, the state
of the art progresses, or textbook authors see a need or opportunity to include new material (I
suspect somebody setting out to write a comprehensive text has more ideas what to write about
than can be finished at the required quality in the required time, for the first edition).
How would the subsequent editions be worse, if the new content is driven by the author and
not by external marketing considerations, unless the new material is at the expense of older material
(e.g. #pages limit)?
From my very limited experience, authors who are not in it for making a profit, and who write
for a small market (selling up to a few thousand copies per year is a small market) run into substantial
overhead costs for editing, marketing (i.e. making the existence of the book known to the target
audience), and distribution, and basically have to do the work for free. Some, and perhaps most,
certainly academic, publishers have "charity" programs where they publish small editions where
they at best break even or even cross-subsidize them out of "full rate" publications. Then people
complain about excessive prices for the latter.
Leading Edge Boomer:
Jeebus, $286 for a textbook, from an author who is often wrong lately? I co-authored
a graduate computer science text (low volume = higher cost) that retailed in the low two digits.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I will not comment on the author's merit or lack thereof, but $286 is really in "WTF" territory,
for any textbook.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I once contributed to a book, and the authors/editors decided to collectively waive their royalties
to hit an affordable price (and I suspect it was still a charity deal on the part of the largely
academic publisher). But I got my free copy.
At least for big market textbooks, the motive for revisions is generally financial and
that's as true for the authors as the publishers. In fact, the authors are often the ones
who push for new editions as their royalty checks steadily diminish. In cases where it's the authors
who are reluctant to revise for whatever reason, publishers often sweeten the deal with advances,
grants, or other goodies.
I don't mean to be completely cynical. Authors and editors certainly try to produce a better
product when they put out new editions, and it very often happens that the second edition is better
than the first. Especially in later cycles, however, the changes are usually pretty cosmetic.
The editor in charge of the project solicits advice from users and potential users and comes up
with a list of "improvements" in a process not entirely different than what happens when various
interests in Washington get their pet provisions put in a bill. If you think that professor X
is likely to adopt the text if you go along with his ideas and plug his contributions in the acknowledgements,
the idea is very likely to be irresistible.
The sales force also weighs in. They want feature they can tout; but since real improvements
are hard to come by, that usually means more and more pedagogy: boxes, pictures, computer programs,
and umpteen forms of emphasis. Let me assure you it takes desperate ingenuity to come up with
something new to add to an Intermediate Algebra textbook. "Now with a new way to factor trinomials"
isn't exactly a memorable pitch. Meanwhile, after three or four editions, the author, who
presumably would be the best source of serious innovation for a new edition, is generally bored
to death with the project.
As I said above, there are textbooks that really do need perpetually revision for substantive
reasons; but in most fields what Freshmen and Sophomores need to learn has been known for a long
time. My remarks on revisions also don't apply very well to upper level texts in smaller markets,
in part because students tend to hang on to serious books in their majors so the companies have
less incentive to beat the used book market with new editions.
From what I remember of my university days (in the long distant past), we didn't have text
books (that was for school kids). We had lectures and lists of reading materials (that if we were
lucky we could find in the library and photocopy relvant sections). I did have a copy of Samualson
(relatively cheap). But the emphasis was on a reading a variety of sources. What has changed,
and why?
My own biggest peeve concerns calculus textbooks, especially introductory calculus textbooks.
The material hasn't changed in at least 60 years, if not longer. If it weren't for the current
ridiculously long copyright terms people could just use old ones.
The last time I took the subject our professor went to some lengths to let us use the previous
edition, which was available used. The only real change in the next edition was in the problems.
That is, if a student was assigned "problem 8 in section xxx" having the most recent edition was
the only way to know what the problem was.
I don't see any redeeming value in this.
Bloix:
My son took an intro geology course a few years ago. The textbook price at the school bookstore
was about $125. He purchased the gray market (legal) "international edition" - word for word,
page for page the same, but with a different picture on the cover - over the internet for about
$50.
It's my understanding that this sort of price-differential is common. Mankiw's book appears
to be available in the "international edition" for $60 (soft cover).
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
"... Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom ..."
"... Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. ..."
It's the same in education. Academies are unaccountable bureaucracies with very expensive
layers of management while teachers are being laid off in some of the most deprived areas of
the country, exemplified by this story from Sheffield
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and
Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers in the population
rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes more expensive.As
market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence people not able to
get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young people being denied an
education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are
devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the
top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom.
With the introduction of
Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the former there is no surprise
that this system does not work and has provided a platform for the unscrupulous greedy and
corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take 'Neiliberalism' to where
logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected minority exerting their
power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. It worked well
when labour was pumping billions into it and they invested in early intervention schemes such
as sure start and nursery expansion. Unfortunately under the tories we have had those
progressive policies scaled right back. Children with SEND and/or in care are commodities
bought and sold by local authorities. I've been working in a PRU which is a private company
and it does good things, but I can't help but think if that was in the public sector that it
would be in a purpose built building rather than some scruffy office with no playground. The
facilities aren't what you would expect in this day in age. If we had a proper functioning
government with a plan then what happens with vulnerable children would be properly organised
rather than a reactive shit show.
The wristband and microchip sound fab for children under 18 so we monitor to ensure their
safety, especially in educational settings and on school trips. It would enable them to be
located if lost or snatched. If it can be used to monitor language and aspects of behaviour
then they could not be falsely accused of of antisocial actions. If they don't comply then
child care benefits or access to higher education could be withdrawn as a sanction. It may
even improve road safety if they drive illegally or badly. Any chance of a tiny electric
shock feature to the microchip?
"... In France, confinement has been generally well accepted as necessary, but that does not mean people are content with the government -- on the contrary. Every evening at eight, people go to their windows to cheer for health workers and others doing essential tasks, but the applause is not for President Macron. ..."
"... What we have witnessed is the failure of what used to be one of the very best public health services in the world. It has been degraded by years of cost-cutting. In recent years, the number of hospital beds per capita has declined steadily. Many hospitals have been shut down and those that remain are drastically understaffed. Public hospital facilities have been reduced to a state of perpetual saturation, so that when a new epidemic comes along, on top of all the other usual illnesses, there is simply not the capacity to deal with it all at once. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalization myth fostered the delusion that advanced Western societies could prosper from their superior brains, thanks to ideas and computer startups, while the dirty work of actually making things is left to low-wage countries. One result: a drastic shortage of face masks. The government let a factory that produced masks and other surgical equipment be sold off and shut down. Having outsourced its textile industry, France had no immediate way to produce the masks it needed. ..."
"... In late March, French media reported that a large stock of masks ordered and paid for by the southeastern region of France was virtually hijacked on the tarmac of a Chinese airport by Americans, who tripled the price and had the cargo flown to the United States. There are also reports of Polish and Czech airport authorities intercepting Chinese or Russian shipments of masks intended for hard-hit Italy and keeping them for their own use. ..."
"... The Covid–19 crisis makes it just that much clearer that the European Union is no more than a complex economic arrangement, with neither the sentiment nor the popular leaders that hold together a nation. For a generation, schools, media, politicians have instilled the belief that the "nation" is an obsolete entity. But in a crisis, people find that they are in France, or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium -- but not in "Europe." The European Union is structured to care about trade, investment, competition, debt, economic growth. Public health is merely an economic indicator. For decades, the European Commission has put irresistible pressure on nations to reduce the costs of their public health facilities in order to open competition for contracts to the private sector -- which is international by nature. ..."
"... Scapegoating China may seem the way to try to hold the declining Western world together, even as Europeans' long-standing admiration for America turns to dismay. ..."
"... The countries that have suffered most from the epidemic are among the most indebted of the EU member states, starting with Italy. The economic damage from the lockdown obliges them to borrow further. As their debt increases, so do interest rates charged by commercial banks. They turned to the EU for help, for instance by issuing eurobonds that would share the debt at lower interest rates. This has increased tension between debtor countries in the south and creditor countries in the north, which said nein . Countries in the eurozone cannot borrow from the European Central Bank as the U.S. Treasury borrows from the Fed. And their own national central banks take orders from the ECB, which controls the euro. ..."
"... The great irony is that "a common currency" was conceived by its sponsors as the key to European unity. On the contrary, the euro has a polarizing effect -- with Greece at the bottom and Germany at the top. And Italy sinking. But Italy is much bigger than Greece and won't go quietly. ..."
"... A major paradox is that the left and the Yellow Vests call for economic and social policies that are impossible under EU rules, and yet many on the left shy away from even thinking of leaving the EU. For over a generation, the French left has made an imaginary "social Europe" the center of its utopian ambitions. ..."
"... Russia is a living part of European history and culture. Its exclusion is totally unnatural and artificial. Brzezinski [the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration's national security adviser] spelled it out in The Great Chessboard : The U.S. maintains world hegemony by keeping the Eurasian landmass divided. ..."
"... But this policy can be seen to be inherited from the British. It was Churchill who proclaimed -- in fact welcomed -- the Iron Curtain that kept continental Europe divided. In retrospect, the Cold War was basically part of the divide-and-rule strategy, since it persists with greater intensity than ever after its ostensible cause -- the Communist threat -- is long gone. ..."
"... The whole Ukrainian operation of 2014 [the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kyiv, February 2014] was lavishly financed and stimulated by the United States in order to create a new conflict with Russia. Joe Biden has been the Deep State's main front man in turning Ukraine into an American satellite, used as a battering ram to weaken Russia and destroy its natural trade and cultural relations with Western Europe. ..."
"... I think France is likelier than Germany to break with the U.S.–imposed Russophobia simply because, thanks to de Gaulle, France is not quite as thoroughly under U.S. occupation. Moreover, friendship with Russia is a traditional French balance against German domination -- which is currently being felt and resented. ..."
"... "Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic." ..."
"... Since WWII the US has itself been occupied by tyrants, using Russophobia to demand power as fake defenders. ..."
"... " French philosophy .By constantly attacking, deconstructing, and denouncing every remnant of human "power" they could spot, the intellectual rebels left the power of "the markets" unimpeded, and did nothing to stand in the way of the expansion of U.S. military power all around the world " ..."
"... From her groundbreaking work on the NATO empire's sickening war on sovereign Serbia, the dead end of identity politics and trans bathroom debates, to her critique of unfettered immigration and open borders, and her dismissal of the absurd Russsiagate baloney, better than anyone else, Johnstone has kept her intellect carefully honed to the real genuine kitchen table bread and butter issues that truly matter. She recognized before most of the world's scholars the perils of rampant inequality and saw the writing on the wall as to where this grotesque economic system is taking us all: down a dystopian slope into penury and police-state heavy-handedness, with millions unable to come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or dental bill. ..."
"... The mask competition and fiasco shows the importance of a country simply making things in their own country, not on the other side of the world, it's not nationalism it's just a better way to logistically deliver reliable products to the citizens. ..."
"... Some hold that they never departed, but mutated tools including CFA zones and "intelligence" relations in furtherance of "changing" to remain qualitatively the same. Just as "The United States of America" is a system of coercive relations not synonymous with the political geographical area designated "The United States of America", the colonialism of former and present "colonial powers" continues to exist, since the "independence" of the colonised was always, and continues to be, framed within linear systems of coercive relations, facilitated by the complicity of "local elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest, and the acquiescence of "local others" for myriad reasons. ..."
"... After reading Circle in the Darkness, I have ordered and am now reading her books on Hillary Clinton (Queen of Chaos) and the Yugoslav wars (Fool's Crusade), which are very worthwhile and important. I would recommend that her many articles over the years, appearing in such publications such as In These Times, Counterpunch and Consortium News, be reprinted and published together as an anthology. Through Circle in the Darkness, we have Diana Johnstone's "Life", but it would be good also to have her "Letters". ..."
"... Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest. ..."
In France, confinement has been generally well accepted as necessary, but that does not mean
people are content with the government -- on the contrary. Every evening at eight, people go to
their windows to cheer for health workers and others doing essential tasks, but the applause is
not for President Macron.
Macron and his government are criticized for hesitating too long to confine the population,
for vacillating about the need for masks and tests, or about when or how much to end the
confinement. Their confusion and indecision at least defend them from the wild accusation of
having staged the whole thing in order to lock up the population.
What we have witnessed is the failure of what used to be one of the very best public health
services in the world. It has been degraded by years of cost-cutting. In recent years, the
number of hospital beds per capita has declined steadily. Many hospitals have been shut down
and those that remain are drastically understaffed. Public hospital facilities have been
reduced to a state of perpetual saturation, so that when a new epidemic comes along, on top of
all the other usual illnesses, there is simply not the capacity to deal with it all at
once.
The neoliberal globalization myth fostered the delusion that advanced Western societies
could prosper from their superior brains, thanks to ideas and computer startups, while the
dirty work of actually making things is left to low-wage countries. One result: a drastic
shortage of face masks. The government let a factory that produced masks and other surgical
equipment be sold off and shut down. Having outsourced its textile industry, France had no
immediate way to produce the masks it needed.
Meanwhile, in early April, Vietnam donated hundreds of thousands of antimicrobial face masks
to European countries and is producing them by the million. Employing tests and selective
isolation, Vietnam has fought off the epidemic with only a few hundred cases and no deaths.
You must have thoughts as to the question of Western unity in response to
Covid–19.
In late March, French media reported that a large stock of masks ordered and paid for by the
southeastern region of France was virtually hijacked on the tarmac of a Chinese airport by
Americans, who tripled the price and had the cargo flown to the United States. There are also
reports of Polish and Czech airport authorities intercepting Chinese or Russian shipments of
masks intended for hard-hit Italy and keeping them for their own use.
The absence of European solidarity has been shockingly clear. Better-equipped Germany banned
exports of masks to Italy. In the depth of its crisis, Italy found that the German and Dutch
governments were mainly concerned with making sure Italy pays its debts. Meanwhile, a team of
Chinese experts arrived in Rome to help Italy with its Covid–19 crisis, displaying a
banner reading "We are waves of the same sea, leaves of the same tree, flowers of the same
garden." The European institutions lack such humanistic poetry. Their founding value is not
solidarity but the neoliberal principle of "free unimpeded competition."
How do you think this reflects on the European Union?
The Covid–19 crisis makes it just that much clearer that the European Union is no more
than a complex economic arrangement, with neither the sentiment nor the popular leaders that
hold together a nation. For a generation, schools, media, politicians have instilled the belief
that the "nation" is an obsolete entity. But in a crisis, people find that they are in France,
or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium -- but not in "Europe." The European Union is structured to
care about trade, investment, competition, debt, economic growth. Public health is merely an
economic indicator. For decades, the European Commission has put irresistible pressure on
nations to reduce the costs of their public health facilities in order to open competition for
contracts to the private sector -- which is international by nature.
Globalization has hastened the spread of the pandemic, but it has not strengthened
internationalist solidarity. Initial gratitude for Chinese aid is being brutally opposed by
European Atlanticists. In early May, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the Springer publishing
giant, bluntly called on Germany to ally with the U.S. -- against China. Scapegoating China may
seem the way to try to hold the declining Western world together, even as Europeans'
long-standing admiration for America turns to dismay.
Meanwhile, relations between EU member states have never been worse. In Italy and to a
greater extent in France, the coronavirus crisis has enforced growing disillusion with the
European Union and an ill-defined desire to restore national sovereignty.
Corollary question: What are the prospects that Europe will produce leaders capable of
seizing that right moment, that assertion of independence? What do you reckon such leaders
would be like?
The EU is likely to be a central issue in the near future, but this issue can be exploited
in very different ways, depending on which leaders get hold of it. The coronavirus crisis has
intensified the centrifugal forces already undermining the European Union. The countries that
have suffered most from the epidemic are among the most indebted of the EU member states,
starting with Italy. The economic damage from the lockdown obliges them to borrow further. As
their debt increases, so do interest rates charged by commercial banks. They turned to the EU
for help, for instance by issuing eurobonds that would share the debt at lower interest rates.
This has increased tension between debtor countries in the south and creditor countries in the
north, which said nein . Countries in the eurozone cannot borrow from the European
Central Bank as the U.S. Treasury borrows from the Fed. And their own national central banks
take orders from the ECB, which controls the euro.
What does the crisis mean for the euro? I confess I've lost faith in this project, given
how disadvantaged it leaves the nations on the Continent's southern rim.
The great irony is that "a common currency" was conceived by its sponsors as the key to
European unity. On the contrary, the euro has a polarizing effect -- with Greece at the bottom
and Germany at the top. And Italy sinking. But Italy is much bigger than Greece and won't go
quietly.
The German constitutional court in Karlsruhe recently issued a long judgment making it clear
who is boss. It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that
the main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not
directly finance member states. If these rules were not followed, the Bundesbank, the German
central bank, would be obliged to pull out of the ECB. And since the Bundesbank is the ECB's
main creditor, that is that. There can be no generous financial help to troubled governments
within the eurozone. Period.
Is there a possibility of disintegration here?
The idea of leaving the EU is most developed in France. The Union Populaire
Républicaine, founded in 2007 by former senior functionary François Asselineau,
calls for France to leave the euro, the European Union, and NATO.
The party has been a didactic success, spreading its ideas and attracting around 20,000
active militants without scoring any electoral success. A main argument for leaving the EU is
to escape from the constraints of EU competition rules in order to protect its vital industry,
agriculture, and above all its public services.
A major paradox is that the left and the Yellow Vests call for economic and social policies
that are impossible under EU rules, and yet many on the left shy away from even thinking of
leaving the EU. For over a generation, the French left has made an imaginary "social Europe"
the center of its utopian ambitions.
" Europe" as an idea or an ideal, you mean.
Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the
nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union
faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward
fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens
the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic.
Two and a half months of coronavirus crisis have brought to light a factor that makes any
predictions about future leaders even more problematic. That factor is a widespread distrust
and rejection of all established authority. This makes rational political programs extremely
difficult, because rejection of one authority implies acceptance of another. For instance, the
way to liberate public services and pharmaceuticals from the distortions of the profit motive
is nationalization. If you distrust the power of one as much as the other, there is nowhere to
go.
Such radical distrust can be explained by two main factors -- the inevitable feeling of
helplessness in our technologically advanced world, combined with the deliberate and even
transparent lies on the part of mainstream politicians and media. But it sets the stage for the
emergence of manipulated saviors or opportunistic charlatans every bit as deceptive as the
leaders we already have, or even more so. I hope these irrational tendencies are less
pronounced in France than in some other countries.
I'm eager to talk about Russia. There are signs that relations with Russia are another
source of European dissatisfaction as "junior partners" within the U.S.–led Atlantic
alliance. Macron is outspoken on this point, "junior partners" being his phrase. The Germans --
business people, some senior officials in government -- are quite plainly restive.
Russia is a living part of European history and culture. Its exclusion is totally unnatural
and artificial. Brzezinski [the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration's national
security adviser] spelled it out in The Great Chessboard : The U.S. maintains world
hegemony by keeping the Eurasian landmass divided.
But this policy can be seen to be inherited
from the British. It was Churchill who proclaimed -- in fact welcomed -- the Iron Curtain that
kept continental Europe divided. In retrospect, the Cold War was basically part of the
divide-and-rule strategy, since it persists with greater intensity than ever after its
ostensible cause -- the Communist threat -- is long gone.
I hadn't put our current circumstance in this context. US-backed, violent coup in Ukraine, 2014.
The whole Ukrainian operation of 2014 [the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kyiv, February
2014] was lavishly financed and stimulated by the United States in order to create a new
conflict with Russia. Joe Biden has been the Deep State's main front man in turning Ukraine
into an American satellite, used as a battering ram to weaken Russia and destroy its natural
trade and cultural relations with Western Europe.
U.S. sanctions are particularly contrary to German business interests, and NATO's aggressive
gestures put Germany on the front lines of an eventual war.
But Germany has been an occupied country -- militarily and politically -- for 75 years, and
I suspect that many German political leaders (usually vetted by Washington) have learned to fit
their projects into U.S. policies. I think that under the cover of Atlantic loyalty, there are
some frustrated imperialists lurking in the German establishment, who think they can use
Washington's Russophobia as an instrument to make a comeback as a world military power.
But I also think that the political debate in Germany is overwhelmingly hypocritical, with
concrete aims veiled by fake issues such as human rights and, of course, devotion to
Israel.
We should remember that the U.S. does not merely use its allies -- its allies, or rather
their leaders, figure they are using the U.S. for some purposes of their own.
What about what the French have been saying since the G–7 session in Biarritz two
years ago, that Europe should forge its own relations with Russia according to Europe's
interests, not America's?
At G7 Summit in Biarritz, France, Aug. 26, 2019. (White House)
I think France is likelier than Germany to break with the U.S.–imposed Russophobia
simply because, thanks to de Gaulle, France is not quite as thoroughly under U.S. occupation.
Moreover, friendship with Russia is a traditional French balance against German domination --
which is currently being felt and resented.
Stepping back for a broader look, do you think Europe's position on the western flank of
the Eurasian landmass will inevitably shape its position with regard not only to Russia but
also China? To put this another way, is Europe destined to become an independent pole of power
in the course of this century, standing between West and East?
At present, what we have standing between West and East is not Europe but Russia, and what
matters is which way Russia leans. Including Russia, Europe might become an independent pole of
power. The U.S. is currently doing everything to prevent this. But there is a school of
strategic thought in Washington which considers this a mistake, because it pushes Russia into
the arms of China. This school is in the ascendant with the campaign to denounce China as
responsible for the pandemic. As mentioned, the Atlanticists in Europe are leaping into the
anti–China propaganda battle. But they are not displaying any particular affection for
Russia, which shows no sign of sacrificing its partnership with China for the unreliable
Europeans.
If Russia were allowed to become a friendly bridge between China and Europe, the U.S. would
be obliged to abandon its pretensions of world hegemony. But we are far from that peaceful
prospect.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
Josep , May 19, 2020 at 02:04
It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that the
main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not
directly finance member states.
I once read a comment elsewhere saying that, back in 1989, both Britain (under Margaret
Thatcher) and the US objected to German reunification. Since they could not stop the
reunification, they insisted that Germany accept the incoming euro. A heap of German
university professors jumped up and protested, knowing fully well what the game was: namely
the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers.
Thorben Sunkimat , May 20, 2020 at 13:45
France and Britain rejected the german reunification. The americans were supportive, even
though they had their demands. Mainly privatisation of german public utilities. After
agreeing to those demands the americans persuaded the british and pressured the french who
agreed to german reunification after germany agreed to the euro.
So why did france want the euro?
The German central bank crashed the European economy after reunification with high interest
rates. This was because of above average growth rates mainly in Eastern Germany. Main
function of the Bundesbank is to keep inflation low, which is more important to them than
anything else. Since Germany's D Mark was the leading currency in Europe the rest of Europe
had to heighten their interest rates too, witch lead to great economic problems within
Europe. Including France.
OlyaPola , May 21, 2020 at 05:30
"namely the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers."
Resort to binaries (controlled/not controlled) is a practice of self-imposed
blindness. In any interactive system no absolutes exist only analogues of varying assays since
"control" is limited and variable. In respect of what became the German Empire this relationship predated and facilitated the
German Empire through financing the war with Denmark in 1864 courtesy of the arrangements
between Mr. von Bismark and Mr. Bleichroder. The assay of "control of bankers" has varied/increased subsequently but never attained the
absolute.
It is true that finance capital perceived and continues to perceive the European Union as
an opportunity to increase their assay of "control" – the Austrian banks in conjunction
with German bank assigning a level of priority to resurrecting spheres of influence existing
prior to 1918 and until 1945.
One of the joint projects at a level of planning in the early 1990's was development of
the Danube and its hinterland from Regensburg to Cerna Voda/Constanta in Romania but this was
delayed in the hope of curtailment by some when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 (Serbia not being
the only target – so much for honesty-amongst-theives.)
This project was resurrected in a limited form primarily downstream from Vidin/Calafat
from 2015 onwards given that some states of the former Yugoslavia were not members of the
European Union and some were within spheres of influence of "The United States of
America".
As to France, "Vichy" and Europa also facilitated the resurrection of finance capital and
increase in its assay of control after the 1930's, some of the practices of the 1940's still
being subject to dispute in France.
mkb29 , May 18, 2020 at 16:33
I've always admired Diana Johnstone's clear headed analyses of world/European/U.S./
China/Israel-Palestine/Russia/ interactions and the motivation of its "players". She has
given some credence to what as been known as French rationalism and enlightenment. (Albeit as
an American expat) Think Descartes, Diderot, Sartre , and She loves France in her own
rationalist-humanist way.
Linda J , May 18, 2020 at 13:21
I have admired Ms. Johnstone's work for quite awhile. This enlightening interview spurs me
to get a copy of the book and to contribute to Consortium News.
Others may be interested in the two-part video discovered yesterday featuring Douglas
Valentine's analysis of the CIA's corporate backers and their global choke-hold on
governments and their influencers in every region of the world.
Part 1
see:youtu(dot)be/cP15Ehx1yvI
Part 2
see:youtu(dot)be/IYvvEn_N1sE
worldblee , May 18, 2020 at 12:26
Not many have the long distance perspective on the world, let alone Europe, that Diana
Johnstone has. Great interview!
Drew Hunkins , May 18, 2020 at 11:03
"Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the
nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European
Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step
toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis
which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic."
Bingo! A marvelous point indeed! Quick little example -- Bernard Sanders should have worn an American flag pin on his suit
during the 2020 Dem primary campaign.
chris , May 18, 2020 at 04:46
A very good analysis. As an American who has relocated to Spain several years ago, I am
always disappointed that discussions of European politics always assume that Europe ends at
the Pyrenees. Admittedly, Spanish politics is very complicated and confusing. Forty years of
an unreconstructed dictatorship have left their mark, but the country´s socialist,
communist and anarchic currents never went away. I like to say that the country is very
conservative, but at least the population is aware of what is going on.
Perhaps what Ms.
Johnston says about the French being just worn out, with no stomach for more violent conflict
also applies to the Spanish since their great ideological struggle is more recent. The
American influence during the Transition (which changed little – as the expression
goes: The same dog but with a different collar) was very strong, and remains so. Even so,
there is popular support for foreign and domestic policies independent of American and
neoliberal control, but by and large the political and economic powers are not on board. I do
not think Spain is willing to make a break alone, but would align itself with an European
shift away from American control.
As Ms. Johnston says, Europe currently lacks leaders
willing to take the plunge, but we will see what the coming year brings.
Sam F , May 17, 2020 at 17:45
Thank you Diana, these are valuable insights. Since WWII the US has itself been occupied by tyrants, using Russophobia to demand power
as fake defenders.
1. Waving the flag and praising the lord on mass media, claiming concern with human rights
and "Israel"; while
2. Subverting the Constitution with large scale bribery, surveillance, and genocides, all
business as usual nowadays.
In the US, the form of government has become bribery and marketing lies; it truly knows no
other way.
It may be better that Russia and China keep their distance from the US and maybe even the
EU:
1. The US and EU would have to produce what they consume, eventually empowering workers;
2. Neither the US nor EU are a political or economic model for anyone, and should be
ignored;
3. Neither the US nor EU produces much that Russia and China cannot, by investing more in
cars and soybeans.
It will be best for the EU if it also rejects the US and its "neolib" economic and
political tyranny mechanisms:
1. Alliance with Russia and China will cause substantial gains in stability and economic
strength;
2. Forcing the US to abandon its "pretensions of world hegemony" will soon yield more
peaceful prospects; and
3. Isolating the US will force it to improve its utterly corrupt government and society,
maybe 40 to 60 years hence.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:40
" French philosophy .By constantly attacking, deconstructing, and denouncing every remnant
of human "power" they could spot, the intellectual rebels left the power of "the markets"
unimpeded, and did nothing to stand in the way of the expansion of U.S. military power all
around the world "
Brilliant. Exactly right. This was the progenitor to our contemporary I.D. politics which seems to be solely
obsessed with vocabulary, semantics and non-economic cultural issues while rarely having a
critique of corporate capitalism, militarism, massive inequality and Zionism. And it almost
never advocates for robust economic populist proposals like Med4All, U.B.I., debt jubilee,
and the fight for $15.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:10
The book is phenomenal. I posted a customer review over on Amazon for this stupendous
work. Below is a copy of my review:
(5 stars) One of the most important intellects pens her magisterial lasting legacy
Reviewed in the United States on March 31, 2020
Johnstone's been an idol of mine ever since I started reading her in the 1990s. She's
clearly proved her worthiness over the decades by bucking the mainstream trend of apologetics
for corporate capitalism, neoliberalism, globalism and imperialistic militarism her entire
career and this astonishing memoir details it all in what will likely be the finest book of
2020 and perhaps the entire decade.
Her writing style is beyond superb, her grasp of the overarching politico-socio-economic
issues that have rocked the world over the past 60 years is as astute and spot-on as you will
find from any global thinker. She's right up there with Michael Parenti, James Petras, John
Pilger and Noam Chomsky as seminal figures who have documented and brought light to tens of
thousands (millions?) of people across the globe via their writings, interviews and speaking
engagements.
Johnstone has never been one to shy away from controversial topics and issues. Why?
Simple, she has the facts and truth on her side, she always has. Circle in the Darkness
proves all this and more, she marshals the documentation and lays it out as an exquisite gift
for struggling working people around the world.
From her groundbreaking work on the NATO
empire's sickening war on sovereign Serbia, the dead end of identity politics and trans
bathroom debates, to her critique of unfettered immigration and open borders, and her
dismissal of the absurd Russsiagate baloney, better than anyone else, Johnstone has kept her
intellect carefully honed to the real genuine kitchen table bread and butter issues that
truly matter. She recognized before most of the world's scholars the perils of rampant
inequality and saw the writing on the wall as to where this grotesque economic system is
taking us all: down a dystopian slope into penury and police-state heavy-handedness, with
millions unable to come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or dental bill.
Whenever she comes out with a new article or essay I immediately drop everything and
devour it, often reading it twice to let her wisdom really soak in. So too Circle of Darkness
is an extremely well written beautiful work that will scream out to be re-read every few
years by those with a hunger to know exactly what was going on since the Korean War era
through today regarding liberal thought, neocon and neoliberal dominance with its capitalist
global hegemony and the take over of Western governments by the parasitic financial
elite.
There will never be another Diana Johnstone. Circle in the Darkness will stand as her
lasting legacy to all of us.
Bob Van Noy , May 17, 2020 at 14:43
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding
it" ~Albert Einstein
Many Thanks CN, Patrick Lawrence, and Joe Lauria. Once again I must commend CN for picking
just the appropriate response to our contemporary dilemma.
The quote above leads Diana Johnstone's new book and succinctly describes both the
universe and our contemporary experience with our digital age. President Kennedy and Charles
de Gaulle of France would agree that colonialism was past and that a new world (geopolitical)
approach would become necessary, but that philosophy would put them against some great local
and world powers. Each of them necessarily had different approaches as to how this might be
accomplished. They were never allowed to present their specific proposals on a world stage.
Let's hope a wiser population will once again "see" this possibility and find a way to
resolve it
Aaron , May 17, 2020 at 14:18
Well over the span of all of those decades, the consistent, inexorable theme seems to be a
trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, a small number of individuals,
not really states, gaining wealth and power, so everybody else fights over the crumbs,
blaming this or that party, alliance, event or whatever, but behind it all there are two
flower gardens, indeed the rich are all flowers of their golden garden, and the poor are all
flowers of their garden.
It's like the Europeans and the 99 percent in America have all
fallen for the myth of the American dream, that if we are just allowed more free, unfettered
economic opportunity, it's just up to us to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and become a
billionaire.
The mask competition and fiasco shows the importance of a country simply making
things in their own country, not on the other side of the world, it's not nationalism it's
just a better way to logistically deliver reliable products to the citizens.
AnneR , May 17, 2020 at 13:42
Regarding French colonialism – as I recall the French were especially brutal in
their forced withdrawal from Algeria, both toward Algerians in their homeland and to
Algerians within France itself.
And the French were hardly willing, non-violent colonialists when being fought by the
Vietnamese who wanted to be free of them (quite rightly so).
As for the French in Sub-Saharan Africa – they have yet to truly give up on their
presumed right to have troops within these countries. They did not depart any of their
colonies happily, willingly – like every other colonial power, including the UK.
And, as for WWII – she seems, in her reminiscences, to have mislaid Vichy France,
the Velodrome roundups of French Jews, and so on ..
Ms Johnstone clearly has been looking backwards with rose-tinted specs on when it comes to
France.
Randal Marlin , May 18, 2020 at 13:00
There may be some truth to AnneR's claim that Ms Johnstone has been looking with
rose-tinted specs when it comes to France, but it is highly misleading for her to talk about
"the French" regarding Algeria. I spent 1963-64 in Aix-en-Provence teaching at the Institute
for American Universities and talked with some of the "pieds-noirs," (French born in
Algeria).
After French President Charles de Gaulle decided to relinquish French control over
Algeria, having previously reassured the colonial population that "Je vous ai compris" ("I
have understood you"), there followed death threats to many French colonizers who had to flee
Algeria immediately within 24 hours or get their throats slit – "La valise ou le
cercueil" (the suitcase or the coffin).
In the fall of 1961, I saw Parisian police stations
with machine-gun armed men behind concrete barriers, as an invasion by the colonial French
paratroopers against mainland France was expected. The "Organisation Armée
Secrète," OAS, (Secret Armed Organization) of the colonial powers, threatened at the
time to invade Paris.
As an aside, giving a sense of the anger and passion involved, when the
death of John F.Kennedy in November 1963 was announced in the historic, right-wing
café in Aix, Les Deux Garçons, a huge cheer went up when the media announcer
proclaimed "Le Président est assassinée. Only, that was because they thought de
Gaulle was the president in question. A huge disappointment when they heard it was President
Kennedy. To get a sense of the whole situation regarding France and Algeria I recommend
Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace."
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:23
"They did not depart any of their colonies happily"
Some hold that they never departed, but mutated tools including CFA zones and
"intelligence" relations in furtherance of "changing" to remain qualitatively the same. Just as "The United States of America" is a system of coercive relations not synonymous
with the political geographical area designated "The United States of America", the
colonialism of former and present "colonial powers" continues to exist, since the
"independence" of the colonised was always, and continues to be, framed within linear systems
of coercive relations, facilitated by the complicity of "local elites" on the basis of
perceived self-interest, and the acquiescence of "local others" for myriad reasons.
Despite the "best" efforts of the opponents and partly in consequence of the opponents'
complicity, the PRC and the Russian Federation like "The United States of America" are not
synonymous with the political geographical areas designated as "The People's Republic of
China and The Russian Federation", are in lateral process of transcending linear systems of
coercive relations and hence pose existential threats to "The United States of America".
The opponents are not complete fools but the drowning tend to act precipitously including
flailing out whilst drowning; encouraging some to dispense with rose- tinted glasses, despite
such accessories being quite fashionable and fetching.
OlyaPola , May 20, 2020 at 04:32
" .. their colonies "
Perception of and practice of social relations are not wholly synonymous. A construct whose founding myths included liberty, egality and fraternity – property
being discarded at the last moment since it was judged too provocative –
experienced/experiences ideological/perceptual oxymorons in regard to its colonial relations,
which were addressed in part by rendering their "colonies" department of France thereby
facilitating increased perceptual dissonance.
Like many, Randal Marlin draws attention below to the perceptions and practices of the
pied-noir, but omits to address the perceptions and practices of the harkis whom were also
immersed in the proselytised notion of departmental France, and to some degree continue to
be.
This understanding continues to inform the practices and problems of the French state.
Lolita , May 17, 2020 at 12:05
The analysis is very much inspired from "Comprendre l'Empire" by Alain Soral.
Dave , May 17, 2020 at 11:27
Do not fail to read this interview in its entirety. Ms Johnstone analyzes and describes
many issues of national and global importance from the perspective of an USA expat who has
spent most of her career in the pursuit of what may be termed disinterested journalism.
Whether one agrees or disagrees in whole or in part the perspectives she presents,
particularly those which pertain to the demise (hopefully) of the American Empire are worthy
of perusal.
Remember that this is not a polemic; it's a memoir of a lifetime devoted to
reporting and analyzing and discussion of most of the significant issues confronting global
and national politics and their social ramifications. And a big thanks to Patrick Lawrence
and Consortium News for posting the interview.
PEG , May 17, 2020 at 09:11
Diana Johnstone is one of the most intelligent, clear-minded and honest observers of
international politics today, and her book "Circle in the Darkness" – which expands on
the topics and insights touched on in this interview – is certainly among the best and
most compelling books I have ever read, putting the events of the last 75 years into
objective context and focus (normally something which only historians can do, if at all,
generations after the fact).
After reading Circle in the Darkness, I have ordered and am now reading her books on
Hillary Clinton (Queen of Chaos) and the Yugoslav wars (Fool's Crusade), which are very
worthwhile and important. I would recommend that her many articles over the years, appearing
in such publications such as In These Times, Counterpunch and Consortium News, be reprinted
and published together as an anthology. Through Circle in the Darkness, we have Diana
Johnstone's "Life", but it would be good also to have her "Letters".
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of
the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a
multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of
overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain
qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of
local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were
addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America",
Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer –
to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the
concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such
conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
If you thought you knew everything about Eric Blair/George Orwell, I suggest
reading this essay as a test. Hopefully, you'll discover many facets not known before as
I did.
Orwell's career was a lot more complicated than that. Basically, he came from a relatively
prosperous middle-class family, which allowed him to play the game of the writer, when it
worked, and to come back to the family when things were thin. Of course he exploited his own
experiences, as every writer does. That doesn't detract from the great creations. Animal Farm
and 1984 don't have direct origins.
Posted by: Laguerre | May 20 2020 21:39 utc |
32 @Posted by: karlof1 | May 20 2020 18:51 utc | 26
That essay is a real shame, an impossible intend of whitewashing and redime Orwell, just
another intent on rewritting of history, and try to paint what is black as white.
Neo-language
This intent could be inscribed along the rescues of Stepan Bandera and the Forest Brothers as
new heroes of NATO world in their offensive against reviving socialist ideas.
That Orwell did not change even a bit after returning from Burma is proven by the fact
that he came to Spain, and strolled around there with the Trotskyites of POUM, to elaborate
black lists of communists which then were provided to Franco, at result of which many people
was tortured and summarily executed. He, this way, contributed greatly to decimate the
resistance in the side of the legitimate republican government, and thus, to help the
fascists in their way to power, well supported by the US with arms and fuel and by the air
forces of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Orwell: Sneak sighting of British secret services in the Cold War (is declassified by MI-5
and documented). Its function: to expose communists. He even betrayed Charles Chaplin,
exiled in his native England for FBI persecution. "Referrer". "Always loyal"
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 21:40 utc | 33
In the essay by Alert Escusa linked above, it is studied the historical context in which
Orwell published his most famous works, at all innocent, debunking the legend on that he was
kinda an outsider and was about to self-publish Animal Farm , being the checked
reality that he had full support of the birgueoisie to publish his influential works when the
time was more propice for the capitalists.
As a sample, a button:
What was happening that year of 1943, while Orwell was writing his Animal Farm? It was not
exactly, as Pepe Gutiérrez says "the distribution of the world", but something quite
different that he hides from us: the Nazis had invaded the USSR two years ago,
exterminating millions of Russians and devastating much of the country. The greatest battle
of the war, Stalingrad, had taken place, and it was not yet known who would win the
conflict, whether Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. No one could safely predict that Nazism
would be extirpated from Europe, the Nazi death camps had not yet been discovered, but
Orwell was obsessed with his anti-Soviet writings. What did Orwell want to portray with his
Farm Rebellion? Nothing more and nothing less than the following: "The specific purpose
Orwell threw into it with a sense of urgency was the desire to exploit the "myth" of the
Soviet Union, as a paradigm of the socialist state".
There are plenty of comments about it. It is only worth reflecting on who benefited from
Orwell's position in 1943. The victory was precisely achieved by the Soviet people and the
Red Army at the price of innumerable human sacrifices, also easily forgotten in the West,
where the true character of the anti-fascist war is hidden. It is logical that the USSR,
which had suffered a war of extermination unprecedented in history, and which also defeated
the collaborationist and fascist regimes of Eastern Europe, along with the popular and
communist guerrillas, was seen as a liberating power by broad sectors of local populations.
In addition, the communist guerrillas, ideologically linked to the USSR, had come to have
great prestige throughout Europe: so much so that, in the first French general elections
after Nazism, the French Communist Party was the most voted party, achieving more out of 5
million votes representing 30% of the electorate [7]. As we will see later, the USSR had
very well-founded reasons to believe that a new war was being prepared against him, this
time with the country devastated, so it was logical and legitimate that he try to win
allies against the possibility of a new world war. This is a long way from "distribution of
the world" and trying to equate imperialism with socialism, as will be seen later.
I must say the replies to my 26 go in many directions. As to Martin Sieff's essay, it's
fundamentally a well deserved critique of the BBC that segues into a discussion about how
George Orwell would easily recognize its Fake News for what it is that draws on Finding George
Orwell in Burma for some of its content. (A very short preview's available at the
link and it can be borrowed if you're an Archive member, for which there's no excuse as it's
free.) IMO, the comments fit Sieff's intent quite well. Judging from book excerpts offered here , the book's more
a critique of Myanmar than Orwell, although the additional sources provided at page bottom
leads to credibility questions. I also note that most websites promoting Finding lead
with the NY Times jacket blurb which is more about dissing Myanmar than revealing what
was found regarding Orwell. Sieff says he knows the author but doesn't speculate on why he
chose a female nom de plume; I too wonder why as I don't see what purpose it could serve
unless it's anti-Myanmar propaganda that Orwell would recognize or something similar.
Curious--an innocuous comment becomes a can of worms. Also curious how Orwell and his
writing still generate an intense level of controversy.
karlof1 , May 20 2020 22:47 utc |
42H.Schmatz , May 20 2020 22:52 utc |
43
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 22:08 utc | 36
A bit more from the must read essay linked, even related to current events...
2. THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT OF "ANIMAL FARM" AND "1984"
What events were taking place in the western world at that time, which caused a
favorable change of attitude towards Orwell's publications, of those who were previously
reticent? Neither more nor less than the imminent offensive against socialism, which had
already lost almost thirty million lives during the anti-fascist war and had suffered
appalling material destruction.
While the first copies of Animal Farm were being printed and bound, some
extremely disturbing events were taking place. Just at the end of the war, Nazi spies and
war criminals were being recycled by the American spy services, such as the German SS
General Reinhard Genhlen, whose spy network passed entirely to the Americans and was used
in Eastern Europe to promote the anti-Soviet uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary
in 1956. Clandestine networks were created to evade thousands of Nazi criminals towards
Latin America and the USA. Later, with Japan defeated, the operation was repeated with the
Japanese scientists who are experts in bacteriological weapons, responsible for the deaths
of tens of thousands of allied prisoners, but who were secretly brought to the United
States. Meanwhile, during the 1945 Potsdam conference, which brought together Hitler's
victorious allies - where the alleged "honeymoon" took place to "divide the world" - US
President Truman and English Churchill had speculated before Stalin about the power the
western allies had with a new secret weapon. On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. According to Ian Gray, Stalin's biographer: "Stalin and the majority
of Russians immediately understood the terrible meaning of this fact ... Stalin realized
that the Americans had used the bomb mainly to impress and threaten Russia". Stalin and the
Soviets were right: the American Secretary of State, James Byrnes, recognized that the bomb
was necessary not against Japan, but "to make Russia moldable to Europe".
As the historian Pauwels has explained, the initial will of the Soviets in Europe was
not to have like-minded regimes and their own zone of influence, but to intervene in
Germany to prevent it from engaging in a second war, this time together with its former
allies against the USSR. This is demonstrated by the fact that until well into the post-war
period, the Soviets did not help to make any political-social change in the liberated
countries. It was Truman's nuclear policy that forced the Soviets to stand face to face
with the Americans in Eastern Europe, thus deterring American aviation: from this way they
would have to carry out a long trip until arriving at the Soviet cities where they had to
drop their bombs. This caused the political and social changes in Eastern Europe to
accelerate, which, however, were already taking place autonomously since the end of the war
thanks to the triumph of the popular anti-fascist forces. This fact not only saved the USSR
from a new war and enabled socialism to survive: stability in Eastern Europe laid the
foundations for a development of national liberation struggles and for socialism throughout
the world: in 1949 the victory of the Chinese Revolution heralded the triumph of many
others, putting all capitalism in danger of death.
In parallel, just after the Cold War started by imperialism, the conservative British
leader Churchill theorized about the need to build an Iron Curtain to contain the
communists and allegedly asked the American President Truman to attack the USSR with the
atomic bomb by means of a preemptive attack. Churchill was not just any character, but one
of the most influential leaders of the British Empire, champion of English colonialism and
the participation of his country in World War I, therefore responsible for many millions of
deaths and suffering of peoples.
That was the real reason for the delay in publishing Animal Farm . Orwell,
naturally, during the anti-fascist war could not see his anti-Soviet work published until
the end of the conflict, since it would have been quite awkward for the Western governments
allied to the USSR, who were risking their lives against the Nazis, to criminalize in this
way a friendly government. On the other hand, at that time, from the Orwellian model, it
would be difficult for western and world public opinion to understand how it was possible
that the Soviet people fought with such a degree of sacrifice and heroism, expelling the
Nazis from Europe: all the other bourgeois regimes, where there was freedom, had collapsed
rapidly and had collaborated with the Nazis.
It was in connection with these events that the first copies of Animal farm were
placed on the shelves of bookstores. Precisely the publication coincided with the end of
World War II and the dissolution of the anti-fascist alliance between England, USA, and the
USSR. The first edition is exactly from 1945 in England, published by Secker &
Wargburg, from London, and from 1946 in the USA, published by Harcourt, from New York. The
capitalist governments, which were imminently going to promote Animal Farm , were
evaluating different options to attack the USSR: from rearming German units as shock
brigades to attack the Soviets, to the launch of "preventive" atomic bombs. The prestige
that the USSR had among all the workers of the world, fundamentally the Europeans who
suffered the Nazi atrocities, was enormous, as well as among the intellectual and popular
sectors, whose reflection could be followed in the great influence that some communist
parties had. It was necessary to dismantle this prestige to sweep the opposition of the
world public opinion to an armed aggression against those who liberated Europe from Nazism,
and Orwell's novels came as a ring to a finger for this purpose, since they were a good
instrument to spread among the so called mass culture, just as later were the film versions
of his works.
Albert Escusa, gives in his essay a good semblance of what kind of person could Orwell
really be:
Orwell was above all a great individualist, with some important personal contradictions and
prejudices that led him to oscillate along various paths without being able to commit
himself in a stable and permanent way to anything that was not himself, in such a way that,
when he became disenchanted with some social processes that he was unable to interpret
correctly and scientifically, ended up ranting against what he believed to be the object of
his anger.
We can see it in Corbière's sharp description: "Who was Orwell? A sniper, a
skeptic who devoted his efforts to Manichean criteria describing the great social and
political contradictions of our time. Anarchist, Semitrotskyist in Spain, Labor in England,
free thinker, undercover anti-Semite, his real ideas reveal a kind of elitism.
He had an intense imagination but his methodology of thought was restricted,
one-sided.
No that I am aware, but, if interested, you could translate it with a translator.
Since the essay is quite long, you could translate paragraph by paragraph, then read the whol
thing once assembled.
A bit complicated, but worth the effort, the essay is a well researched work, wu¡ith
several referecnes as weel worth reading, like a disection of Orwell, his epoch and
motives.
Oh dear. Relatively prosperous middle class means descended from Earls of Westmorland, family
tree of Fanes, de Veres, Grosvenors, at a little reach basically related to the entire
peerage. True, Orwell's father was a bit of a dope, he did manage to contract a marriage to a
very wealthy woman. Jacintha Buddicom's memoir, Eric and Us, about growing up living next
door to the Blairs, will tell you what 'middle class' life was like.
Orwell maintained the friendships from St. Cyprians and Eton for life. Pretty much
everyone on the roster could be considered as spooks and agents. All of them tied to old
money, old family, government service. Government as MI6 and CIA.
I think he's a great writer. My copy of the four volumes of Collected Essays Letters &
Journalism is still right here next to the fireplace. All the rest of it around here
somewhere, even the minor novels from the 30s. But no illusions what team he is on or what
station he was born to.
Winston Smith means 'maker of Winston', as in broadcasting from Room 101 and forging the
myth of Winston Churchill. Orwell was a big boy when he did that and was far past having any
illusions. He created the myth that Room 101 of Broadcasting House was the worst place in the
world. And talked of how the war years were the best years of his life.
@Posted by: oldhippie | May 20 2020 23:13 utc | 48
I think he's a great writer
Not even so, more proper a plagiarist and propagandist at the service of Western
totalitarian imperialism.
Since we are in the task of deconstructing Orwell, let´s go to the end...
In addition to the Animal Farm , one of the works that most influenced the
construction of Western totalitarianism against the Communists was 1984 . It shows
an overview of socialism in the USSR similar to a delusional totalitarian and monstrous
drama, with a Big Brother (Stalin) who had absolute social control over the individuals
under his rule, through a sophisticated mind control mechanism. This work became a
must-read for CIA officers and a dependent body called the Council for Psychological
Strategies, in addition to the fact that NATO used the entire vocabulary of this novel
during the 1950s in its anti-communist strategy.12 It is interesting to know how He
conceived this book, since it was apparently a plagiarism Orwell did to another
disenchanted of Bolshevism, in this case a Russian writer, in the opinion of the writer
Emilio J. Corbière: "Orwell's was a conscious plagiarism, since he explained it
himself in another of his works. The plot, the main characters, the symbols and the climate
of its narration, belonged to a completely forgotten Russian writer of the beginning of the
century: Evgeny Zamyatin. In his book We , the Russian disillusioned with socialism
after the failure of the 1905 revolution, devoted his efforts to anathematizing the Social
Democratic Workers Party founded by Jorge Plejanov. When the October revolution happened -
in 1917 - Zamyatin went into exile in Paris, where he wrote his posthumous anti-communist
work"
This opinion is also shared by the historian Isaac Deutscher in his work The
Mysticism of Cruelty , an essay about 1984 , where he states that Orwell
"borrowed the idea of 1984, the plot, the main characters, the symbols and
the whole plot situation from the work We of Evgeny Zamyatin"
We see how behind the image of a great writer, lies the reality of a plagiarist of
stories, which served to elaborate theoretical and academic models on the functioning of
socialism in the Soviet Union totally adjusted to the requirements of imperialism in the
anti-communist Cold War. The impact of 1984 was tremendous among the population,
creating an atmosphere of anti-communist and anti-Soviet paranoia that was very effective
among the masses, as the disturbing personal testimony of Isaac Deutscher demonstrates:
"Have you read that book? You have to read it, sir. Then you will know why we have to drop
the atomic bomb on the Bolsheviks! With those words, a miserable blind newspaper vendor
recommended me in New York 1984 , a few weeks before Orwell's death".
H. Schmatz.
I am not a good book reader but I did read 1984 and it definitely seemed to be a veiled
critique on Communism.
However it seems the story is now more fitting to capitalism.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), happily amplified by the Public Broadcasting
System (PBS) in the United States which carries its World News, continues to pump out its
regular dreck about the alleged economic chaos in Russia and the imagined miserable state of
the Russian people.
It is all lies of course. Patrick Armstrong 's
authoritative regular updates including his reports on this website are a necessary corrective
to such crude propaganda.
But amid all their countless fiascoes and failures in every other field (including the
highest per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Europe, and one of the highest in the world) the
British remain world leaders at managing global Fake News. As long as the tone remains
restrained and dignified, literally any slander will be swallowed by the credulous and every
foul scandal and shame can be confidently covered up.
None of this would have surprised the late, great George Orwell. It is fashionable these
days to endlessly trot him out as a zombie (dead but alleged to be living – so that he
cannot set the record straight himself) critic of Russia and all the other global news outlets
outside the control of the New York and London plutocracies. And it is certainly true, that
Orwell, whose hatred and fear of communism was very real, served before his death as an
informer to MI-5, British domestic security.
But it was not the Soviet Union, Stalin's show trials or his experiences with the Trotskyite
POUM group in Barcelona and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War that "made Orwell Orwell" as
the Anglo-America Conventional Wisdom Narrative has it. It was his visceral loathing of the
British Empire – compounded during World War II by his work for the BBC which he
eventually gave up in disgust.
And it was his BBC experiences that gave Orwell the model for his unforgettable Ministry of
Truth in his great classic "1984."
George Orwell had worked in one of the greatest of all world centers of Fake News. And he
knew it.
More profoundly, the great secret of George Orwell's life has been hiding in plain sight for
70 years since he died. Orwell became a sadistic torturer in the service of the British Empire
during his years in Burma, modern Myanmar. And as a fundamentally decent man, he was so
disgusted by what he had done that he spent the rest of his life not just atoning but slowly
and willfully committing suicide before his heartbreakingly premature death while still in his
40s.
The first important breakthrough in this fundamental reassessment of Orwell comes from one
of the best books on him. "Finding George Orwell in Burma" was published in 2005 and written by
"Emma Larkin", a pseudonym for an outstanding American journalist in Asia whose identity I have
long suspected to be an old friend and deeply respected colleague, and whose continued
anonymity I respect.
"Larkin" took the trouble to travel widely in Burma during its repressive military
dictatorship and her superb research reveals crucial truths about Orwell. According to his own
writings and his deeply autobiographical novel "Burmese Days" Orwell loathed all his time as a
British colonial policeman in Burma, modern Myanmar. The impression he systematically gives in
that novel and in his classic essay "Shooting an Elephant" is of a bitterly lonely, alienated,
deeply unhappy man, despised and even loathed by his fellow British colonialists throughout
society and a ludicrous failure at his job.
This was not, however, the reality that "Larkin" uncovered. All surviving witnesses agreed
that Orwell – Eric Blair as he then still was – remained held in high regard during
his years in the colonial police service. He was a senior and efficient officer. Indeed it was
precisely his knowledge of crime, vice, murder and the general underside of human society
during his police colonial service while still in his 20s that gave him the street smarts,
experience, and moral authority to see through all the countless lies of right and left, of
American capitalists and British imperialists as well as European totalitarians for the rest of
his life.
The second revelation to throw light on what Orwell had to do in those years comes from one
of the most famous and horrifying scenes in "1984." Indeed, almost nothing even in the memoirs
of Nazi death camp survivors has anything like it: That is the scene where "O'Brien", the
secret police officer tortures the "hero" (if he can be called that) Winston Smith by locking
his face to a cage in which a starving rat is ready to pounce and devour him if it is
opened.
I remember thinking, when I was first exposed to the power of "1984" at my outstanding
Northern Irish school, "What kind of mind could invent something as horrific as that?") The
answer was so obvious that I like everyone else missed it entirely.
Orwell did not "invent" or "come up" with the idea as a fictional plot device: It was just a
routine interrogation technique used by the British colonial police in Burma, modern Myanmar.
Orwell never "brilliantly" invented such a diabolical technique of torture as a literary
device. He did not have to imagine it. It was routinely employed by himself and his colleagues.
That was how and why the British Empire worked so well for so long. They knew what they were
doing. And what they did was not nice at all.
A final step in my enlightenment about Orwell, whose writings I have revered all my life
– and still do – was provided by our alarmingly brilliant elder daughter about a
decade ago when she too was given "1984" to read as part of her school curriculum. Discussing
it with her one day, I made some casual obvious remark that Orwell was in the novel as Winston
Smith.
My American-raised teenager then naturally corrected me. "No, Dad, " she said. "Orwell isn't
Winston, or he's not just Winston. He's O'Brien too. O'Brien actually likes Winston. He doesn't
want to torture him. He even admires him. But he does it because it's his duty."
She was right, of course.
But how could Orwell the great enemy of tyranny, lies and torture so identify with and
understand so well the torturer? It was because he himself had been one.
"Emma Larkin's" great book brings out that Orwell as a senior colonial police officer in the
1920s was a leading figure in a ruthless war waged by the British imperial authorities against
drug and human trafficking crime cartels every bit as vicious and ruthless as those in modern
Ukraine, Columbia and Mexico today. It was a "war on terror" where anything and everything was
permitted to "get the job done."
The young Eric Blair was so disgusted by the experience that when he returned home he
abandoned the respectable middle class life style he had always enjoyed and became, not just an
idealistic socialist as many in those days did, but a penniless, starving tramp. He even
abandoned his name and very identity. He suffered a radical personality collapse: He killed
Eric Blair. He became George Orwell.
Orwell's early famous book "Down and Out in London and Paris" is a testament to how much he
literally tortured and humiliated himself in those first years back from Burma. And for the
rest of his life.
He ate miserably badly, was skinny and ravaged by tuberculosis and other health problems,
smoked heavily and denied himself any decent medical care. His appearance was always
abominable. His friend, the writer Malcolm Muggeridge speculated that Orwell wanted to remake
himself as a caricature of a tramp.
The truth clearly was that Orwell never forgave himself for what he did as a young agent of
empire in Burma. Even his literally suicidal decision to go to the most primitive, cold, wet
and poverty-stricken corner of creation in a remote island off Scotland to finish "1984" in
isolation before he died was consistent with the merciless punishments he had inflicted on
himself all his life since leaving Burma.
The conclusion is clear: For all the intensity of George Orwell's experiences in Spain, his
passion for truth and integrity, his hatred of the abuse of power did not originate from his
experiences in the Spanish Civil War. They all flowed directly from his own actions as an agent
of the British Empire in Burma in the 1920s: Just as his creation of the Ministry of Truth
flowed directly from his experience of working in the Belly of the Beast of the BBC in the
early 1940s.
George Orwell spent more than 20 years slowly committing suicide because of the terrible
crimes he committed as a torturer for the British Empire in Burma. We can therefore have no
doubt what his horror and disgust would be at what the CIA did under President George W. Bush
in its "Global War on Terror." Also, Orwell would identify at once and without hesitation the
real fake news flowing out of New York, Atlanta, Washington and London today, just as he did in
the 1930s and 1940s.
Let us therefore reclaim and embrace The Real George Orwell: The cause of fighting to
prevent a Third World War depends on it.
"Foglesong's book provides a panoramic view of American popular attitudes toward Russia, one that is illustrated with many
arresting cartoons and magazine covers. It should provoke a wider debate about the rationality of evaluating Russia with reference
to an idealized view of the United States, as well as the deeper sources of this tendency." -Deborah Welch Larson, H-Diplo
"In the 21st century, the American debate on the prospects of modernizing Russia and on the Americans' role in this process is
still going strong even though it began more than a century ago. This is why David Foglesong's book aimed at elucidating the
mechanisms of misrepresentations which threaten both Russian-American relations and the world security as a whole is of equal
importance for the academic community and for the policy makers in both Russia and the United States."
-Victoria Zhuravleva, H-Diplo
"Foglesong demonstrates that powerful Americans have again and again seen the possibility, even necessity, of spreading the word
to Russia, and then, when Russia fails to transform itself into something resembling the US, have recoiled and condemned Russia's perfidious
national character or its leaders-most recently Putin. The author's singular achievement is to show that well before the cold war, Russia
served as America's dark double, an object of wishful thinking, condescension and self-righteousness in a quest for American purpose-without
much to show for such efforts inside Russia. The author thereby places in context the cold war, when pamphleteers like William F Buckley
Jr and politicians like Ronald Reagan pushed a crusade to revitalise the American spirit. Russia then was a threat but also a means
to America's end (some fixed on a rollback of the alleged Soviet "spawn" inside the US-the welfare state-while others, after the Vietnam
debacle, wanted to restore "faith in the United States as a virtuous nation with a unique historical mission"). Foglesong's exposé of
Americans' "heady sense of their country's unique blessings" helps make sense of the giddiness, followed by rank disillusionment, vis-...-vis
the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s and 2000s." -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine
Notable quotes:
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
"... The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea. ..."
"... This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags. ..."
"... T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil, precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror. ..."
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which
missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans
as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair
during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's
own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts
about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions
that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia,
more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting
what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American
journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have
distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."
The Adventures of Straw Man Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2013 This has been the essential function of US
Russia policy, as David Foglesong shows in his century-long tour.
The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has
defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed
Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea.
This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps
the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags.
The crusade against US civil rights - of which Reagan was also a part in his early career - as Communist-inspired tinkering
with the Constitution was much less successful. His support for free trade unions in the Soviet Bloc while crushing them at home
underscored the irony.
But Foglesong is much too generous in evaluating Reagan's human decency as a policy motive. Reagan pursued his grand rollback
strategy by any means necessary, mixing hard tactics (contras, death-squad funding, mujahadin, Star Wars) with soft (democracy-enhancement,
human rights, meeting with Gorbachev). Solidarity activists in Poland might remember his crusading fondly; survivors of the Salvadoran
civil war will not.
The "crisis" with the Putin regime currently empowered shows the missionary impulse yet alive: projecting one's reforming instincts
upon others rather than at home. T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion
of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil,
precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror.
I do find it puzzling that Foglesong made no mention of Maurice Hindus, the prolific popular "explainer" of Russia in over
a dozen mid-century books; and the notorious defector Victor Kravchenko and his best-selling memoir of the 1940s (ghost-written
by Eugene Lyons, another popular anti-Soviet scribe). Both were much more influential in the public and political mind than many
of the more obscure missionary authors Foglesong does cite. Nevertheless, Foglesong has offered a generous helping of cultural/political
history that shows no signs of growing stale.
>
indah nuritasari , Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
This book tells a fascinating story of American efforts to liberate and remake Russia since the 1880s. It starts with the story
of Tsar Alexander II's asasination on March 1, 1881 and how James William Buel, a Missoury Journalist wrote it in his book "Russian
Nihilism and Exile Life in Siberia."
The story continues until The Reagan era and "the Evil Empire," 1981-1989.
This book is very interesting and useful for history lovers, students, journalists, or general public. Here you can find all
the "dark and exciting stuff" about the cold war, including the involvement of the journalists, political activists, diplomats,
and even engineers.
It is really helpful for me as a new immigrant in the US to help me understand the US position and role in the Cold War Era.
The language used in this book, though, is " kind of dry". A little editing for the next edition could be really helpful!!
"... 1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA. After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt. ..."
"... As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign. ..."
"... I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me. ..."
If it were true why would they need to repeat it again and again? The American Dream died
in 1969 - the last year of the post-war miracle in the USA. For the following five years, the
country continued to flourish, but at a clear slower pace. With the oil crisis of 1974-5, the
American Dream definitely died, albeit some indicators (e.g. real wages) still showed some
improvements.
1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA.
After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years
of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in
consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was
mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their
hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt.
As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's
election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his
lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker
to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during
Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign.
Not only does the headline "The American Dream is Alive and Well" need to be repeated ad
nauseam but also the narrative it promotes, of the immigrant family that succeeds through
sheer hard work and dedication and nothing else - no help from government subsidies or
relatives already in the country, no dependence on bank loans that help start a business or
put teenagers through college, no discrimination whatsoever - has to be hammered constantly
over and over, even when everyone can see that the story template no longer has any legs if
it ever had any.
For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of Edward
Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and their mass
media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
I wonder what America would have become if sociopaths like Allen Dulles hadn't relocated to
Nazi braintrust after WWII. maybe it was inevitable that we would become the 4th reich.
David Talbot's book The Devil's Chessboard should be required reading for all
Americans.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
We all know these main stream media outlets do little more than pump out propaganda to the
ignorant masses who need someone to tell them what they want to hear.
Wow, those guys were phoning it in. 1. Their dreamland pieces were identical to the ones
in 2015, 2. the bottom 20% who they claim either don't have it so bad or can easily improve
their lot, have been gutted like a fish and left out to dry. Did people write these opinion
pieces or robots, robots could easily replace their jobs, pity their jobs won't be automated
but I really don't see why they couldn't be. Actually Neocons could be replaced by
automatons.
I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that
people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting
my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still
need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me.
As an aside that is nonetheless relevant, dealing as it does with issues of the
responsibility that banks have for the mess in this world, I recommend watching the TV
series, "Devils", described here on Wikipedia:
London, 2011. The Italian Massimo Ruggero is the head of trading at the banking giant
American New York - London Bank (NYL). While the financial crisis is raging across Europe,
Massimo is making hundreds of millions thanks to speculation. His mentor is Dominic Morgan,
the American CEO of NYL and the closest thing to a father Massimo has ever had. He fully
supports it, the talented trader seems to be the first choice in the run for vice-CEO. But
when Massimo is unwillingly involved in a scandal that sees his ex-wife implicated as an
escort, Dominic denies him the promotion, instead choosing the old school banker Edward
Stuart.
Massimo is amazed: his father turns his back on him. Convinced that he has been set up,
Massimo is determined to bring out the truth, but when Edward suddenly dies, Massimo
realizes that something bigger is at stake. With the help of his team and a group of
hackers, Massimo will discover the plot hidden behind apparently unrelated events such as
the Strauss-Kahn scandal, the war in Libya and the PIIGS crisis. Finding himself in front
of the Devils who pull the ropes of the world, Massimo will have to choose whether to fight
them or join them.
The series is well-written and well-acted. If you have access to it (I get it off the
Internet, but it does not appear to be available in the US market yet), it's well worth
watching. It is in some ways better than "Deep State", the spy series that was on a season or
two ago. It has already been renewed for a second season.
Interesting book "Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime " published in 2013 by PETER C
GØTZSCHE
He points out "Science philosopher Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
depicts the totalitarian, closed society as a rigidly ordered state in which freedom of
expression and discussion of crucial issues are ruthlessly suppressed. Most of the time, when
I have tried to publish unwelcome truths about the drug industry, I have been exposed to the
journal's lawyers, and even after I have documented that everything I say is correct and have
been said before by others, I have often experienced that important bits have been removed or
that my paper was rejected for no other reason than fear of litigation. This is one of the
reasons I decided to write this book, as I have discovered that I have much more freedom when
I write books. Popper would have viewed the pharmaceutical industry as an enemy of the open
society.
Rigorous science should put itself at risk of being falsified and this practice should be
protected against those who try to impede scientific understanding, as when the industry
intimidates those who discover harms of its drugs. Protecting the hypotheses by ad hoc
modifications, such as undeclared changes to the measured outcomes or the analysis plan once
the sponsor has seen the results, or by designing trials that make them immune to refutation,
puts the hypotheses in the same category as pseudoscience.
In healthcare, the open democratic society has become an oligarchy of corporations whose
interests serve the profit motive of the industry and shape public policy, including that of
weakened regulatory agencies. Our governments have failed to regulate an industry, which has
become more and more powerful and almighty, and failed to protect scientific objectivity and
academic curiosity from commercial forces."
Thats about it in a nutshell. Too bad the good scientists are all muzzled. Only the
politicized fraudsters get the good press.
Coronavirus To Decimate Colleges and Universities Posted on
May 12, 2020 by Yves Smith "Decimate" might be too
charitable a forecast for American higher educational institutions, since the word originated
with the Roman army practice of killing one man in ten. Coronavirus is hitting pretty much all
of the bad aspects of their business models at once.
Let's list them:
Dependence on/preference for foreign students, often not for their accomplishments but for
their ability to pay full and even premium fees . Chinese students accounted for one-third of
the total. Their enrollment was already falling as of 2019.
Universities in English-speaking countries, especially Britain, Australia and the United
States, have grown increasingly dependent on tuition from Chinese students, a business model
that the virus could dismantle.
With qualifying exams postponed, travel bans spreading and anger rising among Chinese
students and parents at the West's permissive attitude toward public health, enrollment could
plummet in the coming years, experts said, potentially leaving countries with multibillion-
dollar holes in their universities' budgets.
Foreign students were dismayed by the way US schools shut down abruptly and gave little to
no help in helping get them back home.
Skyrocketing prices leading more students to question college or emphasize "practical"
degrees . As with mortgages, access to debt has led to higher prices. And with student debt
terms so draconian, more and more students are trading down: going to cheaper schools or
focusing on programs that teach harder skills that hopefully translate into market value.
Bloated adminispheres and gold plated facilities . MBA parasites have colonized
universities, with the justification often that they increase fundraising. For what purpose? To
pay themselves better, and to create naming opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to
justify high charges via plush dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
All those expensive buildings have become an albatross.
Now consider the impact of coronavirus.
Litigation over terminating on-campus instruction . This is probably the least of their
worries. Plaintiffs are seeking refunds for the degradation of the educational product. The
schools argue quite explicitly that they are not in the business of educating but of conferring
credentials, and it is they alone that determine what is adequate for them to hand out a
degree. There is precedent supporting the universities' arguments, albeit with less bad facts
than these.
Low likelihood of resuming classes on campus this fall . My colleagues with contacts among
university administrators say no one has any idea how to make dorms safe if coronavirus is
still on the loose. This has many negative implications.
Why should students and/or their parents be willing to pay full prices for a degraded
product? They won't get interaction with instructors. For science and engineering classes, they
won't get lab work. They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates. They won't get
tips from other students on career and summer job strategies. They won't get to participate in
extracurricular activities, which is a low-stakes way to learn to work with other people. They
won't learn how to grow up in a somewhat protected environment.
There is the very real possibility that employers will downgrade the value of degrees
conferred during the plague years.
It's hard to see how colleges and universities escape cutting tuition, save perhaps the most
elite. I can't see any schools besides the most elite can maintain their charges without seeing
a big falloff in enrollment. And with them administering classes remotely, the cost of delivery
has fallen. And that's before seeing students postponing or abandoning degrees due to the
horrible state of the economy.
And what happens to university budgets due to the loss of room and board income?
Schools already looking at probable downgrades . Standard & Poors is already put a long
list of higher educational institutions on its negative watch list. Bear in mind that S&P
and Moody's tend not to downgrade before Mr. Market already has the bond trading at a lower
rating level.
From an April 30 Ratings Action :
The public and private colleges and universities affected by these actions include
primarily those with lower ratings ('BBB' rating category and below), but also those entities
that, in our opinion, have less holistic flexibility (from both a market position and
financial standpoint) at their current rating level
While S&P Global Ratings' outlook on the U.S. not-for-profit higher education sector
has been negative for three consecutive years now, we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic and
related economic and financial impacts exacerbate pressures already facing colleges and
universities. The financial impact on institutions from the loss of auxiliary revenue from
housing and dining fees, and parking fees; as well as revenues from athletics, theater, and
other events, is material for many. For schools with health care systems, lost revenue from
cancelled elective surgical procedures could also be significant. The recently passed CARES
Act will provide some budgetary relief to higher education institutions; however, despite
this aid, we expect to see stressed operating budgets, the scope of which will ultimately be
determined by the magnitude of lost revenues, the duration of the pandemic, fall 2020 mode of
instruction, and ultimate enrollment figures.
Colleges and universities have reacted rapidly to the challenges presented by the
pandemic. They have moved classes online to adhere to social-distancing rules, adjusted
admission policies to accommodate disruptions to high school exams, and suspended academic
conferences and travel. At the same time, many have implemented material expense cuts,
including deferring capital expenditures, and imposing furloughs and layoffs, in some cases,
with plans to continue to ramp up cost containment under various fall scenarios. Many
colleges and universities have disclosed estimates of 2020 budget shortfalls, despite the
inclusion of CARES stimulus funds. We expect that the colleges and universities we rate will
face an unprecedented level of operating stress and tightened liquidity, which will worsen
the longer and deeper the pandemic lasts.
It is also not clear how much more help the Federal government will be willing to provide.
Even though Congresscritters will be under pressure to help institutions in their district, the
flip side is the Republicans know well that higher educational institutions are a Democratic
party province, so they won't be high on their list of rescue priorities.\\
This section seems very much behind the curve, as if S&P talks to too many Wall Street
types who are betting on a V shaped recovery:
Many of the colleges and universities that we rate have some headroom to absorb the
impacts associated with COVID-19 at their current credit ratings, as they have built up
reserves over recent years, hold solid balance sheets, and have relatively low debt levels.
However, colleges and universities will face increased downward pressure on their current
ratings depending on the extent to which economic disruptions associated with COVID-19
persist. If global travel restrictions are prolonged, or the imminent recession diminishes
foreign students' financial means, then some could opt to study or work in their home
countries instead. In our opinion, a fall 2020 with significantly fewer international
students, as well as lower domestic enrollments overall, will cause serious operational
pressures. At the same time, most U.S. colleges and universities depend on endowments and
fundraising for a significant portion of revenues, and declining investment performance and
endowment market values along with weaker fundraising results could negatively affect credit
metrics during the outlook period.
I strongly suggest you look at the list. You'll see many familiar names. In particular, the
ones at the very bottom group, which already had a negative outlook before coronavirus, are the
most downgrade exposed. Interestingly, Northwestern, which went to the "hedge fund with a
university attached" model early and has an AAA rating, is in that cohort. Did they have an
even bigger than typical blow up in their portfolio?
Needless to say, this isn't cheery reading. While the universities set themselves for a big
fall, a lot of people who had nothing to do with the bad policies will get hurt.
As an aside, this is another reason why the 'we should relax lockdown as soon as possible'
crowd are so very misguided. The education business, along with so many others, gears up
after the August holidays right across the northern hemisphere. For many countries, there is
a good chance of suppressing the virus between now and the summer so that there can be at
least some sort of normalcy restored from August onwards. At the very least, this gives a
chance of a normal academic year for students. But this is only a possibility if infection
rates can be brought down to a 'track and trace' level over the summer. Failing to do this by
September will be devastating for all education providers. The UK third level sector, already
hit by Brexit, will be similarly wiped out if the virus is visibly not under control by
then.
Although they are unprofitable for almost all schools, I'm not sure that the impact from
cancelling the season is as clear cut, especially for the large D-I programs. Many of the
costs like million-dollar coaches, hundred million-dollar stadiums are fixed. Scholarships
will likely continue as well. Schools can probably cut costs of the lower paid employees
without contracts, like assistant coaches and trainers, but I don't think those are the
biggest drivers of costs.
Gameday revenues are almost certainly cashflow positive for the schools (ushers and
cleaners aren't paid very much); without them the football teams will be even bigger money
losers for the school. The schools might even get fees from their broadcast partners, as is
the case with many professional teams.
What happens with all these high-cost games like football and basketball if they cannot
get crowds to watch them? Do these crowds off-set much of the costs of staging these games? I
suppose that the institutes would be loath to drop them as they are such a "status" program
to have but I fail to understand how a coach in such a place is entitled to a multi-million
dollar salary as that money has to come from somewhere.
Most of their money is made through TV broadcasting rights, not in game ticket sales.
People will still watch them. Arguably even more people will watch them, although I don't
think that matters because the deals are already locked in with the various networks.
TV is the king but game day revenues are not insignificant for most of the big programs
that count on 70,000+ spectators times 7-8 home games a year.
Also agree with Another Scott that big-time college football especially has a lot of fixed
costs that will not go away if the season is cancelled. On the other hand, once you get
outside the big D1 programs, I do think cancelling football would be net cash flow
positive.
Comments like, "Football programs lose money" are so poorly thoughtout I just cant believe
they are posted here.
Honestly. . .
Huge amounts of dollars go through those programs and the benefit of that circulating
money to sooo many people and companies is enormous. There are many people who want to see
those programs continue.
If a Florida school thinks the price tag is too high, it is the begining of a series of
price negotiations. . . thats it. Come on!
first, your "quoted" material wasn't a quote in this write up or comments, so you can take
the quotes off. Second, look at the link Yves posted to see how football is a money pit for
many D1 schools. Third, I think I understand what you're trying to say that there's tons of
money flowing in and around college football, but the gist is that we're talking about the
impact to and financial ratings of colleges and universities and not the impact to the Purple
Porpoise in Gainesville, FL or similar establishments.
You make it sound like it doesn't matter if they lose money, because with all that money
sloshing around there then it's a net positive. The only problem is those universities aren't
there to slosh money around in their football programs, they are there so our society can be
an educated one. And when instead people start to think that the money sloshing around is
more important (as in all areas of human life) the part that was point of the whole endeavor
(as in, the education at the university) comes to look more like a cost. And what costs is
what is cut. And what is cut is degraded, given a higher price, and otherwise forced to
submit to those market forces that looks so good (well, at least when you have dollar signs
tattooed on your eyes).
The point is, whether football programs lose money or make lots of money slosh around,
this model is exactly the thing that is destroying our society, and exactly what needs to be
dismantled. So comments like "Football programs lose money" are exactly why people come
around here in the first place, and it seems you must be confused if you "can't believe they
are posted here."
AS A PSU grad and active alumnus I can attest that Penn State uses its massive football
revenues to fund ALL other of the school's sports programs. Though not part of the topic
being discussed, football Game day revenues also basically fund theTown of State College's
Downtown businesses FOR THE YEAR. And the full fare Chinese student contingent absolutely
'makes' the bottom line there. Those of us involved in alumni activities and meet with Board
members and others often are VERY worried .
If one reads the article, the key part of the statement about "most football programs lose
money" is that it's referring to FCS (Football Championship Series) schools which are the
"lower tier" Division 1 schools. Not Big10, SEC, etc. I don't think there's much in the way
of TV revenue for FCS either, except when they get a cut of the deal when playing a major
team (once or maybe twice a year).
My cousin attends Union and decided she'll take a leave of absence in the fall if they are
still remote.
Northeastern in Boston has stated they'll be back in the fall. I believe they are deeply
dependent on tuition revenue and have massive debts due to a campus expansion that must have
been costly due to Boston real estate prices.
In the UK, Queen Mary, Manchester (labouring under at least a billion pound debt for a
state of the art campus by the canals) and (private) Buckingham are teetering. Oxford is also
experiencing some discomfort.
I made this post unduly US focused due to having the S&P analysis, so thanks for
additional input on the UK. The New York Times article above made it clear that UK unis were
even more dependent than American ones on Chinese students paying hefty fees.
Thanks for that article. I've also heard that rumour about Queen Mary, is there any public
information about them?
I wonder how many other UK universities will announce redundancies in the coming months.
Would be interesting to know numbers of current vs. normal (last year) applications from Asia
for the coming year.
Yes, Edinburgh's situation is well known. Other prominent Scottish universities are in
similar positions, having gone all-in on rich international students to subsidise their "free
tuition for Scottish students" model. They're all very exposed now.
In England, I've heard of a number of institutions this week setting up voluntary
severance and redundancy schemes, with rather alarming stated goals for how many staff they
want to shed. Big, prestigious universities, too -- again, it's that reliance on
international students. The word I'm hearing repeatedly is "bloodbath."
Interesting NYT article about Bath. We live on campus (our house is a former uni property)
of another southwestern University, famous in no particular order for its campus being a
botanic garden, its current vice chancellor being about to retire after 20 years of
market-leading pay and it having closed its chemistry department, among others, 20 years ago
to make savings to pay for other priorities.
Again in no particular order, we gave remarked in the last few months:
– just how many east Asian students and junior faculty the place has attracted. We have
Japanese student lodgers!
– just how many purpose built student factory farms are being built in the city and,
more financially perilously, on the campus (building a massive student dorm extension campus
on farmland that was prime city centre green space and materially upgrading facilities at
other student blocks) and how distorted the local housing market is
– just how long the grass is getting since lockdown. There's little infection risk on a
single seater ride-on mower – the groundstaff, botanic garden not withstanding, have
been furloughed / laid off to save money. One vice chancellor's salary could pay for them
all. Austerity for thee, public subsidy for me.
– just how tone deaf the University is to assert its campus is now closed to the
public, when public roads run through it and it is used as a cycling and pedestrian right of
way to cross the northern half of the city. The buildings are closed and the students are in
their hutches. There is no danger of infection from people taking a walk from their confines
.
There is a big reckoning coming, with these bullying institutions suddenly acknowledging
their public and local obligations in return for a bailout.
Ps: I don't think the reaction of bath students to avoid sharing an elevator with a
Chinese student was racist. Just prudent. On a risk adjusted basis, a Chinese ethnicity
student is most likely a Chinese expat and if returning from Christmas or CNY to campus
represented a higher risk than a non-Chinese. I was very wary on my weekly commute in January
from London, of the Chinese students with big suitcases tagged Heathrow who were all getting
off at my stop . Tables have turned now, of course!
> They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates.
: Sherri Tepper: See. The word Festival. In the Onomasticon it carries the meaning
'opportunity for reproduction.' We talk of School House, but the book says, 'Protection of
Genetic Potential.' We say True Game. The book says 'Population control.'
The university of my town had moved from offering professions to Learning How To Learn in
the last couple decades. Along with that was the gilting, providing a shared cultural
experience, more in line with Tepper's definitions than educational outcomes. The incoming
cash provided support for community culture as well, restaurants, arts, weird shops. The
fallout for our cosmopolitan lifestyle in a small city is unfathomable.
Deeper even still, in the middle of the last century, educator Frank Templeton wrote from
the perspective that every citizen was like a brick, in the structure called a nation, and
schools made for strong bricks.
The harsh partial truth is that primary and secondary schools were hollowed out as daycare
centers to increase the labor pool. And many parents who were willing to pay to get the older
kids out of the house are now forced with a calculation: what's the roi on the
educational/professional dimension, and what's the roi on the social/Tepper dimension? If
both are low, why pay in this time of great uncertainty?
Chinese student applications are well down this year–this from direct knowledge at
one school and anecdotal at a few more. Companies that operate in China to connect students
to US institutions are laying off. And if numbers at any given school don't absolutely crater
(50%+), know that the discounting will have had to have been ramped up to make that possible.
Obviously there are health and safety concerns, but there is also a nasty political climate
with racist/xenophobic stuff coming from the Republicans that has been in some cases matched
by e.g. Biden campaign or NYT and that might clear the way for disastrous bans on
student/post-grad visas, if not increased violence.
University of Illinois "flagship" was prescient to purchase insurance from Lloyds Of
London for fortuitous Chinese student reduction risk. International students pay top dollar
rate. All good, their insurance broker should be commended!
Yesterday, Northwestern announced they are laying off ~250 personnel and cutting
administrative salaries 10 – 20% (so it must be serious). So much for the "safety" of a
higher education job.
On a tangential tack, locally, a slight majority of voters in our city passed a school
levy to firm-up/construct school dist. infrastructure – elementary/middle-school ..
with the future goal of a new shiny high school to replace the old/failing one. In the recent
years past, the school board and their boosters would put forth levies that amounted to Taj
Maschool 'wish-lists' .. which the community rightfully voted down. Same for the towns within
close proximity. So, the result of said measure .. even though it is lower that the previous
ones, is the rise, by hundreds of $$ annually (a bond floated, to be pay off in X years ..
only to have new one's brought forth after), to every property owner to achieve these goals
.. dollars that many would find a true burden Before the pandemic will be hit even harder
going forward. We are not what one would call a rich community .. unless one only considers
the movers/shakers/boosters. We rely less and less on timber exports – happening in
spades now! – with incoming revenue predicated on the vaunted idea of 'Tourism'.
'Sigh'
I see a failure of those same movers/shakers/boosters to consider that the whole college
track gristmill is the wrong approach .. bring back hands-on vocational training instruction
that was nixed years ago, having left it to the local college to do, with the added $-stream
THAT entails .. and put much less emphasis on 'college for college sake' There are a plethora
of skills that young folk are not being taught, that they will need for their very survival,
in a conflicted and low resource world! Imo, the Federal Dept. Of Ed needs to be abolished,
thus putting a end to it's often onerous 4 to 8 year changing 'mandates', and allow state and
local communities to come up with their own models of instruction. Sure, some will no doubt
fail, but I believe many others would in fact, thrive. There should of course be iron-clad
restrictions on just who has sway on funding and 'pull' (no hedgefunds/private equity/
scoundrels, rakes, and thieves !) Leave to the locals to hash out!
A little over a century ago, we had that kind of evironment, where children actually learned
of the world, whilst also becomeing proficient in the basics .. as well as taking on truly
practical skillsets .. from often small school settings – just look at an any exam
test-sheet from back then to get an idea of how badly we've handled things since. This
pandemic has brought to light our learned follies for sure.
Very true. I read that in EvanstonNow. Also saw a story from about a month ago about the
Wildcats 2020 prospects which IIRC previewed the 2020 schedule. So I guess college football
will go on even as colleges are decimated by the coronavirus. Priorities, indeed.
I looked this up. It does not appear to be as dire as you describe it. The staff members
are being temporarily furloughed, not laid off. And it is "university leaders" and deans that
are taking pay cuts. That is not administrative salaries generally. I am not saying it won't
get worse, just that it is not quite so terrible yet.
"University leadership said approximately 250 staff members will be temporarily
furloughed, the university will suspend 5% automatic and 5% match contributions to staff
retirement plans, and university leaders will take a 20% pay cut.
NU deans will also take a 10% pay cut reduction."
MBA parasites have colonized universities, with the justification often that they
increase fundraising. For what purpose? To pay themselves better, and to create naming
opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to justify high charges via plush
dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
I wish it were unique to the Anglosphere. Even here in Sweden one of the technical
universities in my city is in the midst of a big economic crisis. My friends who work there
as researchers attribute it to obscene administrative bloat that they've seen growing rampant
in the past decade. This is also after the implementation of big tuition fees for non-EU
students in 2011 (there were no tuition fees before that) which dramatically lowered the
quality of international applicants.
Athletic budgets (public institutions) in context: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
The far right column is the key: percent of athletic budget that is "allocated," which means
the part of the budget that comes directly out of the hide of the institution and its
students. About two dozen of the usual suspects make a "profit." My alma mater is way
profitable but still takes several million from captives in "student fees." Private
institutions in the black would include Notre Dame, Stanford, USC, and probably Duke
(basketball, which disappeared this spring). Note what the athletic budget does to schools
like UCONN, Rutgers, and UMASS, not to mention the smaller state schools. Something's gotta
give. It won't be the athletic departments.
When I bring up these data with academic colleagues, especially from smaller institutions
that have reestablished football as the prime money pit over the past 25 years, all I ever
get is the bovine stare of disbelief.
To be fair, what this analysis doesn't take into account is how many students are going to
the school (or how much more they are paying) who would not have gone if there were no sports
teams
I know thats a dumb reason to choose a college, but remember these are 18 year olds making
a decision. I suspect many more than you would assume include going to a "winner" and
additional social tailgating events as part of their criteria
Additionally, I think there is a mentality, or pride, that you too can be like Duke in
basketball or Notre Dame in football. But, first you have to commit to winning, or invest
early.
Yes, this is the "intangibles, school spirit" argument, a perennial favorite of presidents
and athletic directors and boards of trustees. It may be somewhat valid at the larger schools
of the Power Five conferences (SEC; Big-10, where they apparently can't count to 14; ACC;
Pac-12; Big-12, actually 10) but absolutely nowhere else except Notre Dame. And even in these
conferences, the financial drain on some schools is huge. Way past time to realize the sunk
costs associated with college sports are simply lost. Georgia Tech and Berkeley need big time
college sports (i.e., football)? Really? Georgia Southern and Illinois State? Connecticut and
Rutgers? Robert Maynard Hutchins to the white courtesy phone, please. Yes, I am unreasonable,
but these are unreasonable times.
And except for a brief renascence under Lou Holtz, Notre Dame football hasn't been much
since Ara Parseghian retired and the Boys from Chicago are still and forever nonplussed about
that.
And there is the small irony of educational institutions promoting a sport that can cause
serious head and bodily injury (American football).
Maybe some football programs do eventually pay for themselves via alumni contributions,
but one wonders if there is a herd mentality in colleges NEEDING to have a football team.
I know of one University of Calif campus (UC Santa Barbara) that dropped its football team
in the late 1960's, weakly woke it up in 1987 and then dropped it again in 1992.
"1985 a student referendum approved funding for a Division III, non-scholarship team. The
team began play in 1987,.. with a 33-15 record from 1987 to 1991. However, in 1992 the NCAA
decided to forbid schools playing in Division I in other sports from maintaining a lower
level football program, and UCSB dropped the sport again."
Maybe other schools can learn from UCSB's experience?
My high school buddy played on the last 1960's football team at UCSB. As a student there,
many of us were too busy protesting the war and burning the IV bank than attending football
games.
I looked at the ncaa/finances link and saw the "allocated" section.
I find that focusing on the allocated % is misleading as a school with an athletic budget
of only $100 that is not covered by gate receipts would show as %100 allocated.
This could be put in more perspective if the allocated dollar amount is divided by the
number of students.
For example, the University of California, Davis shows up at a high 81.90% allocated with
the allocated amount of $30,680,083.
UC Davis shows as having a student population of 35,186 per Google.
Per student, this is about $872 per student per year.
While Connecticut shows up at a seemingly better 49.23% allocation, but spreading the
shortfall over the 32183 student body size of Connecticut gives a cost of $1213 per student
per year.
One can wonder why the document did not give the per student cost and instead published a
%allocation figure.
These are historic times and one of the biggest sacrifices this generation of college
students will have to make is sitting through Zoom classes.
Let's keep this in perspective. Missing college because you've been drafted to fight in a
war across the Pacific is not the same as delaying your college education because you can't
get drunk with your frat. In the coming years employers will look much favorably on students
that stuck to their 4 year plan regardless of the troubles they were (or thought they were)
facing.
The Chronicle is tracking individual colleges' plans. Currently the vast majority say they
are planning for an in-person fall semester. This database is not behind a paywall Here's
a List of Colleges' Plans for Reopening in the Fall We'll see when August rolls
around.
At my university, the Registrar calculated that our campus has only ONE room large enough
to seat more than 50 students maintaining 6 feet of separation.
The rule of thumb is that covid capacity is 25-30% of normal capacity, so most classes
will need to be capped at 20 students or fewer. Probably better for education, but very much
not compatible with business as usual.
I don't see any way we reopen in any way approaching normal.
My university is probably going to be requiring us to teach half of the students in a
class in the classroom, then half of the students in the class online, alternating which
group is taught in a classroom and online throughout the semester. Unless this doesn't work,
in which case we might go all online, or all in person. What is being suggested–I kid
you not–is that we design each of our courses for the Fall to be taught in any one of
three, or more, ways. We're also taking pay cuts and losing the university's contribution to
our 403b plans. Good news though, we're still going through with our application to the NCAA
for division 1 status!!
The rot at the top of the university structure runs deep, I am afraid.
P.S. And, of course, our annual evaluations–usually the basis for a raise of between
1-1.5%–will continue, even though we're all taking pay cuts. Lol
Thank you for this, Yves. The problem is much bigger – and with more ramifications
– than most people realise, even in the education world itself .
The Guardian article linked to by CS talks about some of the immediate financial problems
this year. IN addition, huge numbers of students are going to consider putting off going to
University, even in their own country, let alone abroad, because they can't be sure that the
classes will start on time, or even at all. There's an increasing tendency, especially in
Europe, for Universities to have highly complex exchange agreements with each other,
especially at Master's level: I've taught classes with fifteen nationalities, the majority on
exchange from elsewhere. At the best of times that's a logistic nightmare, and requires
complex software to juggle. It's worse because the tendency over recent decades has been to
replace traditional degrees with a few options, by Starbucks-style hand-made degrees
assembled from bits and pieces. This works, as long as all the students who have signed up to
come can and do arrive. Otherwise, it can mean empty classrooms or teachers with one student.
Chaos is the kindest word one can use to describe what might happen in September. Courses
will have to be cancelled and lecturers' contracts torn up. It's also going to make it
permanently much more problematic to run courses on the expectation that you can attract
foreign students and send your own abroad. I'm not sure, for example that I would now sign up
for a four-year degree in (let's say) Japanese or Latin American Studies including a year
abroad that might not materialise. Language degrees, indeed, are likely to be among the first
casualties: it's almost impossible for one person to teach, say, Japanese grammar on
line.
I've taught courses using Zoom, and to be honest it's better than nothing but not a lot
better. It only works if everybody is approximately on the same timezone, and even then, once
you get above twenty students you can't actually see all of them on the screen and you have
no idea who's listening and who's doing their Facebook page. The students get no interaction
with you, and if you are using Powerpoint or similar they may hardly see your face the whole
time. It's not clear that students in future years will sign up for courses where face to
face teaching could be suspended at any moment because the virus comes back. Remember that
the virus is now pretty much everywhere and could reappear pretty much everywhere over the
next few years. When you add to that that, even today, students expect to "go to" University
rather than have it come to them, and to at least start to mature and find their feet, you
have to wonder how attractive University is going to seem, especially given the frightening
costs involved.
The situation is no better in Europe. In France, governments over the last decade have
made a huge push to attract foreign students, not just at Universities, but at the elite
Grandes Écoles like Sciences Po in Paris, where a third of the student body is from
abroad and many courses are taught in English. (You can study for some degrees in France
without speaking the language). Not many people will pay for the privilege of hearing French
teachers teaching in English while cooped up in their parents' home in a country a long way
away. For some institutions this is going to be catastrophic.
I have to say, though, as somebody who's been involved with Universities most of my life,
that this isn't all bad. In the UK, for example, there are simply too many degree courses,
and people who aren't really up to it are paying lots of money they can't afford for courses
they don't need and won't use. This could be the start of a sanity check. It's interesting
that the two universities mentioned in the Guardian article, including that of the author,
didn't used to be universities at all. They were both Polytechnics, specialising in
vocational teaching, magically transformed into universities about 25 years ago by giving
them a new name. This has led to too many graduates chasing university jobs, and too many,
frankly, sub-standard courses. There'll be some winnowing out. Partly for bad reasons –
you can't put engineering courses entirely on line – and partly for good ones: do I
really need that Master's degree in Intersectional Theory?
Thanks for the insight, David. As someone who did a Masters in one of the former Poly's
(in Oxford) back in the 1990's I was astonished at the commercialisation and pressure on
teachers in comparison to what I'd experienced doing under and post grad study in
pre-crapified (if very under-resourced) Irish Universities in the 1980's. Even then, the
pressure the junior lecturers were put under seemed extreme. I'm told by lecturer friends
that its gotten much worse over the years. And don't get them started on the standard of some
of the fee paying students .
I hope you are wrong, btw, about Japanese grammar, as I've just started online classes in
precisely that topic!
Sorry, badly expressed.You can indeed study languages online – in fact I've
done so, including Japanese as it happens. What I was suggesting is that actually
teaching languages at degree level entirely on line, and especially when you've got
three writing systems to worry about, or when you have tonal systems, or non-standard sounds
to memorise and practice, is going to be a hell of a problem. I think there's a substantial
difference between studying a language online to use it, and studying it to degree level,
which at least in theory qualifies you to teach it.
In fact, I was just thinking of that yesterday, when watching an online conversation
between two YouTuber Japanese teachers who were discussing the different ways of approaching
the language. It seems to me to be a golden age for language learning, there are so many
great resources available cheap or almost free online (I'm still picking and choosing which
method works best for me and which ones are worth supporting), but at the same time, I was
wondering if this is positive or negative for the old fashioned academic method.
Newton spent two years on the farm during the plague years and invented the calculus and
some ground breaking physics. Not to be too optimistic but perhaps there are some young folks
who can profit from a bit of time alone to think and tinker.
Thanks, David. Lots to unpack there. Much appreciated. And my two cents is that out of
this historic pandemic, maybe our great established universities and colleges will drive
online huckster "universities" out of business.
In a general view from the cheap seats, the real bottleneck here is the elite's usage of
"degrees" as gateway metrics for employment decision making. Thus, the above mentioned
transformation of "Trades Schools" into "Universities." I personally have encountered
marginally competent managers who owe their positions to their credentials, and not any
displayed skills. I have also encountered grossly incompetent managers who are not replaced
by upper management because said upper management will not consider slotting "up from the
ranks" workers into positions that they are manifestly qualified for by virtue of hands on
working experience, but lacked credentials.
This also highlights the mingling of both "Higher Education" programs with "Trade School"
ones. As a rule of thumb, when one tries to be all things to all people, one ends up being
nothing to anyone.
One to keep an eye on is the University of Austrian Economics
Chicago.
Under its current president, they have been spending like crazy, are heavily tuition
dependent,
and (like Northwestern) have a large medical center which will have taken a massive hit
from the pause on elective surgeries.
While the University of Chicago has about the same amount of debt as Yale University in
New Haven, Connecticut, its $6.7 billion endowment is a third the size of the Ivy League
school's $20.8 billion. Chicago's debt as a percentage of its endowment is 54 percent,
compared with 17 percent for Yale.
Harvard, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University, near Palo Alto,
California, have the most notes and bonds among the 20 richest schools. Yet as a percentage
of their endowments, the obligations represent about 17 percent and 26 percent,
respectively.
It would be a damn shame if the home of expansionary austerity were to end up in the
financial ICU,
on the receiving end of Dr. Market's shock therapy.
"The schools argue quite explicitly that they are not in the business of educating but of
conferring credentials, and it is they alone that determine what is adequate for them to hand
out a degree. There is precedent supporting the universities' arguments."
"What is adequate",
didn't arise as a product of public debate (as it should have in a democracy),
but as a distillation of private discussion. Their ideas contradict the original American
charter
veneer (of/by/for) but that doesn't disturb them. After all, they are on a mission.
A "doctrine of faith" was/is their cognitive source
Dewey's Pedagogic Creed statement of 1897:
"Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the
proper
social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always
the
prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven."
Not to worry, if credentialism doesn't fly your kite, we have salvation by consumption,
or
redemption via electoral saviors
Student jobs are probably some of the first to go, definitely anybody with a job on campus
is probably now out of work. My brother lives in a small college town and he says it's a
ghost town. Their economy depends on students spending their loan/mom/dad's money.
If I were a student, I would be seriously thinking twice about taking a semester off,
moving back with my parents and waiting for things to shake out. Who wants to do zoom
classes? No way would I have been disciplined enough to self study at that age (or even
now).
College is still in session in a lot of places. It would be interesting to know how many
students have already disappeared.
My local California community college transitioned to online classes mid- Spring semester.
Most of the foreign students (Chinese, Scandinavian, European, etc.) returned home pronto.
Registration for Fall 2020 classes (likely to again be online) is way down.
Colleges are huge economic drivers in most towns. It sustains high rental income for
landlords, lots of late's for Starbuck's, and retail stores soak up mucho dinero from them.
Fortunately the wild and crazy driving antics around campus have abated.
It would really be a shame if colleges and universities were forced to cut some of their
bloated administrations in order to make up for the shortfall How would we ever get along
without the people who go to meetings all day?
+1. CU Boulder just built a massive building which they call the Center for Academic
Excellence. I thought the university was already such a center, but apparently not.
What goes on in the Center for Academic Excellence? Is any teaching done there? No. It's
extra office space for the administrators/mbas.
I remember a faculty member (an Australian, naturally) at my home institution commenting
on our recently established Center for Excellence in Something-or-Other: Why don't they just
go ahead and call it the Center for Mediocrity in Something-or-Other ? That one stuck with me
during my subsequent peregrinations. I have been fortunate to avoid such centers during my
career.
Well, no luck so far after the first round of furloughs. Some of the admin had their pay
reduced (don't worry they'll still make well into six figures next year), but they all still
have jobs.
I am in Mass., retired and teach part time at two local colleges, one private and one a
community college. The private college has already cut some classes for the fall semester,
which they are trying to find a way to hold on-campus this fall. They are hoping to reinstate
some of these canceled classes if enrollments of incoming freshmen increase in the next
several weeks. As for the community college, it is conceivable -but who knows?-enrollments
will increase due to the low cost option it presents compared to private colleges and
universities -and even to public universities.
Academic museum directors know their fortunes are tied to those of their parent
institutions.
Some worry about the possibility that collections could be raided to raise funds.
Rather than worrying about this possibility, shouldn't they be embracing the
disruption?
Campus art museums can be at the innovative cutting edge of modern higher ed finance.
For $35 million, shouldn't a job creator on the Board of Trustees get more than his name
(and it's usually a he) over the entrance to another cookie-cutter new dorm?
I'll take the small Turner for the master bath, the Modigliani for the dining room,
and a really big Rothko for the wine cellar.
I am at a University and I can speak to the fact that it is shaping up to be complicated.
Some institutions are clearly more leveraged than others but there has been another factor
which is the increasing focus of institutions on branding. Some of the bigger names e.g. MIT
and even some "state" schools such as Berkeley have long since shifted from serving their
communities to being international brands. The others like mine have attracted large foreign
populations which supplement some programs notably in STEM fields but also maintain mostly
local students.
As a side note the risk for the non-US students is partially travel though Trump's
behavior has already turned some off. It is also their own domestic economies. Despite the
happy talk China's economy is taking a big hit from this and will continue to do so. Going
abroad requires someone at home having the money to send you. That is less of a thing.
Going forward one route is already being shopped around in the groupthink of record
(NYMag) The Coming
Disruption Scott Galloway predicts a handful of elite cyborg universities will soon
monopolize higher education. . The model here is neoliberal education on steroids or
"MIT+Google" basically take the existing brands serve them up to 10,000 students and have the
major brands survive by eating the weak. This of course completely sheds the idea of
education or college as a public institution and doubles down on the credentialing concept
with the assumption that students will prefer Amazon-approved educational materials delivered
in the comfort of their home over learning from a live instructor.
Call it disaster education.
The idea is clearly an update of the "Moocs will kill education" argument and is being
trotted out as "inevitable" by someone with extensive silicon valley connections who clearly
believes that he will be one of the survivors. Interestingly there is no notion that this
education will be better for anyone (except the smaller slice of winners) only that it will
allow the already wealthy to survive. For all that the interviewee makes two points that are
salient:
Let's look at Apple. It does something like $250 billion a year in revenue. Apple has to
convince its stockholders that its stock price will double in five years, otherwise its
stockholders will go buy Salesforce or Zoom or some other stock. Apple doesn't need to
double revenue to double its stock price, but it needs to increase it by 60 or 80 percent.
That means, in the next five years, Apple probably needs to increase its revenue base by
$150 billion. To do this, you have to go big-game hunting. You can't feed a city raising
squirrels. People ask if big tech wants to get into education and health care, and I say
no, they have to get into education and health care. They have no choice. (emphasis
mine)
So even the proponents are clear that this kind of eat-the-system approach is all about
stock boosting.
That's the unfortunate part. When the government isn't able to bail out America,
billionaires step in. But it always comes at a price. Those people become largely
untouchable, and they can't be removed from office. Right now, we're in a situation where
it's no longer NASA putting us on Mars or the CDC testing us for antibodies. It's Elon Musk
and Jeff Bezos. Basically, thanks to billionaires, you're going to pay the lowest tax
rates.
And again it all comes back to tax rates, although so far as I can tell it is not my rates
that keep getting lowered. Whether the economy is working for everyone? Who cares.
That said there is of course another alternative which is to treat education as a service
again and to fund the government again so that we can actually build the nation not in a few
power centers but everywhere. This would be driven by the recognition that the students
taking MIT+Google online gain no real benefit if they continue to live in a community with no
jobs and that such an eat the young approach will only speed the slow death of the states.
But that is not Wall Street's concern.
Rebuilding communities would mean making sustained community investments and paring down
our obsession with branded elites in favor of local institutions. But doing that requires
governing for Americans not Wall St.
My uni's admin sent out an email saying something along the lines of "our uni isn't a
'place', it's an intellectual endeavor that continues even when we're apart. We're a global
enterprise that can be joined and participated in from anywhere." They're trying to convince
parents and students that remote online learning has the same value as in-person classes, lab
work, and faculty mentoring. (Not to mention the 'college experience' and meeting people in
your age group who you may meet again in your career.)
I'm afraid the uni's sales pitch is running into strong headwinds. Parents have no
interest in paying full, high dollar tuition for half a college experience. Students have no
interest in paying full, high dollar tuition for online only classes.
adding: a few years ago, the admin went all in on a public-private debt financed
real estate development campus buildings scheme that has left it in a world
of financial hurt, even with full enrollment and high tuition. For some reason the endowment
(huge) is never touched as a funding source for dire times. Nor are the sports programs'
funding. odd.
Higher education in the US is not necessarily a Democrat environment. The professoriat may
be liberal, but the regents and administration can be extremely right wing – as is the
case of the University of Colorado, where I taught.
The President of Northwestern, Morty Schapiro, was the President of my undergrad alma
mater (Williams College) back in the early 2000s. I personally tousled with him, made fun of
him on the dais as Class Commencement Speaker at graduation, called him names in the school
paper -- because then, I saw, though I may not have had a fully adult consideration of it,
that he was a tool for The Money Power. Outright contempt for the scholarship kids who
couldn't get donations.
Scuttlebut from Professors, with whom I was close, both in the humanities and stories I
heard from my friends in the Sciences, was that while "Morty" (as he demanded to be jocularly
known) led a building wave that tore down much of a quaint semi-rustic campus and put the
endowment funds in the hands of banksters, which came a'cropper in 2008 when he had
providentially moved on to better and brighter opportunities . at Northwestern!
It seems he did much the same there.
On a tangential note, I was a grad student during the Great Financial Crisis of '08, and
in the State of Michigan, which was among the worst hit (poor Michigan, so far from God, so
close to the United States .), the differences that a hit to endowment reserves entailed were
immediately and viscerally felt. A good example: food. Before the Crisis, we'd be treated to
sumptuous, delicious spreads, Indian, Middle Eastern, quiches and cakes, you name it. After
the crisis -- if there was anything beyond coffee and rolls, you might be lucky to grab some
pizza or fruit. It was night and day. And that was at a relatively rich institution.
As someone who teaches at a community college that was holding on by the skin of its teeth
beforehand, I am not optimistic as to its long-term viability.
If your family still has the money for this sort of thing, and there is a college that is
very hard to get into that you would like to attend – in one manner or another –
this would be a good year to apply. There will be less competition for admission.
Maybe the pandemic will bring a partial reprieve to small local rural colleges. People
with money may decide to send their children to someplace like St. Olaf (if they live in that
state). It is easier to arrange physical distancing when you have lots of open space –
rather than eg. at NYU or Columbia. And if the kids have to come home in a hurry, they will
still be in-state. And they won't be bringing back big city exposure.
St. Olaf is a very good small private college in Minnesota. Much respect to them. This
doesn't diminish the sudden new larger requirements for the larger world, as is. imo.
We are living in strange times indeed, this crisis raises many questions about the nature of
freedom and what our expectations are, or should be. Everyone has their own notions about what
freedom means and how far that should extend to oneself and indeed, to everyone else.
I want to start with a look at where we've come from before I look at where we are now, as I
feel it gives a better understanding of our definitions of freedom and a better context for
viewing where we are, at this moment in time.
Society probably started with the tribe – maybe not even having a leader if the
numbers where small enough, say 10 people. Tribes of scores or more obviously became hard to
manage and so, undoubtedly, this led to the idea of a leader or a group of leaders – a
chief, or a council of chiefs. Such a system seems to have worked well, so long as the chiefs
acted in the best interest of the tribe, and not in their own best interest. Tribes and early
kingdoms often had a mechanism for dealing with a poor leader – the symbolic marriage of
the leader to the land and the right to depose, or even execute, a leader that failed to live
up to expectations.
Such concepts of leadership are ancient but have survived in various places into the modern
era, including Ireland where I live. Although the practice associated with this custom is long
gone, knowledge of it remains vaguely in the public consciousness and more definitively in the
realms of scholarship and Celtic Neo-Paganism. However, societies across the globe began to
move beyond this cherished accountability millenia ago – with the rise of despotic
monarchy, something that still exists as an unfortunate anachronism even now.
As tribes grew into countries and countries grew into empires, monarchs became decreasingly
accountable to their citizens, or rather subjects – those who are subjugated. While many
monarchs felt an obligation, both 'divine' and moral to behave with care and responsibility,
others acted in pure self interest, free of any accountability for their actions. With the
backing a large army or, sizeable personal guard, it became increasing difficult to hold
monarchs accountable and one had to rely on goodwill in most cases, rather than
enforcement.
Of course, there have been countless deposing of monarchs, by the people or by rival
claimants, although the latter didn't always turn out to be beneficial. Probably the most
famous of these is that of Galus Julius Caesar, the Dictator for life of the final years of the
Roman Republic, who gave his name to the title Caesar, Czar and Keiser. He was brutally
murdered by Brutus (hence the word brutal) and we all know how that turned out the for Roman
Republic.
The republic itself was a form of democracy, based on an earlier model from Greece, a
civilization that had immense influence on Rome. Of course, Athenian democracy was nothing like
what we now regard as democracy. The right to decide how government was organised and what it
did fell to the hands of an elite group - demokratia , or "rule by the people" was only for
citizens and of these, only the men could vote. At the time (507 BC) this meant 40,000 men, out
of a much larger population, but in reality no more than about 5000 men could attend
assemblies, due to other commitments. Still, it was a ground-breaking step, so long as you
weren't a foreigner, criminal, woman, child or a slave.
It is from these Greek origins that we get the word democracy and the notion of rights and
freedom for all. Over time there have been variations on this model that have been tried out
– constitutional monarchies, republics, socialist states, fascist states and communist
states, which have varying levels of input for the masses. The masses might also be referred to
as 'plebeians' as the Romans liked to call ordinary folk, a corrupted form of which still
exists as a minor insult - pleb.
However, through most of recorded history, the most common system has been monarchy,
although one could hardly describe it as the most popular. Simpler than a democracy and easy to
enforce – notions such as corruption, fairness and accountability do not come into play,
as divine rule (e.g. the divine right of kings) gives the ruler carte blanche to do whatever
they god-damn like, unless their despotism provokes a revolt. Of course, revolt has happened,
from time to time, throughout history and one of the most famous ones is that of the barons in
England against king John.
The Magna Carta (Great Charter, of 1215) is considered by many as the bedrock of Western
civilization and democracy, despite the fact that it only gave limited concessions to a very
small number of nobles. It was a start at least, and perhaps enabled further inroads into the
monarchic monopoly on power. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, against Richard II of England was a
major shift. Led by a commoner (Wat Tyler) it was a great embarrassment for Richard, who did
not have a standing army on hand. He was forced to pretend to negotiate with the rebels, who
camped at Blackheath, while he secretly ordered the Mayor of London to raise an army to
disperse and execute the protestors.
There are countless other examples of rebellion against monarchs across the world, but most
of them are forgotten. Perhaps the best remembered rebellion is that of the French paupers,
against the Bourbon monarchy and the entire aristocracy of France. This violent and
bloodthirsty revolution sent shudders of terror across the monarchies of the world and
precipitated a programme of reform, based on fear of similar events occurring.
Of course, some countries carried on regardless – Russia and America being
particularly sad examples, as Russia only abolished serfdom in 1861, while USA only abolished
slavery in 1865. One could justifiably say that the lives of these ordinary people, who were
now 'citizens' hardly improved as their freedom was pretty much nominal. This, in Russia, led
to the revolution of 1917, due to the intransigence of the Czar/Tsar (Caesar) Nicholai II
Alexandrovich Romanov II. The overthrow of the Russian system, inspired by the ideas of Marx
and Engels, led to a Bolshevik government headed by Vladimir Lenin. Whatever notions the
Soviets had, Lenin was a de facto Tzar in waiting and Stalin was certainly that, if not an
uncrowned heir to Ivan The Terrible.
Post World War II, we supposedly have a new age of democracy and freedom, but that only
applies to some. In truth, almost the whole world collection of governments has learned the art
of propaganda - thanks to the astounding upskilling efforts of the National Socialists (Nazis)
of Germany, who took this to new heights (or lows rather), turning it almost into an artform.
While we have been led to believe that we are free and democratic, we have never been more
exposed to lies and propaganda than we are now. The biggest lie of all is that we live in a
democracy, when in fact we actually only get to choose a new set of corrupt and self-serving
narcissists, every 4 or 5 years.
Democracies, the world over, have been bought – lobbyists have far more power than the
electorate could ever hope to achieve. What we in fact have is the illusion of democracy
– state agencies act without oversight, individuals have no say over the manifesto and
policies of parties in power and have no mechanism to undo or prevent undesirable actions by
governments. The only mechanisms available are the occasional referenda (instigated under
pressure), protest (peaceful or otherwise) and violent overthrow.
In most cases, the effort and risk of violent overthrow is considered too much for the
majority of people – it takes dire poverty, starvation and horrific coercion before the
'plebs' are pushed to the brink. Governments are aware of this and generally apply the 'boiling
frog' method of restricting people's freedoms and the removal of privacy and general rights.
However, they do on occasion overstep the mark or fail to adequately conceal their stealthy
nefarious actions – which inevitably leads to protest or insurrection.
History has proven that violent insurrection usually fails, but it is rather foolish of
authoritarian governments to take a gamble on this not happening. What is far more effective
for us 'plebs' is non-violent insurrection, in the form of non-compliance - this worked wonders
for both Gandhi and for Martin Luther-King, two of the most inspirational leaders of the 20th
century. Nelson Mandella is another fine example of someone who led a monumental change, in
South Africa, while also avoiding a catastrophic bloodbath, again through advocating of
non-violence and showing exceptional leadership skills.
At this moment in time, we are held hostage by a virus and the fear of what it might do to
humanity. While public safety has to be a priority, one has to ask the question – what is
this really about? Is this a manufactured crisis or is it is just opportunistic governments
capitalizing on their best chance to roll out new draconian measures? Temporary emergency
powers is one thing, but if there is no rollback after the crisis is over, what then? What if
the crisis is one without end – like George Orwell's perpetual war in his novel 1984?
We have come to expect freedom, we are told that we live in the 'free world' yet we see our
rights and freedoms and privacy being eroded by government legislation, corporate invasive
technology and data collection. Where do we draw the line? When do we say enough is enough?
Strangely, the same technology that enables our surveillance monitoring is also the most
powerful tool at our disposal. Internet and telecommunications enables us to share information,
just as the 'system' collects information about all of us. For many, it has opened our eyes
about government agendas, methods and operations as we now have unprecedented access to
worldwide information, often in real-time, or within minutes and hours of events happening.
Many believe that a new era of oppression is being rolled out, right now as we sit in our
homes, enabled by the high-power, high-speed and low latency 5G network, worldwide by a hidden
agency. Conspiracies aside, there are many questions to be asked about our rights, what our
freedoms should consist of and what the limits of government and corporate actions should be.
We need to ask those questions, we need to demand answers and show the 'powers that be' that
the thirst for true democracy is still alive and kicking. If we volunteer to be imprisoned or
to become our own jailors then there is no hope for humanity. As in the past, humanity needs to
assert itself, in order to remain free of despotism and it has never been more urgent than now.
Corny as it may be, the simplest way to express this is for me to repeat the words of the late
Bob Marley - "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!"
"... There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization. ..."
"... Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it, societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death, human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying yearning." ..."
"... When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace. ..."
"... The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form or another. ..."
"... It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others, ..."
"... It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment. ..."
"... For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale. ..."
"... The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and control over information. ..."
"... All are brainwashed from birth. Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy . ..."
"... When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed this lie. ..."
"... many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally meant) ..."
"... The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this world unknown to us . ..."
Since death is one idea that has no history except as an idea and not a reality any of us have experienced, it is the most frightening
idea there is and also quite simple. It is the ultimate unknown. It has always haunted human beings, whether consciously or unconsciously.
It lies at the root of war, violence, religion, art, love, and civilization. The good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly,
why we like to win and not lose, pass and not fail, "pass on" and not die. It is so funny and so sad. We would be lost without it,
even when we feel lost when thinking about it. And it is fundamental for understanding the action and reaction to Covid-19.
Societies have always been people banded together in the face of death. And since people are not just physical beings but symbolic
creatures who can think and imagine the past and the future, societies are necessarily mythic symbol systems whose job is not only
to protect people physically, but symbolically as well.
Sometimes, however, the protection is a protection racket with racketeers holding people hostage to fabricated fears that keep
them locked in a living-death.
Thus death, this most potent imaginative idea and reality that doesn't exist except as a mystery about which anything we say is
speculation, can be used for good and evil, depending on who controls society.
Death is the great fear, the human haunting that hangs by a thread over life like the sword of Damocles.
In 1944 in a newspaper column, George Orwell made an astute remark:
There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now
is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you
are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization.
Beliefs, of course, like "personal immortality" and all others, such as the recent rise in the belief in atheism, which is as
much a belief as belief in God, are, partially at least, relative to time and place, and develop out of social storytelling. The
"hard facts" on which many feel their lives and security rest are themselves dependent upon the symbols which give them legitimacy.
Reality is indeed precarious with society suspended by a web of myths and symbols. It is through cultural and social symbol systems
that society's meaning is transmitted to individuals, and it is within the symbol systems that the control and release of action
resides.
In today's electronic mass media world, those who control the mass media that control the narrative flow – the storytelling –
control the majority's beliefs and actions.
Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it,
societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death,
human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying
yearning."
Today we can hear such yearning everywhere.
Shortly after Orwell made his prescient comment in The Tribune, nuclear weapons were developed and used by the United States to
kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. With those weapons and their use, the ages-old symbolic narrative of life
and death was transformed in a flash.
"The significance of the possibility of nuclear death is that it radically affects the meaning of death, of immortality,
of life itself," wrote Hans Morgenthau.
The traditional symbolic sources that once served to allow humans to transcend death were fundamentally undercut, and the search
for new modes of death transcendence was carried on beneath the portentous covering of the nuclear umbrella.
A qualitative transformation in the meaning of human existence was thus brought about as humans, who had the weapons, replaced
the belief in God as the holder of the power over life and death, since nuclear war could result in the extinction of human life,
leaving no one left to die.
This is our world today, and it is where the Covid-19 story takes place. A world not just of nuclear fear, but a host of other
fears constantly inflamed by the mass media that hypnotize people through the conjuring of death-fear.
In his great work on group psychology, Freud showed us how it was not just mental contagion and the herd instinct that got people
to join in group behavior. People could be induced to become little children and obey their leaders because they have "an extreme
passion for authority."
When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman
is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about
people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace.
The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form
or another.
It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others," who are always portrayed
as aliens who are out to kill the good people.
It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices
of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment.
And it works to get people to obey orders to protect themselves from terrifying viruses that are lying in wait everywhere to strike
them dead.
In his novel The Brothers Karamazov , Dostoevsky said that people want miracles, mystery, and authority, not freedom. His
Grand Inquisitor, while a fictional creation, lives on in reality.
For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta
on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale.
To question has become an act of insubordination deserving death by censorship or the defiling of one's name via the term "conspiracy
theorist," a name used by the CIA to dismiss anyone questioning its murder of President Kennedy. Death comes in many forms, and the
fear of it has always been used by the powerful to render the common people speechless and obedient.
How can any thinking person, anyone not totally crippled by fear, not question what is going on with the coronavirus disaster
when reading what Peter Koenig, a thirty-year veteran economist of the World Bank and World Health Organization, writes in his article
The Farce and Diabolical Agenda
of a 'Universal Lockdown' :
The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.
There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of a worldwide monumental
historic disaster. It started at least 10 years ago – probably considerably earlier – with the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report,
which painted the first phase of a monstrous Plan, called the "Lock Step" scenario. Among the last preparatory moves for the "pandemic"
was Event 201, held in NYC on 18 October 2019.
The event was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World
Economic Forum (WEF), the club of the rich and powerful that meets every January in Davos, Switzerland. Participating were a number
of pharmaceuticals (vaccine interest groups), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s of the US and – of
China.
One of the objectives of Event 201 was a computer simulation of a corona virus pandemic. The simulated virus was called SARS-2-nCoV,
or later 2019-nCoV. The simulation results were disastrous, killing 65 million people in 18 months and plunging the stock market
by more than 30% -- causing untold unemployment and bankruptcies. Precisely the scenario of which we are now living the beginning.
The Lock Step scenario foresees a number of ghastly and disturbing events or components of The Plan to be implemented by the so
called Agenda ID2020, a Bill Gates creation, fully integrated into the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – target date for
completion – 2030 (also called Agenda 2030, the hidden agenda unknown to most of the UN members), the same target date for completion
of the Agenda ID02020.
I ask the question but I am afraid I know the answer: miracle, mystery, and authority usually defeat evidence and simple logic.
Fear of death and free thought scare children. The Grand Inquisitor lives on:
But man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having
a right to be worshipped; whose rights are so unquestionable that men agree unanimously to bow down to it.
Death: A simple idea with such a powerful punch.
JoeC ,
It isn't just about the fear of death. It's also the fear of being responsible for the death of others. It's no accident that
they've chosen a contagion as our imaginary enemy. We become the visible enemy if we refuse to wear face masks, abide social distance,
wash our hands every 30 seconds or refuse a vaccine when it comes to it etc etc. Hence the laws that will follow. We will soon
be public enemy number one. The new terrorists. I'm not scared of dying but I'm petrified of being persecuted for not believing
this shit. What sort of life is that?
a belief. The author adds his on baggage to an otherwise lucid
article, which rather diminishes the other truths he mentions ?
BigB ,
Excellent stuff, with plenty to think about as usual. As a proviso: Ed's sociology and ethnography needs tightening up though.
The big cultural repertoire of myths and symbols has a name; several names actually nomos, Weltanschauung, Weltansicht (cosmographic
worldview or wide world sight), and *sensus communis* (the consensual common sense). Which is the consensus of views everyone
shares.
The last is from Giambattista Vico: who also said: "Verum esse ipsum factum" ("What is true is precisely what is made [up]").
Which is the verum-factum principle of worldviews. The ideal eternal cosmological history is subjectively made up, culturally
constructed, as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining mythological storytelling.
To which the individual is socialised not once – from birth through education – not twice – in the workforce – but continually
as a process of cultural individuality making. Which is not all one way, top-down traffic of obedience and control – but a reflexive
and causal circularity. The big bunch of historically specific myths and symbols make and maintain the person: just as the person
makes and maintains the big bunch of historically specific myths as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining
mythological storytelling. The individual self is itself a cultural constructivism.
It cannot be any other way: otherwise there can be no common ground for communication and there is only communication. Or participatory
sense-making: no one can have their own language or behavioural repertoire maintained far from the socially regulated consensus
and continue to make sense. Maintaining the dictionary definition of words (intension) and the encyclopaedic repertoire of social
norms and modes of behaviour is critical to the meaning of the overall order. And there is only the order. Very uneasy order.
The individual finds themselves historically situated in the ordinate nexus of thinking, speaking, and acting in a constrained,
shared, and lawfully regulated landscape of language, culture, society, state and market economy. There is no 'outside': except
for the retreat into solipsism and ahistoric flights of imagination. We make our own history: but not autonomously and not in
circumstances of our own choosing.
Cultural construction and reproduction – and the worldview maintainence of socially constructed reality – is a permanent process.
Following the basic processes of social constructivism – as laid out by Berger and Luckman. Which are: habitualisation by subjectivated
externalisation and reification by objectivated internalisation as a recurrent, resonant, and reflexive lifelong process.
We are part of the tissue and fabric of socially constructed reality. And socially constructed reality is part of the tissue
and fabric of us: the flesh of the cultural worldview.
Of course: the biggest lie of the principle of cultural constructivist storytelling is that what is told is naturally objective,
true, and real. And some of it is lawfully authoritative (like this old computer epidemiology model I had lying around). Which
is what gives the story its universal regulative ordinate control and constative overpower.
I mean, who would want to self-admit they were regurgitating institutionalised and habitualised false beliefs and mistaken
abstractive assumptions about the objective nature of things that were just a bunch of made up and recycled socialisation and
pacification rites of a cultural constructivist performance?
Truth, self, and social reality itself is constructed by such rites.
And what if the nomos – the ordered and naturalised ordinate principle – which is a cultures own talisman against chaos, indiscipline,
and made up shite about virology turns out to be chaotic, restrictive, petrifying and rapidly fossilising as a permanent order
of fascising bollox and corporatist control?
If the fossilising order is worse than the disorder it symbolically wards off and guards against: and the culturally created
fear of death worse than the natural process of dying then what?
Is it better that the institutionalised and institutionalising lawful ordering is in principle false and an unjust draconian
social realism? Or that it is objective, rational, and scientifically real? And eternally and universally valid?
What if a society had been rationalised and institutionalised into a universal analytical reasoning, an empiric objectivity,
a historically contingent subjectivity, and a nomological scientific principle that were in fact falsely constructed? And just
habitually and consensually maintained as a lawful, juridical, and regulatory idealism of an eternally natural cosmological order?
Which just happened to turn out to be totalitarian fascistic co-participatory dumbfuckerry?
That culture would find itself in a headfuck situation of a nomological breakdown of its worldview and its interwoven individual
identities most of which would want to shelter in the pretence of being ahistorically situated outside of language, culture, and
thought in a nomological no mans land. Which is exactly the abnegation of cultural creativity that precipitated the meaning crisis
and breakdown of order.
I'm so glad I do not live in such a culture. That would indeed be terrifying.
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
aspnaz ,
An interesting article that reminds me of the difference between westerners and the mainland Chinese whom I believe are the model
that will used to create the future world.
I am not talking about communism, the Chinese gave up communism ages ago, they are now the world's premier imperialists, using
capitalism to drive their influence across the globe. But their control over people is surely the model aspired to by any person
wanting to rule the world.
The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores
and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and
control over information.
The response of the Chinese to the virus – the lockdown – was seen in the west as China caring for its people, but here in
HK it is still commonly seen as China panicking because it thought that the people would be afraid and would turn on the government
for not protecting them. It was riot control, not virus control, hence the arrest of people spreading virus rumours.
tonyopmoc ,
Edward Curtin, what you wrote is completely brilliant, in the few minutes it took me to read it, you took me through the vastness
of time, and my entire physical and spiritual existence. thank you. tony
Hugh O'Neill ,
Another thought-provoking article, Ed. I was reminded of four quotes:
1. G.K. Chesterton: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything"
2. On the dropping of the first atomic bomb, Oppenheimer quoted from Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of
worlds"
3. JFK's favourite poem was Alan Seeger's "I have a rendezvous with death". Seeger died in 1916
4. Whatever the merits of the poem, JFK was no stranger to death. Likewise, he had adopted Lincoln's prayer: "I know there is
a God – and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready."
Edward, how people can be so easily fooled is an age old question. One hundred years ago they queued up to be slaughtered in the
trenches. It was all so senseless it was beyond belief.
"Over the top lads, for King and Country" (the Black Adder comedy programme really captured this).
I'm not sure what else I can say about the stupidity of the human race.
We are at this point again, and people need to fecking wake-up.
Richard Le Sarc ,
People in the West are brainwashed from birth. They have NO idea that the capitalist system is incompatible with Life on Earth,
that it is a form of cancer, that the USA is the greatest force for Evil in history and that businessmen, politicians, MSM presstitutes
are psychopaths at best, dullards and ignoramuses at best. And the worst are those that deny death in belief in various 'Gods'
who all hate each other and compel them to kill and destroy in his name. The system is collapsing, and that is finally dawning
on the brain-dead 'consumers', who will now proceed to consume one another.
All are brainwashed from birth.
Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy .
Its a monopoly you've just always believed as a debt slave its capitalism and you're free.
They are resetting it, those that understand the minds of the manchild.
Good stuff Edward,
Most of the 'plan' has been on these boards for months- the one missing is Whitney Webbs latest which exposes the dumb fucks plan
to close the 'AI Gap with China'.
'THEY' have never let a good crises go to waste to further their agenda and plans.
Another old adage is about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.
Death and politicians and media narrative control can also lose their grip. It starts by laughing at them. It's started:
THEY will not succeed this time – the narrative is a shattering mirror, that reveals their plans – the BS isn't sticking any
more.
crank ,
Confronting our exaggerated fear of dying is the only way out of this prison.
Thanks for this article Edward.
John Deehan ,
When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control
the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed
this lie.
Doug Stillborn ,
The cabal beleives that the truth is irrelevant and that whatever appears to you as truth is what is true to you and the only truth.
This is false. The truth is not relative. Einstein knew this and said, time is an illusion albeit a persistent one. If you propagate
the idea of atheism and science what you are actually doing is you are relinquishing any responsibility/accountability.
I don't think so Doug . The ideas of " atheism and science " are out there.
But what has happened is that many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally
meant) so its mostly theories taken a facts, pseudoscience.
Agree though that time is an illusion.
The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this
world unknown to us .
Colleges across the country are trying to figure out whether they can reopen campus this
fall. Right now, it's a 50/50 shot. No one knows, and with a
second coronavirus wave looming later this year, face-to-face classes might not be seen
until early 2021.
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said reopening colleges could
be a drawn-out process and lead to a 15% decline in students, resulting in billions of dollars
lost for schools.
"The math is not pretty," Robert Kelchen, a student at Seton Hall University in New Jersey,
told
NPR News . "Colleges are stressed both on the revenue side and on the expenditure
side."
The transition to virtual classes has been epic. Schools in nearly every state have moved
courses online in just weeks, triggering lawsuits filed by some students that claim refunds for
tuition, fees, and room and board must be seen.
Dominique Baker, a professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University in Dallas,
warned that every college would feel financial stress related to coronavirus lockdowns.
NPR estimates that virus lockdowns are leading to significant losses for some
universities:
"The University of Michigan estimates it may lose up to $1 billion by the end of the year.
For the University of Kentucky, it's $70 million. Hundreds of schools -- including some with
endowments of more than a billion dollars, like Duke University, Virginia Tech and Brown --
have announced hiring freezes. Other institutions have cut pay and have laid off staff and
contractors. In Vermont, state officials have floated potential college shutdowns."
Baker said the lockdowns would affect colleges in disproportionate ways. "For some colleges,
this is an existential threat that means they'll have to close," she said, while others have
the financial support to weather the virus storm.
The higher education community received a bailout via the CARES Act. Congress allocated
around $14 billion to colleges and universities affected by the shutdowns, though the American
Council on Education said it was not enough and is calling for $46 billion more.
Campus Reform
identified the top ten schools receiving the most bailout money, courtesy of the American
taxpayer:
Arizona State University- $63.5 million
Pennsylvania State University- $54.9 million
Rutgers University- $54.1 million
University of Central Florida- $51 million
Miami Dade College- $49 million
Georgia State University- $45.2 million
California State University-Northridge- $44.6 million
The Ohio State University- $42.8 million
California State University- Long Beach- $41.7 million
California State University- Fullerton- $41 million
Kelchen described a situation that happened over a decade ago when the economy crashed in
2008, and state budgets were not able to fund schools. With a
depression unfolding , it appears funding for higher education will come into question once
more.
And to make matters worse, nationwide enrollment in higher education has plunged 11% in the
last eight years as millennials figure out they don't need to rack up tens of thousands of
dollars in debt before entering the labor force.
Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician at Yale University, said colleges are not
returning to normal this fall.
"This idea -- that we can somehow just get back to normal and go back to school in the
fall, because we always have, it's not reasonable, actually. I think we're going to have to
figure out other ways of doing this," said Christakis.
Bryan Alexander, an educational futurist at Georgetown University, said the pandemic is
going to reshape everything we know about college.
"There are many ways a reconstructed fall might look, including the option of continuing
everything online, though many colleges that teach in-person still think of that as a last
resort. They cite online learning growing pains and an ambivalent faculty. Plus there's some
fear that students and their families won't be willing to pay as much for an online offering.
Among the ideas being floated for tweaking the in-person model is changing the traditional
academic calendar. Instead of starting in August or September, school might open in October
or even January. Instead of 16-week semesters, colleges could shift to quarter systems or
even shorter, four-week courses to allow flexibility," said NPR.
Some have floated the idea of trying smaller classes and hosting larger ones online. Kim
Weeden, a sociologist at Cornell, along with colleague Benjamin Cornwell, said large lecture
classes should be eliminated.
"Just eliminating those 100-person or more classes didn't seem to reduce the small-world
nature of the network all that much," Weeden said. Their research -- which was published
recently in a white paper, but not peer reviewed -- was only looking at classes and didn't
factor in dorm life or campus events such as social gatherings and athletics.
"There's just so much uncertainty," said Weeden. "You know, a big piece of this, of
course, is whether there is going to be [coronavirus] testing available and what those tests
can and cannot tell us. And you know, everybody wants to know the answer to that
question."
The million-dollar question is if college classes will return to normal by fall. And the
answer is likely no, while many schools will push for virtual classes, extended lockdowns, and
a second coronavirus wave could lead to the implosion of higher education.
1. "The US political culture is that 99.99% of Americans will believe literally ANY lie,
no matter how self-evidently stupid, about the rest of the world rather than accepting any
unpleasant truth about the US. "
2. "Eventually, and inevitably, this strategic PSYOP upped the ante and FOXnews
(logically) aired this true masterpiece: "Sen. Hawley: Let coronavirus victims sue Chinese
Communist Party". Truly, this is brilliant. "I lost my job, let the evil Chinese commies pay
me back" is music to the ears of most Americans."
This is what Anglo-Zionist religious/political culture produces. And it is not restricted
to jingoistic blaming of the peoples of other nations; it also features blaming those who are
citizens of the nation but are more outsiders to the WASP Elites that the group doing the
blaming. That pattern keeps the non-Elites from ever seeing that their enemy is the
national/imperial Elite they serve.
For example, the horrors the Brit WASP Elites and their system inflicted on Lancashire
factory workers would have made any real life Simon Legree giddy at the possibilities. And
those abused masses could be counted on at every turn to retard their own demands any time
the Elites could turn the conversation to how the Irish or Highlanders would come in and take
their jobs for even less and ruin their delightful communities. Or how the evil empires on
the Continent were causing trouble and to save lives of British soldiers the factory workers
must be reasonable.
Orwellian fiction is steeped deeply in the actual ways that WASP Empire operates to grind
its own citizens and ue them as mindless pawns to make Anglo-Zionist Elites ever richer, ever
more entrenched in power.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies -- unless one counts
journalists..."
Alex Berenson 4:34 PM - 18 Apr 2020
2/ And this: "I do not suppose I should exaggerate if I said that nine-tenths of it is
untruthful. Nearly all the newspaper accounts published at the time were manufactured by
journalists at a distance, and were not only inaccurate in their facts but intentionally
misleading..."
Alex Berenson 4:37 PM - 18 Apr 2020
3/ I guess one might say that the groupthink and lies Orwell saw in Spain *informed* his
writing in 1984 - which was published in 1949, 11 years after Homage to Catalonia. Apropos of
nothing, of course.
Okay, I'll be adding this book to my list of books to read after I graduate and take my
big exam.
B Ekdahl 5:06 PM - 18 Apr 2020
The part of that book that I've thought of
with hope during this chillling time is how Orwell noted that the Spanish were incompetent
even with fascism. Let's hope that US is even more incompetent.
R.R. Reno 5:30 PM - 18 Apr 2020
I don't think we can underestimate how many reporters have been so panicked that only a
few are outside their homes in New York reporting on what's actually happening.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies--unless one counts
journalists..."
Will 6:27 PM - 18 Apr 2020
If you haven't heard of Udo Ulfkotte's story, you should check it out: https://www. paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/jou
rnalists-are-prostitutes/ His initiation into big time media was watching fellow
reporters pour gasoline on burnt up tanks & film it, replete w/ soldier actors, like war
was happening. Audio tracks added later.
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me in our recent interview: ..."
"... Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves. ..."
"... It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things. It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups and identity politics ..."
Might Orwell's sensitive nose have detected a whiff of cant anywhere on the contemporary left? I suspect he would have cast
a baleful eye on identity politics. He would, I think, be dubious about "diversity." Why do every college and corporation in America
have a fleet of "diversity" officers? What is gained by ensuring -- at enormous expense -- that every student or employee is proud
of his/her culture and that every other student or employee respects it? According to Walter Benn Michaels in The Trouble with
Diversity, what is gained is the avoidance of class conflict. "The commitment to diversity is at best a distraction and at worst
an essentially reactionary position . We would much rather celebrate cultural diversity than seek to establish economic equality."
Orwell was moderately obsessed with class. He would probably have noted that the explosive growth of inequality in the United
States over the past four decades has closely paralleled the explosive growth of the diversity industry, and would have drawn
some conclusions. He might have asked: If there were two societies with the same Gini coefficient, but in one of them, the proportion
of billionaires by race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other?
Or: If the ratio of CEO to median employee earnings was the same in two societies, but in one of them the proportion of CEOs by
race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other? I'm pretty sure that
most diversity bureaucrats would answer "yes" to both questions, and that Orwell would have answered "no."
Orwell was fearless, so a tribute to him shouldn't pull any punches. I think he would suggest that there was something irrational
about the way we enforce our most sensitive taboo: the N-word. From the wholesale banning of Huckleberry Finn to the many times
teachers and civil servants have been censured, and in one case fired, for using the word "niggardly" (which has no etymological
relation to the N-word) to the resignation under pressure recently of a Cambridge, Massachusetts, school committeewoman for using
the N-word in a discussion of a proposed high-school course about the N-word, we have often made fools of ourselves and done disadvantaged
African Americans no good. As the school superintendent summarized the Cambridge case: the committeewoman "made a point about
racist language and used the full N-word instead of the common substitute, 'N-word.' Although said in the context of a classroom
discussion, and not directed to any student or adult present, the full pronunciation of the word was upsetting to a number of
students and adults who were present or who have since heard about the incident." No one, however, as far as I am aware, has publicly
expressed hurt feelings over the fact that the average net worth of African Americans in the Boston area is $8. (Eight, no zeros.)
As Benn Michaels observes: "As long as the left continues to worry about [respect], the right won't have to worry about inequality."
I wrote earlier today about actually existing conservatism being more of a "folk libertarianism" than anything resembling philosophical
conservatism. But what about actually existing liberalism?
The surprising triumph of Joe Biden, the most normie Democrat in America, tells us something about actually existing liberalism.
Illiberal progressivism dominates in academia, the media, and in corporate America's human resources departments. A reader sends
in this abstract from a paper published by a Penn professor at the Ivy League university's Wharton School of Business (Trump's alma
mater!) in which she argues that the state should
forbid identity-based discrimination but permit refusals of service for projects that foster hate toward protected groups,
even where the hate-based project is intimately linked to a protected characteristic (as with religious groups that mandate white
supremacy). Far from perpetuating discrimination, these refusals instead promote anti-discrimination norms, and they help realize
the vision of the morally inflected marketplace that the Article defends.
You could say that Biden's (not yet assured) victory in the Democratic primaries shows that actually existing liberalism is much
less interested in wokeness than in bread-and-butter issues. After all, the more self-consciously woke candidates in the Democratic
race didn't get anywhere. I would like to read it that way. But would Biden actually stand up to any wokeness? After all, this is
the man who tweeted:
Let's be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to
basic human rights.
This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested
in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really
cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me
in our recent interview:
Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing
problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in
a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating
how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to
the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves.
It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things.
It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups
and identity politics. Thus, not only do they think about almost nothing except ways that "systemic power" and "dominant
groups" are creating all the problems around us, they've more or less forgotten how to think about problems in any other way.
The underlying assumption of their Theory–and that's intentionally capitalized because it means a very specific thing–is that
the very fabric of society is built out of unjust systemic power dynamics, and it is their job (as "critical theorists") to find
those, "make them visible," and then to move on to doing it with the next thing, ideally while teaching other people to do it
too. This crisis will be full of opportunities to do that, and they will do it relentlessly. So, it's not so much a matter of
them "finding a way" to use this crisis to their advantage as it is that they don't really do anything else.
To be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in predictions about what valence wokeness (or right-wing culture war
themes) will have in this fall's election, given the economic destruction upon us now. I do have confidence, though, that if the
left gets into power, this professional class of woke activists will march triumphantly through the institutions of government,
and implement their identity-politics utopianism. Do I think that most Democratic voters do, or would, favor that? No, probably
not. I imagine they would be voting Democratic primarily to oust Trump, and secondarily because they are more interested in
income inequality...
If Orwell were alive today and writing with his superlative critical pen about them, he would struggle
to find publication in one of our major liberal journals.
UPDATE: Just now:
I'm sure Critical Social Justice isn't quietly reorganizing things that might matter because of the pandemic Or so I keep being
told. https://t.co/LEzvjqbu2B
-- James Lindsay, staying home (@ConceptualJames)
March 31, 2020
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative . He has written and edited for the New York Post , The Dallas
Morning News , National Review , the South Florida Sun-Sentinel , the Washington Times , and the Baton Rouge Advocate . Rod's commentary
has been published in The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , the Weekly Standard , Beliefnet, and Real Simple, among other publications,
and he has appeared on NPR, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his wife Julie
and their three children. He has also written four books, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming , Crunchy Cons , How Dante Can Save Your
Life , and The Benedict Option
I also remember some of early estimates of Mad Cow disease in humans in UK and they
turned out to be very exaggerated.
When the political class was trying to de-gay HIV/AIDS in 1987, they had Oprah tell
everyone that 20% of heterosexual people would be dead before 1990.
The first I learned of Oprah's jaw-droppingly sensationalist remarks, was in a piece a
couple of days ago on AmericanThinker (which sounds like a rare bird indeed, if not an
outright oxymoron – but it has good stuff from time to time).
Anyhow, it was an interesting piece – entitled
" Reflections on a Century of Junk Science " by the author of " Hoodwinked: How
Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture ", which I will acquire today. (The
book's 11 years old, but sounds like it will be along the same lines as Kendrick's "
Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense ", which was
excellent).
We is set in the future. D-503, a spacecraft engineer, lives in the One State,[3] an urban nation constructed almost entirely of
glass, which assists mass surveillance. The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W.
Taylor-style. People march in step with each other and are uniformed. There is no way of referring to people except by their given
numbers. The society is run strictly by logic or reason as the primary justification for the laws or the construct of the
society.[4][5] The individual's behaviour is based on logic by way of formulas and equations outlined by the One State.[6]
Francis Lee ,
Sounds very much like Yevgeny Zamyatin – We . But we never thought it would
happen!
In the case of "Brave New World", the establishment knows how to cure pretty much any
conventional disease. Then if you're in approved society you die around age 60 because of
everything that's kept you alive and looking like 40.
I just read the book last month for the first time in 30+ years. It does belong on that
diagram. And "1984" doesn't either, since it really doesn't deal with anything like
infectious diseases--reread that about 2 years ago.
I've not read the other 2 outer books ever, but the movie of "Fahrenheit 451", which I just
watched and Bradbury certainly had a hand in writing, has nothing to do with infectious
disease.
There might be something in Camus' "The Plague" though. Haven't read that since the
1980s.
There aren't food shortages so not sure about the "Soylent Green" reference, yet at least.
"Long's Run" is about killing people off at age 35, which I guess overlaps with "kill 80% of
the poor workers", something the likes of Charles Koch certainly supports. So indirectly
there could be a "Logan's Run" connection.
Gattica is just about favored people with the right genes, so an update of "Brave New
World", without the highly literate "savage" as the main character.
I don't see how "The Matrix" relates, that's more about the material world's completeness
being an illusion.
"Clockwork Orange?" A thug suppressed with mind control?
Haven't read "Lord of the Flies", but don't the kids worship a god of the island, and
justify the horrors they commit based on that conception of god or a god?
Everything the CDC has been doing has been shocking. As a health care provider I just
don't want to even look at their recommendations anymore: their information is months old and
not based in science, let alone current research on COVID-19.
Local colleges have been shutting down but forcing instructors to go to the schools
– that's not social distancing. And many are still having students in EMT, nursing,
psychology, physical therapy, and other health sciences, go to their clinicals, where they
will be exposed without adequate personal protection equipment. This is because of the CDC.
And admin's greed for money.
My local community college, after implementing/pleading with students to incorporate
careful hygiene and social distancing into their time on campus, and seeing minimal
compliance, decided to make ALL lecture classes online access for the next 3 weeks (at
least). We have no known Covid-19 cases in the COUNTY. (But since testing is not extant, or
common, no one knows what the true situation is.)
The goal of moving to online class instruction is to minimize the number of students (15K
total) on campus and limit contact with older instructors, counselors, and other staff. Lab
classes (PE, Science) will continue under strict personal contact protocol. The solution is a
compromise between health issues and the need for students to complete 80% of course
curricula to get transferable college credits. We'll see if the gamble works out.
Closing K-12 schools is a "no win" situation. Some parents want them closed, others don't.
In Los Angeles the school district decided to close from pressure by the teachers labor
union. Again, few kids understand/implement the protocols of social distancing and smaller
home groups may be the better option (for some). Meals for disadvantaged students will
continue at the LAUSD (~500K students), but they will be drive-thru pick-up.
It appears the pandemic could bring even the invincible US to its knees.
From Albert Camus's The Plague , which is
once again on my nightstand: "There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always
plagues and wars take people equally by surprise."
+ We are witnessing what happens to a country (this one) that faces a pandemic after it has
privatized almost every aspect of its public social welfare and health systems & gutted the
teaching of science in public schools so thoroughly that most people can't even understand
what's coming at them
+ Even as we are being told to distance ourselves from each other, we need more solidarity
now than ever before, because the System we are living under has failed, failed to offer even a
minimum level of protection to those most vulnerable, just as we all knew it would fail, in
precisely the ways it was meant to fail.
+ Leave it to
Mike Davis , who wrote a terrifying book a
few years ago on Avian Flu, to give us a stark forecast for what we're up against: "There is,
however, more reliable data on the virus's impact on certain groups in a few countries. It is
very scary. Italy, for example, reports a staggering 23 per cent death rate among those over
65; in Britain the figure is now 18 per cent. The 'corona flu' that Trump waves off is an
unprecedented danger to geriatric populations, with a potential death toll in the
millions."
+ Six months from now, 75% of Americans will have a "pre-existing condition." The other 25%
will probably be composting
+ When CDC Director Dr. Redfield was asked at a congressional hearing on Thursday morning
who's in charge of making sure coronavirus tests can be administered, he hesitated and then
turned to Dr. Fauci, who said, "My colleague is looking at me to answer that "
+ Do you REALLY want to give Trump those extreme powers, Bernie?
We are dealing with a national emergency and the president should declare one now.
+ All of the financial elites who were willing to swallow Trump's nativism, managerial
incompetence and anti-science lunacies in exchange for tax cuts, gutted regulations and a bull
market are getting their just desserts but did they have to drag the rest of us down with
them?
I tried reading that about 20 years ago, but it never engaged me. I'll have to give it
another try.
Currently, I'm reading Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon for the third time. One of his
best, in my opinion. But, I'd also recommend the System of the World trilogy. Slower-paced,
but also tremendously satisfying.
Stay away from Stephenson's latest, Fall, or Dodge in Hell . I've loved everything
else I've read by him, but this last one was truly execrable. I slogged through the whole
thing, thinking there must be some point to it all, and there never was.
Stephenson can be incredibly hit or miss. I loved Anathem, Cryptonomicon, Zodiac, and
Diamond Age, thought that anything Stephenson touched: cyberpunk, alt-history, sprawling
world building, etc was pure gold. Then I read Reamde What a waste of a thousand pages.
Confederacy is great, and I say that as a former New Orleanian . . .
If you like humor around absurd characters and their doings, I would recommend Charles
Portis' works, all are good. He's best known for True Grit , but additionally both
Dog of the South, Masters of Atlantis are also outstanding. The latter is a lot of fun
with secret societies, Theosophy & Masonry, that kind of social stew.
A bit more gentle in his absurdity than the over-the-top characters in Confederacy, but
lots of fun.
I picked up Anathem at random several years ago and it gave me a Nerdwoody.
I love constructed universes(LOTR, Dune) but that one was so subtle it was almost implied
that there's all this s^^t going on.
you had to grow into it.
Given EITC, I just had a haul:
Harvey's "Neoliberalism", Mr Hudson's "Forgive them ", Ruskin's" Unto this Last"(currently
involved), Frank's"Listen Liberal"(similarly involved), and EP Thompson's "The Making of the
English Working Class" this latter of which i've wanted to read for a long while.
All of them due to suggestions or mentions on NC in the last couple of years.
the first two and the last will hafta wait till all i'm doing is harvesting.
EITC + Spring Break + General Spingtime = Sudden Flurry of Activity.
2 sheds in progress sheep/goat and woodshed gigantic telephone poles set, ready for me to
wander by and frame it in then another Barnraising Day(ribs, tater salad, beer, etc) to put
the r-panel up(already pained red with yellow stripes(everything else is blue and green and
purple) then the next however long for me to finish it up.
and i've planted more this year than i have in 20.
including around 80 black gallon+ pots with seeds/acorns i've picked up all over, or rooted
cuttings of everything else i've come across.
and tons of manure.
so, only Light Reading for now.
for i am not worth shootin'.
A Confederacy of Dunces spoke to me! Funniest book I have ever read. And like you, I've
re-read several times. Just seeing the title makes me laugh. :-)
Anatomy of a Campaign: The British Fiasco in Norway, 1940 – John Kiszely
The British underfunded their military until too late. Which would have been o.k. up to a
point, except they seemed to have no realization at this point how disparate the Nazi German
capabilities were compared to their own.
When We Were Vikings – Andrew David MacDonald
A very nice coming of age tail of an adult mentally challenged young woman who is into
Vikings and dealing with a family crisis.
#Library-of-Psychohistory,_for_times_of_plague_and_famine (TM)____________
Anabasis by Xenophon
Muqaddimmah: an Introduction to History by ibn Khaldun
Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time by Johanna Nichols
Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend
The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe by Marija Gimbutas
Models of Discovery by Herbert Simon
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
Unifying the Mind by David Danks
Targeted Learning in Data Science: Causal Inference for Complex Longitudinal Studies by Mark
Vanderlaan and Sherri Rose
Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical Narrative by Pamela J. Milne
Washington Babylon by Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein
Algernon Blackwood Anthony Hope Anthony Trollope Anton Chekhov Arthur Conan Doyle Arthur
Quiller-Couch Baroness Orczy Benjamin Disraeli Charles Dickens Dinah Craik E. Phillips
Oppenheim Edith Wharton Elizabeth Gaskell Eugene Sue F. Marion Crawford G.A. Henty G.K.
Chesterton George Gissing George Meredith Gertrude Atherton H. Rider Haggard H.G. Wells
Hamlin
Garland Henry James Honore de Balzac etc
Harvard University should be ashamed of itself. It has dumped the problem of its sudden
closure due to coronavirus largely on the students themselves and their families. While most of
them are affluent enough to handle the financial fallout of buying airfare at the last minute
and storing or shipping their clothes, books, and other possessions, Harvard's students from
lower income backgrounds have, to a significant degree, been left in the lurch.
... ... ...
But Harvard's conduct is indefensible. Harvard has, or perhaps more accurately had, a nearly
$39 billion endowment. Contrast that with an exceedingly generous estimate of what it might
cost to help make these financially stressed undergraduates whole, at least in terms of getting
out of Cambridge, or for the ones who really can't go home (flights to their country
cancelled), putting them up. Harvard has 6,800 undergraduates. Assume 25% get significant
financial support. Even a gold plated solution would cost at most $10,000.
6,800 x .25 x $10,000 = $17 million.
That is couch lint for Harvard.
As the University of Dayton example attests, university and college closures are widespread.
For the well-endowed ones who have students attending only by virtue of having received
financial aid and/or having the school arrange for paid employment to help pay for their
tuition, the failure of the school to provide generous help is a disgrace.
At Harvard, the afflicted students are petitioning the university to let them store things
on campus for free (which was standard practice in my day) and let the ones who can't go home
stay on campus. How many could that possibly be? 200 at most? Harvard has a medical center that
won't have anything to do once the kids leave. How hard would it be for their staff to check
these students' temperatures daily and test anyone who had symptoms?
And the university will have enough empty rooms that it could easily set aside other dorm
rooms if quarantine were needed.
But the Harvard disregard is a sign of where things are likely to go in the US. A university
is supposed to be a community. They are more cohesive than most of our cities and towns. Yet a
crisis comes, and the grotesquely well paid university administrators can't be bothered either
to make creative use of resources at hand, or dip in Harvard's huge pot of money.
In other words, expect the rich to walk all over the poor out of indifference, as we are
seeing at Harvard now.
___
1 Harvard houses and Yale colleges are groups of dormitories, each with their own
adminisphere (such as a faculty dean a resident dean, a house tutor), their own kitchen and
dining room, a common room, a library, and other amenities. They are modeled on the Cambridge
and Oxford college system. At Harvard, a house has roughly 300 to 400 students.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed. Get Out! Just got notice I
am next up at my library for Wm Gibson's new book, Agency. $17M is a rounding error yet the
wealthy feel its too much to ask.
Are we hearing the American "college experience" bubble popping? In this fantasy, youth
buy products that are packaged as educational experiences. They pay through the nose for them
and they are blind to their folly because they believe that the stamped and signed receipt of
payment handed to them with great pomp and circumstance will boost their future earning
potential to the degree necessary so that they can some day lead lives that are free of
educational debt, which until then will of course involve interest costs (compounded) as we
do not want socialism.
Why exactly doesn't Harvard charge 1 million? They could get it and they'd only have
customers who can deal gracefully with situations like this.
Although Harvard (and other esteemed Universities) are selling 'exclusivity', the veneer
of egalitarianism is still required for the Brand.
Two Random Thoughts:
I'd like to know the graduation statistics of those college students that entered through
the Admissions Scandle.
The Harvard Endowment is an important pool of shadow money, never forget it was the
Harvard Fund that 'bought' the worthless Arbusto (Harken Energy) stock that enabled Dubya to
get his stake to become Texas Rangers managing general partner, and then Governor, and then
front man for Dick Cheney.
At many US elite academic institutions, the hardest part is getting in (exceptions usually
in "hard science", engineering, etc.). Also, they probably have all the the help they need to
graduate.
Actually, don't come to California for higher education. Housing, traffic, cycling risks,
and, now, Covid-19 is getting worse. The UC/CalState system can't provide access to it's own
in-state high school students that qualify for entry.
This is brutal this. They could have helped their own students using only the money in
their petty cash drawer and they said nope! I suppose that this is a lesson for those Harvard
students that is pretty simple. If you have money so this move is not a problem for you, then
that is the way that it is supposed to be. If you are studying here and are in a precarious
position then it is all on you. Pure power politics.
It would be ironic if down the track that Harvard produced a Bill Gates from the later
group that went on to achieve fabulous wealth. But that this future alumni, when asked by
Harvard for money for them, would say sure – and give a massive contribution to Yale
and call it the 2020 Corona Fund.
I too was an undergrad at an institution in the Cambridge area, and I am not from the
US.
Got a full financial aid, but that does not fully cover your housing and does not at all
cover your food or other expenses, so you had to work during the term to make it. And you had
to move out of the dorm in the summer. Fortunately, in our particular dorm, there was storage
in the basement of the dorm, so we did not have to look for outside storage, but others were
not so lucky. But moving out at the end of the term was still a major disruption that one had
to plan for well in advance.
So I am very well aware of the situation undergrads at Harvard find themselves in, and my
first thought when I saw the news was "WTF are these students supposed to do now?".
Especially the international ones. Because a day after Harvard announces that students are
kicked out of the dorms, what does Trump do? Bans travel from Europe for 30 days. Which
effectively means banning traveling TO Europe too, because those are all round-trip flights.
This is on top of the travel restrictions regarding several countries in Asia already in
place.
In the best of times, it was always near-impossible to find a flight on such a short
notice. Now when so many flights have been cancelled, how is one supposed to go home, when
there are thousands of others in the same situation (because Harvard isn't the only
university that is doing this)? It is not even a possibility for many, forget the expenses.
There are simply no flights. And most of these students don't even have a car to sleep
in.
I will venture a guess regarding why this is done -- they don't want to get sued by
litigious-minded parents if undergrads get it while on campus. Which, admittedly, there is a
high chance of happening, unless they self-isolated the whole campus (but that would have
created a legal mess on a whole new level). Dorms often have 2, 3, 4 students living in the
same room, and the virus is very clearly airborne, so it would also get between rooms through
the air seeping beneath the doors (which is why in China quarantines involve sealing the
doors with tape). Also, bathrooms are shared across the whole floor, which is another
transmission risk.
So the administration took the easy decision -- instead of trying to help the student
population, and start that early on when it was the time to do so (i.e. mid-February), which
would have involved some effort and risk on its part, it just dumped the problem onto the
students
Thats quite disgusting – I'm assuming it is fear of litigation that is driving
this.
I was in Trinity College Dublin last night for an evening class – the nearest
Ireland would have to a Harvard (except, as the grads there would no doubt add 'with about
300 more years of history and teaching experience'). They had a Covid case in, ironically
enough, the biology department last week.
But they are acting I think quite responsibly – phasing in a slow shutdown
– all lectures have gone online, but small tutorials, etc., still going on, with lots
of support for foreign students. They were actually criticised for being over the top (there
are still plenty of people who still 'don't get it' and sadly many are in a position of
authority.)
Litigation is certainly a big part of it. The other aspect might be health insurance.
Students are on university plans. Which tend to not be that great, because it is a young and
healthy population. When catastrophic situations have arisen in the past on campus (which
happens regularly, several times a year in fact), the university has often been stuck with
the bill, especially with international students.
And it will be a lot of long ICU stays to pay for in the coming months, even among the
young and healthy.
I think you're right w/health insurance. plans are likely self-insured and not modeled
to have a cohort students popping into the ICU. Then add rash panic.
Smaller colleges I can kinda understand, Harvard? give me a break
It seems like almost all colleges and universitys will be moving to the online
solution, but you can tell it's a decision made by some administrators who really don't get
it. Online classes may be a substitute for lecture, but they wont fill the needs of art
students (like my wife who laughed at hearing this idea), science and engineering majors or
anyone who needs other facilities and equipment to actually complete work – your oven
at home wont replace a kiln as my wife says.
I would disagree that the administrators don't get it. On their list of priorities,
"avoiding huge lawsuits" is a much higher priority than "providing quality instruction to
students." I have been in and around higher ed for the last 30 years and it's not clear to me
that the latter is even on the list.
Online classes for the yes of the year–mmmm, ok .but closing dorms? that is just
insane and against the medical evidence (aka seniors are the most at risk, under-40, while
not immune, are in infinitely better shape than those over 70 and/or those w/health
issues).
And Dorms are (generally) like typical apartment complexes, not military barracks.
If anything, keeping students (aka asymptomatic, mobile, disease vectors) away from
seniors is the absolutely best thing for society. just saying
I have a child at UC Santa Cruz, hotbed of striking teaching assistants. We are coming up
on spring break and last night had a talk with him about what to do. There are risks to
flying home. There are risks to staying at school. But the latter risks are compounded by the
fact that we don't know what the school admin will do.
If he comes home for spring break, will he be able to go back? If he can't, what happens
to his stuff? If he stays, will they be allowed to remain in the dorms? And what happens in
September? I am sure he will not want to change schools now that he has established
friendships and a sense of place. I don't want to pay $66,000 per year -- an effort that
involves his parents and both sets of grandparents -- for him to take online classes. I have
been a university teacher, so I know exactly what those are worth. :)
At least we can afford it, and we have friends in Cali if he gets stuck there. This action
by Harvard is unconscionable. Then again, if Harvard had a conscience, it wouldn't be
Harvard. But UCSC, based on its treatment of the striking TAs, doesn't have a conscience
either.
I have a handful of relatives who voted for Biden, too, and I just want to punch them all
in the face. Idjits. Hooray for ecocide! Onward to mass extinction! Guess the kid won't need
that college education after all. Maybe we can use the money to send him to survival
school.
Wow! $66,000! For a supposedly public university. I went to UC Santa Cruz, admittedly a
few decades ago, and I was paying something like $2000 a year. The U.S. is making incredible
progress -- just all of it heading off in the wrong direction and toward the edge of the
cliff. Very soon your local library–should it still exist -- can file The Road
Warrior in the documentary section.
Good luck to you and your children. And give your Biden loving relatives a friendly punch
for me.
But UCSC, based on its treatment of the striking TAs, doesn't have a conscience
either.
This is the key point. The neoliberalization of the U.S. university – "public" as
well as private – has been clear for quite awhile but there are strong ideological
pressures not to see it, not least by all the brainiacs who exist on college campuses.
My prediction is that most U administrations will issue guidance to faculty to give
students full credit for all courses this semester (regardless of how much work actually gets
done). The smart ones are looking ahead to the fall and trying to figure out what to do if
enrollment/tuition, state aid and research funding crash, which seems pretty likely if things
are not back to normal shortly. The 2008 crash turned out to be a godsend to higher ed,
driving huge numbers of unemployed back to school for "re-training." But that bubble only
lasted a couple of years and enrollment trends have been steeply downward since 2010-11. The
last five years have already seen, again mostly uncommented on, the beginnings of a shake-out
(some schools closing, lots of changing emphasis to programs that can bring cash in the door,
ubiquitous move to adjuncts instead of permanent faculty). Expect that to ramp up
considerably. Ironically, perhaps the only counter-trend has been a HUGE increase in the
number of Chinese students (of which there are now apparently about 5K at my Big 10 U) paying
full freight. Can that continue?
Well, California does have standards. Getting course credit will require completing 80% of
the course curricula. Since the UC System is on the Quarter system (12 weeks, not 15) the
UCSC students have likely passed that threshold.
Encouraging International students to attend at out-of-state tuition rates is now standard
operating procedure in California. The new president of my local community college
unabashedly said it in a recent letter that it was necessary. The college needs to eliminate
its $5M budget deficit by 2022. (Real estate investors are salivating: student housing,
apartments, and SF Home speculation, etc.)
From a public health standpoint this is insane. Boston is a known epicenter for the
pandemic with reported cases doubling daily. To send students home–wherever home
is–without testing for the virus risks spreading the disease further. I hope Governor
Charlie Baker will step in stop this from happening.
Neoliberalism destroys solidarity; as the result it destroys both the society and individuals
Notable quotes:
"... Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others. ..."
"... On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today. ..."
"... the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms ..."
"... More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one. ..."
"... A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. ..."
"... the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
'We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose
outside the success narrative is limited.'
We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic
practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has
become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain
personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over
as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really
be noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience
under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact
that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why
you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads
to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy
checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social
level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes
an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation
than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent
venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging
from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms.
This results in what the sociologist
Richard Sennett has aptly described
as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got
a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings
of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees
as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we
receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel
to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion
when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no
one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and
putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated,
guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to
choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage
of our social security system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies
entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe
in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if
they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in
the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the
paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense
that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like.
We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet,
on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There
are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't
need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person
with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure
success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a
master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral
and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy
reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.
Stories to fuel your mind. "We rise in power and make a difference in the world due to
what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst."Brain Pickings |
Maria Popova
Art by Shaun Tan for a special edition of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales .
Thoreau wrote as he contemplated how silence
ennobles speech . In the century and a half since, we have created a culture that equates
loudness with leadership, abrasiveness with authority. We mistake shouting for powerful
speech much as we mistake force for power itself. And yet the real measure of power is more
in the realm of Thoreau's "fine things."
So argues UC Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner in The
Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence ( public library ) -- the culmination of twenty years of research exploring what
power is, what confers it upon an individual, and how it shapes the structure of a
collective, a community, and a culture. Drawing on a wealth of social science studies and
insights from successful teams ranging from companies like Pixar and Google to restorative
justice programs in San Quentin State Prison, he demonstrates "the surprising and lasting
influence of soft power (culture, ideas, art, and institutions) as compared to hard power
(military might, invasion, and economic sanctions)."
Keltner writes:
Life is made up of patterns. Patterns of eating, thirst, sleep, and fight-or-flight are
crucial to our individual survival; patterns of courtship, sex, attachment, conflict, play,
creativity, family life, and collaboration are crucial to our collective survival. Wisdom
is our ability to perceive these patterns and to shape them into coherent chapters within
the longer narrative of our lives.
Power dynamics, Keltner notes, are among the central patterns that shape our experience of
life, from our romantic relationships to the workplace. But at the heart of power is a
troubling paradox -- a malignant feature of human psychology responsible for John
Dalberg-Acton's oft-cited insight that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Keltner explains the psychological machinery of this malfunction and considers
our recourse for resisting its workings:
The power paradox is this: we rise in power and make a difference in the world due to
what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst. We gain a
capacity to make a difference in the world by enhancing the lives of others, but the very
experience of having power and privilege leads us to behave, in our worst moments, like
impulsive, out-of-control sociopaths.
How we handle the power paradox guides our personal and work lives and determines,
ultimately, how happy we and the people we care about will be. It determines our empathy,
generosity, civility, innovation, intellectual rigor, and the collaborative strength of our
communities and social networks. Its ripple effects shape the patterns that make up our
families, neighborhoods, and workplaces, as well as the broader patterns of social
organization that define societies and our current political struggles.
[...]
Much of what is most unsettling about human nature -- stigma, greed, arrogance, racial
and sexual violence, and the nonrandom distribution of depression and bad health to the
poor -- follows from how we handle the power paradox.
Art by Olivier Tallec from Louis I, King of the Sheep, an illustrated parable of how
power changes us .
What causes us to mishandle the power paradox, Keltner argues, is our culture's
traditional understanding of power -- a sort of time-capsule that no longer serves us.
Predicated on force, ruthlessness, and strategic coercion, it was shaped by Niccolò
Machiavelli's sixteenth-century book The Prince -- but it is as antiquated today as
the geocentric model of the universe that dominated Machiavelli's day. What governs the
modern world, Keltner demonstrates through two decades of revelatory studies, is a different
kind of power -- softer, more relational, predicated on reputation rather than force,
measured by one's ability to affect the lives of others positively and shift the course of
the world, however slightly, toward the common good. He writes:
Perhaps most critically, thinking of power as coercive force and fraud blinds us to its
pervasiveness in our daily lives and the fact that it shapes our every interaction, from
those between parents and children to those between work colleagues.
[...]
Power defines the waking life of every human being. It is found not only in
extraordinary acts but also in quotidian acts, indeed in every interaction and every
relationship, be it an attempt to get a two-year-old to eat green vegetables or to inspire
a stubborn colleague to do her best work. It lies in providing an opportunity to someone,
or asking a friend the right question to stir creative thought, or calming a colleague's
rattled nerves, or directing resources to a young person trying to make it in society.
Power dynamics, patterns of mutual influence, define the ongoing interactions between fetus
and mother, infant and parent, between romantic partners, childhood friends, teens, people
at work, and groups in conflict. Power is the medium through which we relate to one
another. Power is about making a difference in the world by influencing others.
In a sentiment that parallels Thoreau's wisdom on silence and shouting, Keltner adds:
A new wave of thinking about power reveals that it is given to us by others rather than
grabbed. We gain power by acting in ways that improve the lives of other people in our
social networks.
One key consequence of the fact that power is given to us by others is its reputational
nature -- an insight both disquieting to the ego and comforting to the soul, for we are
inescapably social creatures. Keltner observes:
Our influence, the lasting difference that we make in the world, is ultimately only as
good as what others think of us. Having enduring power is a privilege that depends on other
people continuing to give it to us.
"Enduring" is an operative word in Keltner's premise. The "power paradox" is paradoxical
precisely because those who manage to wrest power forcibly by the Machiavellian model may
have power, or perceived power, for a certain amount of time, but that amount is finite. Its
finitude springs from the attrition of the person's reputation. But the most troubling aspect
of the power paradox is that even if a person rises to power by counter-Machiavellian means
-- kindness, generosity, concern with the common good -- power itself will eventually warp
her priorities and render her less kind, less generous, less concerned with the common good,
which will in turn erode her power as her reputation for these counter-qualities grows.
Keltner cites a number of studies demonstrating these tendencies empirically -- poor
people give to charity a greater portion of their income than rich people, those in positions
of power exhibit more entitled behaviors, people who drive expensive cars are significantly
crueler to pedestrians at crosswalks, and so forth.
But in reading these alarmingly consistent studies, I had to wonder about one crucial
confound that remains unaddressed: People in positions of power also tend to be busier --
that is, they tend to have greater demands on their time. We know from the now-iconic 1970s
Good Samaritan
study that the single greatest predictor of uncaring, unkind, and uncompassionate
behavior, even among people who have devoted their lives to the welfare of others, is a
perceived lack of time -- a feeling of being rushed. The sense of urgency seems to consume
all of our other concerns -- it is the razor's blade that severs our connection to anything
outside ourselves, anything beyond the task at hand, and turns our laser-sharp focus of
concern onto the the immediacy of the self alone.
Art from Anne Sexton's little-known children's book .
We know this empirically, and we know its anecdotal truth intimately -- I doubt I'm alone
in the awareness that despite a deep commitment to kindness, I find myself most likely to,
say, be impatient with a fellow cyclist when I feel pressed for time, when I know I'm running
late. Even Keltner's famous and tragicomical study, which found that drivers of expensive
cars are most inconsiderate to pedestrians, might suffer from the same confound -- those who
can afford expensive cars are typically people we would deem "successful," who also typically
have far greater demands on their time. So could it be that a scarcity of time -- that
inescapable hum of consciousness
-- rather than an excess of power is the true corrupting agent of the psyche?
And so another paradox lives inside the power paradox -- the more powerful a person
becomes, the busier and more rushed she is, which cuts her off from the very qualities that
define the truly powerful. What would the studies Keltner cites look like if we controlled
not only for power, but for time -- for the perception of being rushed and demand-strained
beyond capacity? (Kierkegaard condemned the
corrosive effect of busyness nearly two centuries ago.)
Still, Keltner's central point -- that power in the modern world is "gained and maintained
through a focus on others" -- remains valid and important. He considers the conscious
considerations we can make in order to bypass the perils of the power paradox:
Handling the power paradox depends on finding a balance between the gratification of
your own desires and your focus on other people. As the most social of species, we evolved
several other-focused, universal social practices that bring out the good in others and
that make for strong social collectives. A thoughtful practitioner of these practices will
not be misled by the rush of the experience of power down the path of self-gratification
and abuse, but will choose instead to enjoy the deeper delights of making a lasting
difference in the world. These social practices are fourfold: empathizing, giving,
expressing gratitude, and telling stories. All four of these practices dignify and delight
others. They constitute the basis of strong, mutually empowered ties. You can lean on them
to enhance your power at any moment of the day by stirring others to effective action.
But "power" is one of those words -- like "love" and "happiness" -- to have become
grab-bag terms for a constellation of behaviors, states, emotions, and phenomena. Noting that
"a critical task of science is to provide clear nomenclature -- precise terms that sharpen
our understanding of patterned phenomena in the outside world and inside the mind," Keltner
offers elegant and necessary definitions of the distinct notions comprising the constellation
of power in modern society:
POWER your capacity to make a difference in the world by influencing the states
of other people.
STATUS the respect that you enjoy from other people in your social network; the
esteem they direct to you. Status goes with power often but not always.
CONTROL your capacity to determine the outcomes in your life. You can have
complete control over your life -- think of the reclusive hermit -- but have no
power.
SOCIAL CLASS the mixture of family wealth, educational achievement, and
occupational prestige that you enjoy; alternatively, the subjective sense you have of where
you stand on a class ladder in society, high, middle, or low. Both forms of social class
are societal forms of power.
In the remainder of The
Power Paradox , Keltner goes on to examine, through a robust body of research bridged
with intelligent insight, what we can do both as individuals and as a society to cultivate
the qualities that empower us by empowering others and counter those that feed the most
selfish and small-spirited tendencies of human nature. Complement it with Blaise Pascal's
timeless 17th-century wisdom on the art of
persuasion and philosopher Martha Nussbaum on human
dignity and the nuanced relationship between agency and victimhood .
Counterintuitive as it may sound, people fearing the coronavirus are
buying up copies
of Albert Camus'
The Plague
, Stephen King's
The Stand
, and Dean Koontz's
The Eyes
of Darkness
. If you're
one of those
who finds consuming pandemic stories to be palliative for your anxiety, I recommend the addition of
one of the only pieces
of American
fiction about the 1918–19 flu pandemic that was written by a survivor: Katherine Anne Porter's
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
. This short novel,
published in 1939, is a story of two doomed lovers caught up in the gears of world war and a deadly virus; somehow, it manages
to be romantic and bitter, all at once.
The story is semi-autobiographical. Porter
was 28
during the 1918–19
pandemic and working for the Rocky Mountain News in Denver. She was dating a young soldier, who was readying for deployment
overseas. When she fell sick, he nursed her at her boarding house, until her editor finally pulled strings to get her admitted
to a hospital. That hospital was so overcrowded that Porter was left on a gurney in a hallway for nine days, running a fever
of 105. When she recovered, she found out that the soldier had died of the flu.
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
gives the
bones of this experience to its protagonist, Miranda Gay.
Miranda bristles at jingoistic homefront culture, which Porter depicts as a mind virus that rivals the flu. A couple of
unctuous war bond salesmen try to guilt Miranda into purchasing a bond she cannot afford; she and the other female reporter at
her paper worry that they will lose their jobs if they can't scrape together the money to buy one. The novel shows how the
expectation of support for the war colors everyone's daily interactions. Miranda describes how everyone reacts in a particular
way when they hear the words "the war": "It was habitual, automatic, to give that solemn, mystically uplifted grin when you
spoke the words or heard them spoken."
The war and the flu mingle together as threats to a good thing that's happening in Miranda's life. In this fictionalization of
Porter's experience, the soldier Miranda is in love with is named Adam, and he's from Texas. They've been dating about 10
days, but they both feel like this is something real. They've spent those 10 days in the frenzy of early romance: dancing to
jazz, going to see plays she needs to write about for the paper, poking around geological museums, skipping out of town to
take hikes. They both know that their mutual affection will be short-lived, since he'll be going to France soon. What they
don't know is that it will be the virus that gets them first.
While Miranda admits to herself how much she would love him if he weren't bound for the war, between them, they keep
everything light by policy; the flu is no exception. "It seems to be a plague, something out of the Middle Ages," Miranda says
to Adam, who is about to be sent back to training, about the sickness. "Did you ever see so many funerals, ever?" "Never did,"
he replies. "Well, let's be strong minded and not have any of it. I've got four days more straight from the blue and not a
blade of grass must grow under our feet." With that, they make plans to go dancing.
Slowly, the flu makes its presence known in her body, even as her mind continues to dwell on the war. On the night she
collapses from the sickness she's been feeling inklings of for days, Adam and Miranda go to a play together, so she can review
it. It's a boring play, but before the third act, a fundraiser comes onstage to implore people to buy war bonds. It's this
endless speech, which hits all the patriotic high notes, that catalyzes Miranda's illness, making her head ache and spin.
At a restaurant after the play, she passes out; when she comes to, Adam is nursing her in her boardinghouse room. That's the
last time she has with him. After she's taken to the hospital and suffers through days of pain and fever dreams, Miranda wakes
up, finds out he's dead, and feels profoundly alienated from her body and her life. "Can this be my face?" Miranda asks when
she looks in the mirror after finally regaining consciousness. "Are these my own hands?" she asks a nurse, "holding them up to
show the yellow tint like melted wax glimmering between the closed fingers."
The book's small story of one person's tragedy reminds us that illness is a personal trauma, and a pandemic is a million
personal traumas in one. Porter
said of the flu pandemic in an
interview
in 1963: "It simply divided my life, cut across it like that. So that everything before that was just getting ready, and after
that I was in some strange way altered."
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
isn't a book about secretly released bioweapons or an
epic struggle between good and evil or a metaphor about Nazism; it's just a story about people coming to terms with their own
mortality. "The body is a curious monster, no place to live in, how could anyone feel at home there?" Miranda asks. How,
indeed?
Cant Stop the M... on Wed,
03/04/2020 - 8:28am We base our entire politics on the idea that we're living in a
meritocracy. In other words, like the knights of old at a joust, we find out who is best
through competition, a competition assumed to be both fair and honest. In the old days, the
joust was assumed to be fair and honest because God was both omnipotent and just and therefore,
obviously, would not allow a bad man to win. Nowadays, even most of us who believe in God don't
believe that God controls the outcome of competitions in that way. Yet the assumption of a fair
and honest competition persists, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.
In the case of U.S. elections, it is assumed, not that the will of God controls the outcome
of competitions, but that the will of the people does. Voter suppression and election fraud are
hand-waved away on the dubious grounds that any candidate strong enough could overcome such
things. Or maybe the people are to blame. The supporters of the defeated candidate must not
have worked hard enough, or maybe the people generally are to blame for not voting in large
enough numbers. Those who challenge any of these assumptions are defeated, either by
institutional inertia or by gaslighting.
Nothing happens, so nothing happened
Here's what I mean by institutional inertia.
In 2000, there was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud in the
presidential election, with the help of his brother, the governor of Florida. In 2004, there
was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud once again, famously in Ohio, and
less famously in Florida for a second time. However, in the first case, Gore stopped fighting
after an obviously partisan and corrupt Supreme Court decision, and not a single member of the
U.S. Senate was willing to help the Congressional Black Caucus challenge the election. In the
second case, Kerry refused to challenge the election in Congress, and the legal case he brought
about election fraud, after the fact, did not even make it to the Supreme Court.
In 2016, when New Yorkers brought a case that there had been election fraud and voter
suppression in the Democratic primaries, the case was thrown out on the grounds that each
county in New York had to file such cases separately, and, by then, the election would be over.
Pleas to delay the vote count, or to delay declaring a winner, until the voting rights of the
people could be secured, were brushed aside. Much later, when a civil lawsuit was brought
against the DNC, the case was once again thrown out for lack of standing, but not before the
DNC lawyers had defended their client on the grounds that the DNC didn't have to provide a fair
competition, or any competition at all, really, and certainly didn't have to care what the
people thought.
The effect of this institutional inertia is not simply that cheaters win the day, or that
the people, whose will is being suppressed, lose morale and give up. The complaint itself
begins to fade from people's minds. People begin to make excuses for what happened, to justify
it, to act as if there never were cheating to begin with. Even many of those who dissent find
that, over time, the injustice they remember mellows: no less a person than Jimmy Dore, hardly
a weak-minded hack for the establishment, talks now about Gore's "loss" in 2000 as an evil
caused by the electoral college. While the electoral college is obviously a tool for elites to
control American politics (and never has that been so obvious as over the past two election
cycles), such a narrative ignores and erases the police checkpoints that were set up in 2000
near predominantly African American polling places in Leon county, Florida. It ignores the
Republican Speaker of the House, Tom DeLay, sending Republican staffers to Dade County to break
up Miami's vote count by marching into the Supervisor of Elections office and screaming at the
top of their lungs so that no accurate count could take place. It ignores and erases the
digital Jim Crow that purged the voter lists of African American Democrats by claiming,
falsely, that they were felons. It ignores the fact that emails between the State of Florida
and the company that created the Jim Crow software revealed that the company had warned that
their software would draw too many false positives, and that the State of Florida had replied
"That's just what we want."
Similarly, the DNC's perfidy in 2016 has been reduced to the following: 1) that they had
pre-selected their candidate, and didn't provide a real or fair competition, 2) that they gave
debate questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton, 3)that they used the electoral college, most
particularly superdelegates, to overwhelm the Sanders movement, and that 4) the party primaries
were often closed, not allowing independents the right to vote. Left out, or forgotten, are the
multiple polling places closed in states from Arizona to New York (in New York, sometimes even
the open polling places had no staff or broken machines), the media calling California for
Clinton before the votes were counted, the 136,000 voters purged off Brooklyn's voter rolls (no
doubt because Bernie Sanders was born and grew up in Brooklyn and that might have given him an
advantage there), and the much larger multi-state purge of the Democratic party through
changing people's voter registration without their knowledge and consent.
I'm not bringing this up to attack Jimmy Dore, who is one of the most reliable truth-tellers
in the media today, but rather to point out what people's minds do under the stress of watching
the establishment normalize corruption again and again. If there is no power to challenge
institutional corruption, most people, over time, make of the corruption something less unjust
and outrageous. Simply smothering objections to injustice with institutional inertia, will,
over time, allow the victors to erase the evidence of their crime.
Sore Loserman
Since we believe, with the faith of fanatics, that competition must be honest and fair, it's
easy to gaslight the losers (or the apparent losers). The Republicans in 2000 did not need to
disprove the fact that George W. Bush had committed fraud and contravened the will of the
people when he climbed up a staircase of disenfranchised Black faces to become President. All
the Republicans needed to do was issue tens of thousands of bumper stickers that replaced the
words "Gore/Lieberman" with "Sore Loserman." The RNC was using the same argument that was
bruited about in the 1980s about poverty and employment. Unemployed poor people had lost the
economic competition. Therefore, there must be something wrong with them. Maybe they weren't
educated enough, smart enough, clean enough, hard-working enough; maybe they were people of bad
character. Bloomberg's racial profiling worked much the same way. Black people are losers in
the judicial game because they commit more crimes. That's why we put more police in their
neighborhoods, because there are more criminals among young Black men than anywhere else.
Corruption can't bring down a meritorious man. If you're good, you'll win. If you complain
about cheating or any other form of injustice, you must be a Sore Loserman, attempting to cover
up your own inadequacies by whining.
It's pretty obvious that this way of thinking makes it literally impossible to stop even the
most outrageous injustice, as long as the perpetrators of that injustice have enough power to
spread their "Sore Loser" messaging far and wide. So if I commit identity theft today and
access one of your bank accounts, I can be brought to account. But if Wall St cheats
homeowners, there was probably something wrong with the homeowners, or with the government for
suggesting that those homeowners should get loans. If George W. Bush cheats in an election,
there was probably something wrong with the other candidate, or with the voters.
People tend to get upset when I bring this up, because they think that talking about the
corruption of the system will demoralize voters, making such discussions their own form of
voter suppression. But I bring this up because the worst damage that can come out of Bernie
Sanders losing contests in a highly compromised electoral process is that the idea of
meritocracy be preserved. There are valid reasons for voting even in a corrupted system (of the
"make 'em sweat" variety). There are valid reasons for not voting in a corrupted system. But
whatever a citizen chooses to do on Election Day, the idea of meritocracy must die.
Despite all the truly horrendous policies, from both the Democrats and the Republicans, that
have laid our society, our people, and the world to waste, the most poisonous effect of the
tyranny we live under is its fraudulence: its pretense of being a fair, accurate, and
reasonable expression of the will of the people. Even the Democrats' attacks on Trump, who is
supposed to be a Manchurian candidate placed in office by Russian intelligence operatives and
an existential threat to our democracy, have, in the past two years, increasingly focused on
the people who support Trump. It's the voters fault for supporting the bad man. So even when we
are supposedly in a situation of foreign powers changing the outcome of a presidential
election, it's still the people's fault. Why? Well, there was a competition, and somebody won,
so the person who won must be there by the will of the people. It has to be the
people's fault.
Corruption among the powerful isn't a thing.
System-wide corruption in all the various infrastructures of our country, especially the
political ones, isn't a thing.
Or, if it is, you just didn't do enough lifting at the political gym to be able to fend it
off.
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
History Politics I hang around some pretty
intelligent people who have smart friends commenting on their facebook pages. The first part of
this post is from a comment on Claude Scales's Facebook page by William R. Everdell. I think it
fits with the NYT article Claude referenced. The second part of this is a shorten version of
the NYT Opinion
article "Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE," Matthew Connelly, Professor of
History, Columbia.
George Orwell in "'1984', Winston Smith was dropping documents into the 'memory hole' by his
desk at the Ministry of Truth – Minitrue
'Who controls the past controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past.'
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
Britain has finally made the Orwellian Pivot. Brazil is Bolsonaro-fied, Mexico and Canada are
USMCA-ed, Venezuela will be MAGA-cized. The Monroe Doctrine is growing carnivorous incisors.
Oceania is born!
There is a huge difference between extremely bright students and medicate ones. Bright students are the future of the society and
need to be nurtures and helped in any way possible for the range of specialties that are important (STEM is one example)
There is difference between the degree in computer science and the degree in some obscure nationality studies (let's say Eastern
European studies; few people that are needed can be paid by intelligence agencies ;-) Obscure areas should be generally available only
to well to do students, who can pay for their education.
Like is the case with alcoholism, some student debt is the result of bad personal choices.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... "My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my money back?" ..."
"... So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, ..."
"... "We did the right thing and we get screwed," ..."
"... "Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," ..."
"... "We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt." ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images) ..."
"... "I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," ..."
"... A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that! ..."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) defended her plan to pay off college loans after being confronted by a father in Iowa in an exchange
that went viral.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is confronted by a father who worked double shifts to pay for his daughters education and wants to
know if he will get his money back. pic.twitter.com/t2GGbAnG08
The father approached Warren, a leading Democratic presidential contender, after a campaign event in Grimes.
"My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my
money back?" the man asked Warren.
"Of course not," Warren replied.
" So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, " the
father told her.
He then described a friend who makes more money but didn't save up while he worked double shifts to save up to pay for his daughter's
college.
The father became upset, accusing Warren of laughing.
"We did the right thing and we get screwed," he added before walking off.
In an appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Friday, Warren was asked about the exchange.
Last night, a father who saved for his daughter's college education approached
@SenWarren and challenged her proposed student
loan forgiveness plan. @TonyDokoupil asks the
senator for her response: pic.twitter.com/jLUXPqChC6
"Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social
Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," Warren said.
Pressed on whether she was saying "tough luck" to people like the father, she said "No." She then recounted how she got to go
to college despite coming from a poor family.
"There was a $50 a semester option for me. I was able to go to college and become a public school teacher because America had
invested in a $50 a semester option for me. Today that's not available," she said.
"We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities
for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
One of Warren's plans is to cancel student loans. According to
her website , on her first day as president
she would cancel student loan debt as well as give free tuition to public colleges and technical schools and ban for-profit colleges
from getting aid from the federal government.
"I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans
consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," Warren
wrote.
"I'll also direct the Secretary of Education to use every existing authority available to rein in the for-profit college industry,
crack down on predatory student lending, and combat the racial disparities in our higher education system."
Sounds an awful lot like the dad above is right those that did the "right thing" are gonna get "screwed."
Warren you bitch, I paid back my student loans responsibly by working my *** off (140k) and now you want to give others a free
ride? I sure hope that I get a refund for all that money I paid back.
Obama did this kinds thing with housing. I got outbid by 100k on a house. The other bidder who got it didn't make his house
payments so Obama restructured his loan knocking off 100k from his loan and giving him a 1% interest rate on it. He again didn't
make his payments and got it restructured again but I didn't hear the terms of that one.
If student loan debt is such a crisis, force every university to use their precious endowment funds to underwrite those loans
AND let those loans get discharged in bankruptcy. Maybe then those schools would start to question whether having a dozen
"Diversity Deans" each being paid $100k+ salaries is really worth the expense (among other things).
A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply
to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that!
The pissed off dad in this story has only one person to be pissed off at: himself, for being stupid. Understand something about
college degrees: 90% of them, including majors like accounting, are not worth the paper they are printed on. Anyone who works
double shifts to pay for anyone's college degree, even their own, is stupid. Look at why college costs so much: go to any state,
and you'll see that 70% or more of the highest paid state employees are employed by public colleges and universities. You need
to play these sons of bitches at their game, use their funny money to pay for the degree, and walk away. If you play the way these
sons of bitches tell you to play, you get what you deserve.
I used their funny money to get a degree that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and walked away. I don't give a ****
if the sons of bitches grab my tax refund. Why? Because I have my withholdings set up so they get next to nothing in April. It
costs the sons of bitches more to print up the garnishment letter and send it to me than what they're stealing from me. Guess
what I use for an address? P.O. Box (can't serve a summons to a ghost).
If you're going to do what stupid, pissed off dad did, and work double shifts, you need to be trading out of all that funny
money you're being paid for those double shifts, and trading into personal economic leverage (gold first, then silver). Instead
of having bedrock to build multi-generational wealth, he has a daughter with a degree in pouring coffee, and nothing else to show
for it. He only has himself to blame for drinking the Kool Aid. I can grab overtime every Saturday at my job if I want it, and
every last penny of that OT is traded out of funny money and into gold ASAP.
Understand the US real estate market: the only reason it did not die five years ago was because we welcomed rich foreigners
to come in and buy real estate to protect their wealth. We've stopped doing that, we have an over-abundance of domestic sellers
and a severe shortage of domestic buyers. It's also where history says you need to be if you want to build multi-generational
wealth. Warren actually needs to go further than what she's proposing. Not only does she need to discharge 100% of those balances
by EO, she also needs to refund all those tax refunds stolen under false pretenses. Anything less, and we are guaranteed, for
the next 40 years, to have a real estate market and economy which resembles Japan since 1989.
Why do I buy gold? So I can play people like Warren at their game. I'll take whatever loan discharge she gives me, and have
lots of leverage in reserve to take advantage of what will be a once in a lifetime real estate fire sale.
Make those who want to be bailed out have to pay the bailout back by working every non-holiday Saturday (at the minimum wage
rate) for the government and citizens (e.g who need work done around the house, take care of the elderly - in the bathroom) until
the debt is paid back. AND let those who have not taken the debt relief supervise them - getting paid by the government at the
same rate, minimum wage. 🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞
For a decent college it's between 35-70k a year.... Why? 300k a year library professors, if it weren't for tenure the problem
would largely he self correcting as rntrillments drop...
My how times have changed. My son was a college grad circa 1996. He did the JUCO thing for 1 1/2 years , worked a part time
job for the duration, and picked up an A S while making the President's list. I aid, out of pocket all educational expenses while
he lived at home and provided for a nice lifestyle while he was in school. As promised, he finished his education, out of state,
which I paid for all along the way. 2 more years, he graduated, on the Pres list, and picked up his B S. No student debt, in his
words, was one of the the greatest gifts. Today he is debt free, (so am I ), and he is a very happy , financially secure ( until
the world goes upside down) mature adult. Hey Lizzie, send me a check.
They are all ignoring the real problem...the Federal mandated system of the guaranteed student loan program. Anyone with a
pulse can get a guaranteed student loan, thus creating a massive rise in college admissions. The colleges are guaranteed the money
for these loans, while the lender (the US gov't) is not guaranteed to be paid back by the students receiving these loans,. this
created a fool proof, risk free ability for colleges and universities across the country to jack up their tuition costs at over
a 5:1 ratio of income growth over the last 25 years. The problem is the program itself, students need to earn their ability to
enroll in college through hard work and good grades. Currently, any moron with a high school diploma can go to college on a guaranteed
student loan program and the colleges are more than willing to take on any idiot that wants to go to school despite their aspirations,
work ethics, intelligence, achievements, etc. The universities have been given a blank check to expand their campuses, drastically
inflate the salaries and pensions of professors and administrators of these schools all at the expense of this guaranteed "free"
money from the government that only achieved an immense amount of the population going to overpriced schools in order to get a
diploma in useless pursuits like african american studies, philosophy, creative writing, music, criminal justice, arts, basket
weaving, etc.. The skyrocketing costs of colleges and student debt is the direct result of this miserably failed system of the
guaranteed student loan. The majority of which have no business going to higher education because they don't have the aptitude,
work ethic and intelligence necessary to actually receive a degree in anything that benefits the economy and themselves going
forward. 30 years ago the average state college admission was roughly $4k a year for a good state school, today it is roughly
$20k or far more. Meanwhile, the average income has gone up a meaningless amount. Get rid of the guaranteed student loan program
and make the colleges responsible for accepting the responsibility of the loans for their students. I guarantee enrollment will
decrease and costs will decline making it much more affordable for the truly responsible and aspiring student to achieve their
dreams of a degree without a $250k loan needed for completion nor the lifelong strain of debt on their future incomes. The colleges
are raping the system the same as all these shoestring companies take advantage of the medicaid system and give hovarounds and
walking canes, and hearing aids for free because the gov't reimburses them at wildly inflated prices under some federally passed
mandate. The system is the problem, eliminating the debt will only exacerbate it and cost taxpayers trillions more each and every
year as "free" college will now entice every moron with a heartbeat the ability to go to outrageously priced schools with no skin
in the game on the taxpayer's dime. Elizabeth Warren is an idiot....someone needs to have a sit down with her and discuss this
rationale in her luxurious, state of the art TeePee.
While you are correct corrupting academics with huge payoffs is how you secure their votes and the votes of most of the 'students'
for decades to come.
Any group or industry can be paid off and you might think of the system as a set of interlocking payoffs until you get out
to the margins and the fringes where the cash and benefits are a lot thinner.
Everyone who continues to pay taxes to these neo-Bolsheviks is going to get screwed. The only alternative is to stop funding
these criminals completely.
What a sorry presidential canditate! She flat out LIED about being native american to get FREE college. And now this. Where
has America gone????????? Socialism sems to be what most want nowadays. It has NEVER EVER worked anywhere in the world at any
time! If yoou think therwise, just name ONE countryn it has worked in ! What a lying bunch the democrats are..........................
So all if us have to pay for it. Why did I have to pay for University and College in the 1970's if I wanted to further my education
and now that I am older I have to foot the bill for the young people of today? Pay DOUBLE? (just to buy votes for traitors?)
I think NOT! Take your theft from the people, to buy votes of everyone from young people to illegal criminals to outright criminals
in prison to dead people and resign before we decide to arrest you.
Democrats, HANG IT UP! We are NOT paying for YOUR illegitimate votes.
Notice too how all their "we're going to wipe out your debt!" promises never seem to include the big "endowments" of these
fascist colleges that jacked up tuition 1000% over what it used to cost.
No, those creepy commie profs and their freaky administrators get to keep their big TAX FREE endowments AND their big salaries.
Big Gov by Sanders/Warren don't seem to think that's obscene.
You are absolutely correct. 45 years ago you could almost work part time and actually PAY your way through college. Today you
almost need a physicians salary to pay for these OVERPRICED sewers filled with leftist propaganda.
It's obvious that Warren doesn't teach economics or even math. They weren't smart enough when they took out the loans and they
are not good with paying their bills so move the goal posts to bail them out. Has anyone given the thought that maybe they shouldn't
have gone to college at all. Sounds like they will all work for the government anyways.
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
@ Russ | Jan 22 2020 8:33 utc | 86 (about the gas cylinder(s).
Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some calculus
can tell you, give you, a range of terminal velocities in air at that elevation. You have to
assume that the thing fell in the "best" attitude, and also the "worst" attitude - a matter
of aerodynamic drag. Obviously there's a terminal velocity - somewhere about 200 feet per
second. There's a minimum altitude above which it doesn't fall any faster because of
drag...and it has a krappy drag coefficient. You have to work with the numbers to get a fine
understanding...but it's the sort of question you'd see in a university engineering exam.
The mass is assumed to be something like 100 pounds. Do the math.
Then there's the question of concrete quality...it's highly heterogeneous..but you can
assume it's top quality, and estimate the rebar density and thickness from the pretty
pictures.
And you can assume zero projectile deformation (not even straps torn off!!?) and the
hole's not big enough.
somebody @96: "But Western main stream media does not report on it."
Of course not. The western corporate mass media does not have among their workforce
"Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some
calculus..." that Walter @95 points out as being a prerequisite to see how bogus is the
narrative they are tasked with amplifying. The workforce chose to major in Journalism
specifically because they had difficulties with basic arithmetic, with such heartless and
unyielding topics as addition and subtraction being forever beyond them in the absence of a
calculator.
Many think I exaggerate or am joking, but this is literal truth. These individuals of
which the corporate mass media are composed get their conception of physics from crappy syfy
movies in which spaceship blasters make "Pew-pew!!" noises in the vacuum of space. If
it is necessary for the plot that a flimsy canister is able to punch through steel rebar
reinforced concrete with barely a scratch, then they are fine with it. If these new age
journalists' "contact" in Langley (what we know to be their "handler" or
"operator" ) says it is believable, they won't pause for an instant to question.
After all, earnest delusion and ignorance serves the Mockingbird mass media's
handlers in the CIA far better than does cynical and deliberate deception, though that last
does have a sizable role to play as well. Deliberate deception is difficult and requires some
skill, while any American can do stupidity with the greatest of ease.
"... There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students, who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater specialties). ..."
"... Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from the Red Army was waiting for you. ..."
"... translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books were translated into Russian within a very short interval. ..."
"... But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own (except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-). ..."
"... Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic sense. ..."
"... I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no "business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science ..."
"... The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the talent of those few who managed to get into universities. ..."
"... Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations. ..."
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet
educational system is delusional.
However, the US has understood something that the Russians and any decent people don't get:
The people are consumers. They should not be educated beyond the needed to use the most recent
applications on their electronic devices. Anything further carries the danger of having them
discontent and thus an inroad to the Western entity.
Also, a military is not there to win wars and subsequently have a headache about how to deal
with the conquered people. It is about wrecking far away places and providing opportunities to
claim invoices from the federal government.
Modern, hybrid warfare is not about applying this or that military means, but about
occupying the universities, courts and parliaments of the subdued people – finally
occupying their minds. And yes, to do so includes that the weaponry should look cool and
provide job opportunities for the hopeless youngsters of that amorphous mass formerly called
the nation.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians will have to stay alert 24/7/365 not to fall into the abyss
of depravity that the Great Western Civilisation is offering to them. I am afraid, that the
threat is very real that in the end they will be worn down.
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet educational
system is delusional.
Believe me or not, I would prefer the USA system of education (with all its warts) to the
Soviet system in the 70-90th without any hesitation. And with the same quality of students, the
USA would achive the same or better results.
There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students,
who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary
universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater
specialties).
Soviet universities were as poor as church rats, which has one good side effect that they
were forced to concentrate more on classic subjects like physics and math, which do not require
expensive labs. So students got a solid background in math and physics. But that's about
it.
Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the
university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic
rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from
the Red Army was waiting for you.
As emigrants from the USSR told me, programming courses were simply dismal, and graduates
essentially learned the craft of the jobs, not at universities.
Even math books were the second rate in comparison with the USA textbooks of the same
period.
They were written by a representative of so-called axiomatic schools and were extremely
boring and uninformative. But many good math books were translated (for example, Polia
writings) Actually, as I understand, translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only
first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection
and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books
were translated into Russian within a very short interval.
Academic degrees were also mostly fake (much like they are in the USA now ;-): one of my
friends told me that his Ph.D. from top Ukrainian University was counted only as a master
degree in the USA by the commission which studied his thesis (I believe in NYU)
But again, most good western books on tech subjects were translated and were somewhat
available. And if you compare Feynman lectures (which were also translated) to Soviet physics
textbooks, Soviet textbooks were not even competitive. Some "cutting edge" books was OK. But
very few.
The professors and lectures (including professors large part of which were just incompetent
jerks, promoted due to nepotism or Communist party activities) deteriorated to the level that
was simply painful to watch. Some came to lectures completely unprepared or drank, or tried to
teach some completely bogus theories of their own invention. Many did not come at all sending
assistants.
My impression is that essentially, in 1990, Soviet science and education experienced the
same crisis as the Communist social system as a whole.
But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of
the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university
teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own
(except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-).
Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects
for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no
matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic
sense.
That was especially true as you also need to pass exams in Marxism philosophy and Political
economy to get a degree. Those subjects were frown upon, but in retrospect were useful:
students were forced to read classics, not junk like in neo-classical economics courses in the USA.
I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not
the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no
"business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of
the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science
The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was
staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of
whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the
talent of those few who managed to get into universities.
Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many
problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of
Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations.
The question on everyone's mind: When will the trumpet blare and the walls come tumbling
down? And second to that, when will Iran take the next action in its avenging Soleimani's
murder?
"... Unfortunately, the book does little more to move into an analysis of US foreign policy decision making beyond the military's impact nor does it make recommendations for changes to better the current situation. The book seemed to be more of a compilation of "reports from the field" than an analysis of foreign policy decision making and the military's role in it. I suppose the author's goals and my expectations were decidedly different but I expected more from this book. ..."
I read David Halberstam's `War in a Time of Peace' and this seemed like a good
continuation. Halbersam covers the Bush 1, Clinton period, in retrospect an idyllic period.
This book transitions through 9/11, but really covers the development of the Combatant
Commander for the US Military in the various areas of the world - Pacific Command, Central
Command etc. It does cover the successful invasion of Afghanistan, it covers conflicts in
Kosova, Columbia and relationships in the Middle East and Asia. It doesn't cover the Iraq
invasion or subsequent failures.
I was particularly struck by the contrast between the resources available for the military
commanders in various countries, and the US ambassadors to the same countries. The commanders
can have transport and material resources which are an order of magnitude away from the
civilians, and therefore the local politicians/dictators get the message that the US
relationship is mainly a military one. Priest gives a good overview, especially in the
Kosovo, of the power and limitations of the military-only relationship. She also concludes
that even the military must take some part in peace-making and low level nation-building, but
the bigger story in that the US, by virtue of its size and power, must take a
nation-development role if it hopes to avoid having a low-level war with the developing world
for generations to come. In fact the situation has probably got clearly since, and the
current debate about leaving Afghanistan and non-intervention in Syria, makes this book
appear prophetic.
Lastly there are remarkable portraits of Generals Zinni and Blair who were combatant
commanders in the Central and Pacific commands during this time period. The contrast between
their power and status when in the military and their post-military career is significant
(though not mentioned in the book), Zinni was messed about when proposed but eventually not
selected as ambassador to Saudia Arabia, Blair was later director of National Intelligence in
the Obama White House, but was could not get along in that particular fishbowl and was fired
in mid 2010.
Overall, this book is a basic overview of the structure and operation of the US armed
forces theater commands in the final days of their power and prestige, before the Bush
administration centralized control, power, prestige, decision- and policy-making to
Washington, DC. It is a view of the last great days of the regional Commanders-in-Chief, the
CINCs, and their geographically-oriented theater commands of immense space, scope, power and
influence.
My criticism of this book is straightforward and simple, yet speaks directly to the
overall character and accuracy of this work: Dana Priest is grossly incorrect in her
statements, and therefore in the conclusions she makes, specifically in Chapter Ten, "The
Indonesian Handshake." I was intimately and directly involved in the entire episode, and it
did not unfold as she describes.
I quote from page 230: "Meanwhile, since January 1998, seven intelligence analysts at the
'Joint Intelligence Center Pacific' (JIC), the world largest military-intelligence center, in
a windowless concrete building near (US Pacific Command CINC, Admiral Dennis) Blair's
headquarters in Hawaii, had tracked the movements of Indonesian military and militia forces
in East Timor and Indonesia. The Indonesia desk in the JIC had grown from one to nine persons
and maintained a round-the-clock 'crisis action' mode. Over the preceding year, the analysts
had received a tenfold increase in imagery and a fivefold increase in electronic collection.
It was actually too much to process."
First of all, Priest blows the name of the institution she's describing. It's the Joint
Intelligence Center Pacific, or JICPAC (now Joint Intelligence Operations Center, Pacific, or
JIOC-PAC). Second, the "Indonesia desk" implies a single person monitoring this country. That
was never the case, as a team of at least five analysts had always been assigned to maritime
Southeast Asia. Suharto's 1998 fall had ramped up both Pacific Command's and JICPAC's
attention to Indonesia, and the scheduled elections of mid-1999 and following East Timor
referendum were anticipated months in advance, with commensurate analytical adjustments and
assignments. Newly assigned to the Pacific Command intelligence directorate, I was detailed
to JICPAC personally by the Pacific Command Director for Intelligence, Rear Admiral Rick
Porterfield to assist in this effort.
I was one of two US Army Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) assigned to this issue. I had just
completed five years of training in Southeast Asia, with an International Studies masters
degree, both Indonesian and Malaysian language training, and attendance at the 1998 class of
the Malaysian Armed Forces Staff College. My partner was an Indonesian staff college
graduate. We two Southeast Asia FAOs, both senior US Army majors, were the officers in
charge. I was the Chief of the East Timor Crisis Cell for the entire period of the East Timor
crisis, and I take immense pride in the work that I and especially my analysts performed
during this period. This was the best analytical team I've ever worked with, experienced,
highly intellectual, eager, motivated, and thoroughly familiar with the issue at hand, as
well as all of the related regional and functional issues. They performed brilliantly in an
extended crisis mode.
At no time was the information we were requesting and receiving "too much to process."
Early on, Admiral Blair and Rear Admiral Porterfield recognized the potential for unrest and
crisis, and supported all command activities to prepare for all possible outcomes, which we
explored and analyzed continuously. I and my people updated both leaders daily with
briefings, papers, and direct consultation, which increased in frequency, intensity and scope
as events unfolded. We aggressively worked with all relevant and engaged national-level
agencies and elements for our intelligence collection requirements, and based upon
national-level reconciliation we were given what was available and appropriate to the
situation. Yes, we were receiving increased collection and reporting, through all
intelligence disciplines and channels, not merely the ones Priest cites. At no time was
anything we were doing or being asked to do too much for us to process. At no time was the
information that we were requesting from national-level intelligence collection too much for
us to process. The support we received from the commanding officer of JICPAC, now Marine
Major General Mike Ennis, was outstanding in every possible way. He supported our needs and
actions personally and fully, a consummate professional and directly engaged commanding
officer. Whatever resources and assets we requested, he personally attended to those needs,
immediately.
I challenge Ms. Priest to name the source(s) who provided such grossly incorrect
information. I was present in Hawaii as she did her research there, and at no time were
either my FAO partner or I contacted to discuss our roles in the crisis.
I offer a highly telling anecdote which illustrates Ms. Priest's qualifications to write
on this specific issue: Upon entering JICPAC for the very first time, Ms. Priest asked
informally and good-naturedly of her escorts, "Why is the Australian flag flying outside?"
Well, yes, both Pacific Command and JICPAC work very closely with our Australian partners,
always have, and enjoy doing so immensely. But JICPAC does not fly a foreign flag from its
quarterdeck. Of course, Ms. Priest had mistaken the Hawaiian flag with its Union Jack in the
upper left corner as the Australian flag, telling the JICPAC intelligence specialists,
researchers, and analysts more than enough about her familiarity with Pacific Command,
showing a small yet true measure of the depth of expertise and background knowledge she
brought to her work in the US Pacific Command theater.
Bottom Line: Take this book as a historical account of the now-gone days of the power and
prestige of the theater commands, a late 90s snapshot. That being said, the book is
fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect, at least as far as Chapter Ten reads. I cannot
speak for the remainder of the work, but my direct and intimate experience with the events
she grossly incorrectly describes here is more than enough for me to dismiss this book in its
entirety.
Eric Johnson December 12, 2003
Mission Accomplished?
Format: Hardcover
Dana Priest is a well-respected journalist with the Washington Post and a frequent guest on NBC's "Meet the Press." She
specializes on military and intelligence topics, so it was with great interest that I read her book "The Mission". Her
thesis, that the US military is playing an ever increasing role in US foreign policy matters and that the nation is becoming
dependent on the military's presence in foreign affairs, could not be more timely.
She presents her argument via a series of vignettes which cover senior military leaders as well as a broad spectrum of recent
military operations. She primarily writes from the military's perspective and its impact on foreign policy. The profiles of
the four, 4-star commanders provide the reader with a sense of the situation each commander faced in 1999 and how their
ideals influenced not only their area of responsibility but also our foreign affairs. Priest chronicles our military
activities with examples that range from major operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans, our covert drug war in South
America, and the relatively unnoticed actions in Nigeria and Indonesia. Her stories capture the military's struggle to
achieve success across the entire spectrum of operations.
She does a good job of stating her argument and offers varied examples of where the military is setting the foreign policy
agenda. Unfortunately, the book does little more to move into an analysis of US foreign policy decision making beyond the
military's impact nor does it make recommendations for changes to better the current situation. The book seemed to be more of
a compilation of "reports from the field" than an analysis of foreign policy decision making and the military's role in it. I
suppose the author's goals and my expectations were decidedly different but I expected more from this book.
I feel her point would have benefited from a comparison of the State Dept's and the DoD's role in US foreign policy
making. She also needed to consider the contributions of non-governmental organizations to the foreign policy equation.
Additionally, if the author thinks we are becoming reliant on the military to conduct foreign policy, she should include
recommendations to counter that reliance. I enjoyed reading the well-written vignettes, thought this is a great introduction
on the topic of political-military relations as it impacts foreign affairs, but would like to see more analysis and less
story-telling.
Not recommended for anybody with a college education, especially in STEM. The author's writing is entertaining, but that's the
only positive feature of the book. All-in-all this is a collection of cyber-rumors. Thus one star.
The content is simply yet another "Russians under each bed" fearmongering transposed into cyberspace. The magic abbreviation GRU
sells such sensationalist nonsense really well. What is funny is that the organization referred as GRU does not exist under this
name since I think 1991; after the dissolution of the USSR it was renamed GU (Wikipedia GRU_(G.U.)), but I heard that now Russians
in view of the popularity of the name in the West plan to restore the original name ;-).
So much for the non-technical competence of the author in this area. The guy clearly can't shoot straight and belongs to the
category of journalists whose news coverage is considered to be inappropriately influenced by business interests, political motives,
and trumpeted by the corporate media. There is an appropriate slang name for this category; you can Google it.
In a way, the book can serve as a classic example of Russophobia in the narrow area of cybersecurity. He presents little or no
legitimate facts, preferring to retell rumors and using eye-catching phrases like a "dark room with glowing monitors". For example,
"Working on computers whose glowing monitors were the room's only light source, the reverse engineers began by running the
Ukrainians' malware-infected PowerPoint attachment again and again inside a series of virtual machines."
It is absurd to have a dark room to investigate malware ;-)
Techniques of category of journalists include exaggerations of news events, misrepresentation of facts, sensationalism,
scandal-mongering, and . They usually politicized facts and treat them in an unprofessional and/or unethical fashion.
The author is clearly is not a programmer, just a reasonably gifted snake cyber oil seller. He would be better off if he tries to
distill the content of Vault 7 based on Wikileak's information. In this case, I think both source code (archive of malware ) and
descriptions and user manuals are available in the public domain; so with enough tech skills and time in hand one can write a really
fascinating book. But that's too hard for the guy. So he just decided to milk the public by rehashing and spreading unsubstantiated
cyber rumors.
The technical level of the author can be illustrated by the following paragraph
---quote---
When Robinson finally cracked those layers of obfuscation after a week of trial and error, he was rewarded with a view of the
BlackEnergy samples millions of ones and zeros -- a collection of data that was, at a glance, still entirely meaningless. This was,
after all, the program in its compiled form, translated into machine-readable binary rather than any human-readable programming
language. To understand the binary, Robinson would have to watch it execute
step-by-step on his computer, unraveling it in real-time with a common reverse-engineering tool called IDA Pro that translated the
function of its commands into code as they ran. "It's almost like you're trying to determine what someone might look like solely by
looking at their DNA," Robinson said. "And the god that created that person
was trying to make the process as hard as possible."
---end---
So trivial step-by-step tracing of the code using a non-standard (more suitable for the specific purpose) binary debugger (IDA) is
in the author's opinion close to decoding DNA. Nice try but no cigar ;-) .
Actually, the debugger does not necessarily process machine binary code. It can be some VM code like Java VM. For example, parts of
Flame malware (2012) were written in LUA. Along with Stuxnet this was another groundbreaking malware, which unfortunately was
omitted by the author.
Similar incompetent techno-blabbing fills the rest of the book.
Unless this is a pre-paid part of a disinformation campaign by usual suspects, the book is really weak and should be avoided at
prices above one dollar plus shipping. But it is OK effort, if we view it as a part of the disinformation campaign and the attempt
to revive McCarthyism.
Ukrainian part of his story fully correlates with the State Department talking points, and as such, it is stupid to pay money for
it. All other Russophobia based cyber-entertainment and fearmongering is available for free, including multiple good quality videos
on YouTube (look for Crowdstrike :-)
This propaganda honcho was too lazy even to collect relevant information about the Stuxnet -- the groundbreaking worm, which really
opened a new changer in cyberwafare. It is covered in just a dozen pages (96-109) -- less then the length is less of a free good
quality magazine article on this important subject (for example, from Mark Russinovich).
But on the level of qualification of the author all worms looks the same :-) In reality this was a real, very sophisticated act of
cyberwafare, not some Ukrainian hallucinations.
I fully agree with the assessment of "val s golovskoy" (the only other one star reviewer so far):
--quote--
1.0 out of 5 stars Readers: do not waste your time. December 30, 2019
Tones of rumors, zero facts. The book is following the fashionable trend to dump everything happens in America/UK to the Kremlin.
Easy and comfortable but far from reality.
The author [is] full of fears and see enemy's computers even under his bed. This book creating another legend: how Russian hackers
tried (but did not) to crash Ukrainian system.
Absolutely false and extremely boring. Low intellectual level - do not waste your time.
-- end --
Here is the contents of the book:
313 - In 2010, Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and CIA, made a darkly prescient point in a keynote at the Black
Hat security conference in Las Vegas, speaking to a crowd of programmers, security engineers, and hackers. "You guys made the
cyber domain look like the north German plain. Then you bitch and moan when you get invaded," he said. "On the Internet, we arc
all Poland. We all get invaded on the Web. The inherent geography of this domain is that everything plays to the offense."
317- In an era marked by those in positions of power telling shameless, blatantly self-promotional lies, that sort of
selfless truth telling is more admirable and important than ever.
Working on computers whose glowing monitors were the room's only
light source, the reverse engineers began by running the Ukrainians'
malware-infected PowerPoint attachment again and again inside a
scries of virtual machines -- ephemeral simulations of a computer
housed within a real, physical one, each one of them as scaled oft
from the rest of the computer as the black room was from the rest
of the iSight offices.
In those sealed containers, the code could be studied like a scor-
pion under an aquarium's glass. They'd allow it to infect its virtual
victims repeatedly, as the reverse engineers spun up simulations of
different digital machines, running varied versions of Windows and
Microsoft Office, to study the dimensions and flexibility of the attack.
When they'd determined that the code could extract itself from the
PowerPoint file and gain full control of even the latest, fully patched
versions of the software, they had their confirmation: It was indeed
a zero day, as rare and powerful as the Ukrainians and Hultquist
had suspected. By late in the evening -- a passage of time that went
almost entirely unmarked within their work space -- they'd produced
a detailed report to share with Microsoft and their customers and
coded their own version of it, a proof-of-concept rewrite that dem-
onstrated its attack, like a pathogen in a test tube.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Readers: do not waste your time
December 30, 2019
Format: Hardcover
Tones of rumors, zero facts. The book is
following the fashionable trend to dump everything happens in America/UK to the Kremlin. Easy and comfortable but far from
reality. The author full of fears and see enemy's computers even under his bed. This book creating another legend: how Russian
hackers tried (but did not) to crash Ukrainian system. Absolutely false and extremely boring. Low intellectual level- do not
waste your time.
"... "When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson." ..."
"... Bill's frustration with what he referred to as "the rightward-drifting Democrats" ran deep. While his books often explored economic themes -- with particular brilliance in One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (1997) and Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987) -- he was at his finest when he wrote about the awful intersection of money and politics, in books such as Who Will Tell the People? The Betrayal of American Democracy (1992). ..."
"... Bill believed Wall Street money was corrupting American politics in general, and the Democratic Party in particular. Decades ago, during the Reagan interregnum, he warned that if the Democrats did not renew the robust commitment to economic justice that characterized FDR's tenure at its best, then surely right-wing populists would seize the opening. As always, whether he was writing for The Washington Post , Rolling Stone or The Nation (where he served as the ablest of all national affairs correspondents), Bill was right. ..."
"... The power arrangement resembles a shared monopoly, in which two companies have tacitly ceded territories to each other to avoid costly competition. ..."
"... Furthermore, the permanent hierarchy of both parties is dominated at the top by a network of pricey Washington lawyers and lobbyists who represent business interests and collaborate with one another on lobbying the government -- while pretending to be opponents. These inside players channel their corporate clients' money to the elected politicians. In effect, everyone is on the same side. ..."
I knew Bill as a quick-witted comrade in the press corps of too many campaigns to count, a generous mentor, an ideological compatriot,
and an occasional co-conspirator. He taught me to see politics not as the game that TV pundits discuss but as a high-stakes struggle
for power in which the Democrats foolishly, and then dangerously, yielded far too much ground to increasingly right-wing Republicans.
This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to the financial meltdown
of 2008,
I knew Bill as a quick-witted comrade in the press corps of too many campaigns to count, a generous mentor, an ideological compatriot,
and an occasional co-conspirator. He taught me to see politics not as the game that TV pundits discuss but as a high-stakes struggle
for power in which the Democrats foolishly, and then dangerously, yielded far too much ground to increasingly right-wing Republicans.
This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to the financial
meltdown of 2008, This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to
the financial meltdown of 2008, explaining after
the devastating Republican victories of 2010 , "When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use
government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end
of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson."
And, anticipating the rise of Donald Trump, he counseled that the void left by Democrats who pulled their punches would be filled
by Republicans who would not hesitate to practice the crudest divide-and-conquer politics. And, anticipating the rise of Donald Trump,
he counseled that the void left by Democrats who pulled their punches would be filled by Republicans who would not hesitate to practice
the crudest divide-and-conquer politics.
Bill's frustration with what he referred to as "the rightward-drifting Democrats" ran deep. While his books often explored economic
themes -- with particular brilliance in One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (1997) and Secrets
of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987) -- he was at his finest when he wrote about the awful intersection
of money and politics, in books such as Who Will Tell the People? The Betrayal of American Democracy (1992).
Bill believed Wall Street money was corrupting American politics in general, and the Democratic Party in particular. Decades
ago, during the Reagan interregnum, he warned that if the Democrats did not renew the robust commitment to economic justice that
characterized FDR's tenure at its best, then surely right-wing populists would seize the opening. As always, whether he was writing
for The Washington Post , Rolling Stone or The Nation (where he served as the ablest of all national affairs
correspondents), Bill was right.
More than 30 years ago, he recognized that "the two-party rivalry is not nearly as significant as it's made to appear" and
counseled that
The power arrangement resembles a shared monopoly, in which two companies have tacitly ceded territories to each other to avoid
costly competition.
Furthermore, the permanent hierarchy of both parties is dominated at the top by a network of pricey Washington lawyers and
lobbyists who represent business interests and collaborate with one another on lobbying the government -- while pretending to
be opponents. These inside players channel their corporate clients' money to the elected politicians. In effect, everyone is on
the same side.
The parties have begun to delineate themselves a bit more in recent years. But not sufficiently, as Bill explained in scorchingly
honest articles for The Nation . He spoke inconvenient truths about the roots of our current politics, especially when he
explained
that "the Democratic Party's crude betrayal of the working class was carried out by Bill Clinton and Al Gore when those 'New Democrats'
won power in 1992. The Clinton-Gore administration swiftly enacted NAFTA, with Republican votes, sealing the deal with Republican
policy-makers and selling out the remnants of organized labor." Bill recognized the necessity of understanding this history in order
to explain the rise of Trump and Trumpism.
Above all, Bill argued that for Democrats to seize the high ground, morally and electorally, they had to stop being a "managerial
party" and reacquaint themselves with the message FDR delivered during an epically successful 1936 reelection run. That was the year
when Roosevelt declared that
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism,
sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government
by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous
in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.
I don't know if Bill had that FDR speech memorized. But he carried its spirit in his heart and soul. And he taught the rest of
us to do the same. He appreciated the history, as all great journalists do. But there was a point to its recollection. He wanted
people to think about how a genuine two-party system might work in the 21st century.
The better part of two decades ago, Bill pointed to the way out when he wrote, for The Nation , on Republican scheming
to roll back the economic and social advances initiated by progressives during the 20th century. It was sound advice then. It is
sounder advice now, as a great wrestling for the soul of the Democratic Party plays out in the fight for the 2020 nomination to take
on Trump.
"Most elected Democrats, I think, now see their role as managerial rather than big reform, and fear that even talking about ideology
will stick them with the right's demon label: 'liberal,'" he suggested. But,
he continued,
If a new understanding of progressive purpose does get formed, one that connects to social reality and describes a more promising
future, the vision will not originate in Washington but among those who see realities up close and are struggling now to change
things on the ground. We are a very wealthy (and brutally powerful) nation, so why do people experience so much stress and confinement
in their lives, a sense of loss and failure? The answers, I suggest, will lead to a new formulation of what progressives want.
The first place to inquire is not the failures of government but the malformed power relationships of American capitalism --
the terms of employment that reduce many workers to powerless digits, the closely held decisions of finance capital that shape
our society, the waste and destruction embedded in our system of mass consumption and production. The goal is, like the right's,
to create greater self-fulfillment but as broadly as possible. Self-reliance and individualism can be made meaningful for all
only by first reviving the power of collective action.
My own conviction is that a lot of Americans are ready to take up these questions and many others. Some are actually old questions
-- issues of power that were not resolved in the great reform eras of the past. They await a new generation bold enough to ask
if our prosperous society is really as free and satisfied as it claims to be. When conscientious people find ideas and remedies
that resonate with the real experiences of Americans, then they will have their vision, and perhaps the true answer to the right
wing.
This was how Bill Greider told the people of the politics that must be. He wrote truthfully, boldly, consistently, without fear
or favor, and without the empty partisanships of these awkward times. He was our North Star.
As an awoken negro, I appreciate this book telling the truth. Not only telling me that
I am not anti -Semite but I am perhaps an original Semite. For me this book puts a lot
into perspective especially about the origin of the Jewish people and confirming my
suspicions that the majority of the modern day Jew is not the same people as referred to
in the Bible as Hebrews or the chosen people of the Most High Yah. Great read...
Lynne
, Reviewed in the United States on June 24, 2016
I have read about half of this book and find it very interesting and informative. It
certainly clears up a mystery for me. I am a native New Yorker and had many acquaintances
who were Jewish from European ancestry. But I could never understand how this
assimilation took place, since the Jews were supposed to be from the middle east.
This
book explains other parallel historical developments concerning the Vikings, Russia,
other Turkish tribes as well as the Khazars development and subsequent conversion.
As one
gets past the introductory information, the book reads as well as a non-fiction work, as
opposed to a dry historical tome. There are plenty of footnotes and references to
substantiate the research. The author is very careful to give the sources he relies on
and in most cases tries to get more than one source to substantiate the information he
relies on.
This book is not a polemic or agenda driven, but rather one that tries to
enlighten the reader as to historical occurrences. I suggest that this book will be
informative to anyone interested in early European history and its alliances affect us
today.
Julius
Williams , Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2016
I found this book to be quite an extensive and in depth history of the Khazarian
Jewish people. He reveals much of their history that has been deliberately hidden for
centuries and gives insight into the reasons why. Read more
Great book! Tells the truth about God's Chosen People. Who they are and where they're
from. Interesting and full of knowledge. Read all you can find about these "people."
Read more 8
people found this helpful
Madisyn
Foote , Reviewed in the United States on June 11, 2019
Man what a history lesson. Great book and sourced well. I suggest it to anyone seeking
the truth about the people in "Israel" claiming to be Jews. Who are in fact descendants
of Japheth... not Shem! This book is not anti-Shemetic. You have to be a Semite for that
term to apply. Loved it! I strongly suggest it to read. Read more
I have known about the Khazar empire for some time, but it was about time to do some
real investigation. Starting with Arthur Koestler was a good start--he meticulously
researched available information. But also, he makes some speculations based on
historical time periods regarding the origin of the Sephardim in the Diaspora, which was
many centuries after the Khazar empire's decline.
The Khazars moved into Poland from
Ukraine and Russia, and in the Diaspora, many Jews moved east to the areas once inhabited
by the Khazars, bringing a different Jewish culture with them (expulsion from Spain and
Portugal in the late 1400s).
This leads to the conclusion (speculative) that the
Ashkenazim are descended from the Khazars, and the Sephardim are a completely different
genetic strain of Jews descended from those who lived in the Iberian peninsula,
occasionally intermarrying with Catholics and Muslims in Spain during a period that some
describe as "convivencia" (conflict free), and others describe as a period of continual
conflict between Catholics, Muslims, and Jews.
I once read a series of historical
accounts of this 700 year period of Catholics, Muslims, and Jews living peacefully
together, yet Koestler describes the period as one of agitation and conflict.
This could
account for the expulsion of the Moors and Jews in 1492 by Queen Isabella, the main force
behind the Inquisition.
One has to wonder if in fact she was a sadist who enjoyed the
torture machinery used on non-Catholics to get them to covert to Catholicism, or die. Yet
so-called "conversos" were always suspected of practicing their original religions, and
the language of the Jews, Ladino (a mix of Spanish and Hebrew, totally different from the
Yiddish of the Khazars) survives today and is studied by linguists and spoken by some
Sephardim.
I can't think of a better place to start a journey into the less-known movements of
large populations and their later effects in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries than
Arthur Koestler's "Thirteenth Tribe." I think his scholarship speaks for itself....there
are later works on the Khazars, yet this is a very well written and readable piece of
historical research.
Manipulation of the language is one of the most powerful Propaganda tool. See the original Orwell essay at George Orwell Politics
and the English Language. among other things he stated "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
Notable quotes:
"... we were set a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts distorted and misrepresented without technically lying. ..."
"... It might be taught in Media Studies, I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them. ..."
I remember at school we read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language in an English class and then we were set
a writing task as a follow-up, reporting on the same story using the same facts, from completely opposing points of view, using
euphemism and mind-numbing cliches. Teach children to do this themselves and they can see how language can be skewed and facts
distorted and misrepresented without technically lying.
How many children in schools are taught such critical thinking these days, I wonder? It might be taught in Media Studies,
I suppose - but gosh, don't the right really hate that particular subject! Critical thinking is anathema to them.
Totalitarian ideologies live by lies and contradiction. For example, the slave-state of
North Korea , ruled by
a hereditary dictatorship, proclaims itself a Democratic People's Republic when it is neither
democratic, popular, nor a republic.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four , Orwell wrote of how "the names of the
four Ministries by which [the oppressed population is] governed exhibit a sort of impudence in
their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the
Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with
starvation.
These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary
hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink ."
Defending the death-machine
You could, then, call GCHQ and the NSA part of the Ministry of Morality. While breaking laws
against surveillance and trying to destroy freedom of expression and enquiry, they pretend that
they're caring, ethical organizations who defend the oppressed and want to build a better
world. In fact, of course, GCHQ and the NSA are defending the death-machine of the military-industrial
complex , which has been wrecking nations and slaughtering civilians in
the Middle East (and elsewhere ) for
decades.
Quote: Orwell didn't foresee the celebration of homosexuality by totalitarians, but he did
explain it.
If you read Anthony Burgess' The Wanting Seed he writes about the roles of gays in
dystopia. He also talks about race, two things that Orwell and Huxley didn't. The Wanting
Seed is just as important in the world of dystopia as Brave New World or 1984.
one way George Orwell got the future completely wrong
That assumes he was writing about the future. He was mocking the Soviet "justice" system
in the recent past. The man was a satirist, after all. How did Stalin's men treat sexual
deviation?
1) The iniquities of the members of one skyfairy cult are not evidence for the virtues of
another such organisation and never will be.
2) It seems likely to me that homosexuality is a feature of overpopulation and may be a
natural population control mechanism. Experiments have shown that rats kept in overcrowded
conditions exhibit homosexual tendencies and also become more violent towards other rats. I
doubt that it is purely a coincidence that homosexuality first became notable round about the
time that humans started living in cities.
Other species have means of controlling their
populations, rabbits for example can reabsorb their embryos if the population count is too
high, seals can freeze the development of their foetuses etc.
I see no rational purpose in demonising homosexuals and I am certainly not going to let the purveyors of ancient
superstitious claptrap do my thinking for me. Cue howls of outrage from both skyfairy
cultists and from queers (if they are happy to use the word I don't see why I shouldn't)
3) It seems to me that the Zionist bankers have essentially bankrupted the western world
in an attempt to bring the rest of the world under their control, they have failed. They are
now attempting to mobilise any and all sections of the population that identify as minorities
as allies against the majorities in those countries, importing as many more as they can get
away with. What sense does it make to reinforce their narrative that it is heterosexual
whites v everyone else? because that is exactly what some people are doing. The Zionists are
making their following as broad as possible while attempting to narrow ours, why play into
their hands? Opposition to immigration for example does not have to be presented as a racial
issue, many people here in the UK were opposed to mass immigration from eastern Europe on
purely economic grounds, Poles and Lithuanians are not a different race and hardly even a
different culture. Do you really think that Blacks and Latinos that have been in the US for
generations are uniformly delighted about a new influx of cheap labour? Do you really believe
that Muslims are the natural allies of Jews or of homosexuals? If you actually put some
thought into the struggle rather than relying on superstitious claptrap and bigotry you might
be able to start pushing back.
So, Western civilization is going to collapse because of a few fairies & fag
hags?
Yes, it looks as if it will collapse. Not because the fairies and fag hags are
all-powerful, but because we have had it so good & easy for so long that we've gotten
weaker than any determined, focused fairy or hag.
Leftism in general, which I characterize as a mass adoption of a "mental map" (the gross
oversimplification of infinite reality people use to navigate their lives) highly estranged
from underlying reality, is Nature's "suicide switch" for an organism that has grossly
overgrown its ecological niche.
Today people believe palpably unreal things, in incredibly large numbers, with incredibly
deep fervor. The poster-child is the belief in the efficacy of magical incantations (statute
legislation) to change Actual Reality. If "we" want to end racism (however we define it in
the Newspeak Dictionary) then we just pass a law and "pow!" it's gone. (When that doesn't
work, we pass another law, and another and another and another, always expecting a different
result.)
Ditto the banking (and monetary) system. Money used to be basically a "receipt" for
actually having something IN HAND to take to the market and engage in trade. This was the
essence of Say's Law, "in order to consume (buy something) you must first produce."
Some clever Machiavellians figured out that if you could "complexify" and obscure the
monetary system enough, you could obtain the legal right to create from thin air the
ability to enter that market and buy something, which stripped to its essence is the crime of
fraud.
Banking has been an open fraud for a very long time, certainly since the era of naked fiat
money was introduced in the 1960's. But as long as everyone went along with the gag, and
especially once Credit Bubble Funny Money started fueling a debt orgy and rationalizing an
asset price mania, everyone thought "we could all get rich."
Today we have vast claims on real wealth (real wealth is productive land, productive plant
& equipment and capital you can hold in your hands, so to speak.) But we have uncountable
claims on each unit of real capital. The Machiavellians think that they will end up holding
title to it all, when the day comes to actually make an honest accounting. I suspect that
they lack the political power to pull that off, but only time will tell.
When this long, insane boom is reconciled, a lot of productive capital will turn out to be
nothing but vaporware and rusting steel. Entire industries arose to cater to
credit-bubble-demand, and when the bubble eventually ceases to inflate, demand in (and the
capital applied to) those industries will collapse. How many hospitals do you need when no
one has the money to pay for their services, and the tax base has burned to the ground?
Simple formula. Liberalism was the defense of the individual against the group.
All one needs to do is a simple substitution. Minorities , environment , animals etc are a
means by witch one can make individuals into the institutionalized oppressor. Even better is
the so called intersectional mini oppressions which make nearly all victims which in turns
makes all guilty. State intervention must increase .Guilty people , as all religions of the
world understand, are easily dominated and controlled.
The power the individual is destroyed by its own momentum.
@Digital Samizdat The Bolsheviks first pushed "free love" – easy divorce, abortion
and homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about whether or not to abolish
marriage. They reversed themselves and by the time WWII broke out, the official culture of
the Soviet Union was more socially conservative than that of the US. Even in the 1980s, the
Commies were tough on gays, lesbians and druggies.
by Ingrid Robeyns on December 29, 2019 Some aspects of
academia show great international variation. There is one on which I haven't found any good
data, and hence thought I'll ask the crowd here so that we can gather our own data, even if it
will be not very scientifically collected.
The question is this: if you are a university teacher/professor and your department awards
PhD-degrees, do you get any official time allocated (or time-compensation) for PhD supervision?
If it is part of a teaching load model, how many hours (or % teaching load) is it equivalent
to? Or is there an expectation that you take on PhD-students but that this does not lead to a
reduction in other tasks?
How do international practices of the conditions for PhD-supervisors compare?
In my faculty (Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), all supervisors together
(which generally are two, sometimes three) are collectively given a teaching load reduction of
132 hours in the year follow the graduation of the PhD-candidate. So your teaching reduction
upon successful graduation of a PhD-candidate tends to be 66 hours. For the supervisory work
you effectively do in the four years prior to graduation, there is no time allocated; so you
effectively do this in your research or your leisure time.
To put this into perspective: most (assistant/associate/full) professors teach 50-70% of
their time, and a fulltime workload is 1670 hours, or 1750 hours if you are saving for a
sabbatical. This can be reduced if you have major managerial tasks (e.g. Head of Department) or
if a large part of your wage is paid by a research grant. So without reductions, we teach about
835-1190 hours a year (this includes the time for preparation and examination, but frankly, one
always needs more than the teaching load models allocate for a given course. And in general
there are no TAs or other support staff to help with the practical sides of teaching).
For writing the grants that are almost always needed to create the jobs for PhD students
(with success rates now around 15%), and for supervising those who in the end do not get their
PhD degree, there is no time put aside for the supervisor/applicants. That time also goes,
effectively, from our research time, or, more realistically, from our leisure time.
Recently, I heard from a British colleague and a Swedish colleague their models for
PhD-supervision, which were way more generous (and rightly so in my view), so thought I'll
throw the question on the table here: what, if any, time-compensation/teachingreduction do you
get for supervising PhD students?
I am not trying to suggest here that without adequate time set aside for doing this work, it
would not be worthwhile supervising PhDs. There are in many cases other forms of rewards for
the work one does as a PhD supervisor. One might be the honor of supervising PhDs, and in most
cases the intrinsic rewards of the supervisory process – the satisfaction of seeing a
young person take their first steps as a scholar, and being able to play a crucial role in this
process. There is , after all, a reason why the Germans call their PhD-supervisor
mein Doktorvater or meine Doktormutter – since yes, there is this element
of helping someone to grow, in a cognitive and professional sense. Professionally, there are
few people who had so much influence on me as my PhD-supervisor, and I am hoping that some of
my (former) PhD-students will think the same at some point in their lives. So it would be wrong
to frame it merely as a burden, since there is the intrinsic value of the rather unique
professional relationship. But that cannot be a reason to not give PhDsupervisors the time they
need to properly supervise, given how severe time pressure in academia is. I see this as a real
tension.
In some academic fields, there may be professional research benefits for the supervisors,
such as becoming co-authors on the publications the PhD-students write under your supervision.
I recently examined a PhD-thesis in medical ethics, and all chapters (being articles published
or under review) had been co-written with several members of the supervisory team. Even raising
the funds to hire the PhD is sometimes seen as sufficient reason to be listed as a co-author.
In the humanities there is no such a thing: we don't put our names on articles of our
PhDstudents, even if we contributed significantly to the development of that piece (rightly so
in my view).
I'm posting this because I am interested in the international comparison in its own right,
but also because of its relevance in discussions on higher education policies which are
currently very intense in the Netherlands, on which I'll write another blogpost
later.
In my part of my university each PhD student earns her supervisors around 60 notional
hours/1600 total per annum, but that's usually divided 5/1 between two supervisors, so that
the person actually doing the work has about 50 hours, so slightly over an hour/week given
annual leave etc. My greatest beef with this is when we admit non-anglophone PhD students.
Since they officially have a level of competence in English as a condition of their
admission, they do not get any extra time for supervision. But in practice, their work takes
much longer to read and you have to put a lot of work into improving their English.
In my faculty (Arts and Social Sciences at Sydney) the primary supervisor gets 40 hours per
year and an auxiliary supervisor gets ten. (There is some flexibility for the 50 total hours
to be divided differently.)
In a recent survey of faculty staff with a response rate of around 30%, most reported
spending longer per primary supervision: the median was 50 hours.
There's actually a growing literature on academic time use. Kenny and Fluck have published
a series of papers based on a large survey of Australian academics. The median reported time
spent supervising a higher degree student per year was 60 hours over all discipline groups,
50 hours for Arts, Law and Humanities. (Kenny and Fluck 2018 'Research workloads in
Australian universities', _Australian Universities Review_ -- and the companion papers on
teaching and admin workloads are also worth googling for the full results over lots of
tasks.)
When we tried to establish a "norm" at the University of York, it turned out that practice
varied widely not only across faculties, but within the arts and humanities and social
sciences. Some departments simply included it in "research time" and gave zero extra time,
others gave a (more-or-less generous) "teaching" allocation. So, I am not sure you can get
any useful comparisons even at an institutional level let alone internationally.
Currently, in the Law School at York, a PhD student – during the period of registration
(i.e., only for the first 3 years) – earns her supervisors around 80 notional hours of
teaching per year. This is split across the supervisory team in proportion to their
involvement.
Many colleagues think this is insufficient, in particular with non-anglophone students and it
can be particularly galling if one is putting a lot of work into the final "writing up"
year.
For what it is worth, I found this very hard to manage when I was Head of Department (and so
responsible for workloads). The issue for me was that in many cases senior colleagues had
several PhD students and (some) junior colleagues none (or very little involvement. This was
back in the day of most students have one supervisor.). Modelling a system where PhD
supervision was "properly" rewarded (that is, where I tried to allocate hours in accordance
to the amount of time it actually took) resulted in a very hierarchical department where
(roughly) senior colleagues did PhD supervision and junior colleagues taught undergraduates.
So, I didn't do it.
For what it is worth (addressing the wider issues of workload), it seems to me that there is
an inevitable gap between a workload system conceived of as a mechanism of "counting" (how
many hours does this job actually take?) and conceived of as a mechanism of "distribution"
(how much work is there to be done and how many people to do it?). Of course, the
distributive principles cannot stray too far from the realities revealed in counting, but it
(seems to me at least) perfectly okay to think that the distributive principles include other
considerations like the "shape" of the department, individual "goals" (having PhD students is
good for promotion at York) and personal development, gender, and so on.
Finally, this problem does not seem to be unique to PhD supervision (the current "hot topic"
at York is how to count/distribute time for research grant writing, which at the moment is
simply included in individual research in most, but not all, departments). York tried to
introduce a workload model across the university and never managed it because departmental
variations were so huge (in everything from whether/how to include teaching preparation time
to how to rank administrative tasks). That said, this may be the result of our particular
institutional history (until recently, we had a very flat structure with only relatively
autonomous departments and no faculties).
In Japan as far as I know there is no allowance at all, and senior staff (the professor who
is the official supervisor) often dump all supervisory responsibility on the most junior
staff. There is also often no limit on how many PhD students the professor can take on (and
dump on their assistant prof). This is particularly bad with masters students, whose theses
are much more time limited and challenging to supervise.
I don't know if it's a general thing but my colleagues in China tell me they are only
allowed a PhD student if they publish above a certain level – PhD students are treated
as a valuable asset you need to struggle to get. (I think they are paid by the uni but don't
quote me). In the universities I know of in China the PhD student has to publish to graduate
(sometimes like 3 papers) so the benefits to the supervisor are obvious.
I'm in public health where publication is relatively easy and quick. I don't know how it
is in other disciplines (but the Japanese professor dumping his responsibilities on junior
staff is quite common across disciplines as far as I can tell).
It's not part of a workload model for us. We're expected to teach 2 classes a semester (8
contact hours a week total), then research, service, and graduate supervision on top, but the
only thing that is specified is the 2 classes. So no compensation for PhD students. In
practice the number of PhD supervisions varies greatly across faculty (as you'd expect), as
does the amount of service work we do (if you're good at it you get asked to do more, if
you're tenured and responsible you generally try to say yes), as does the amount of time we
actually spend on the courses we teach.
As do our salaries, to be fair, which reflect years of service, perceived quality of
research, how much the people elected to the department budget value the other things we do,
and, to some extent, market forces.
What I've described is my own department. There's huge variation across campus, including
variation in numbers of courses we're expected to teach.
Possibly worth mentioning that from what I have gathered expectations of how many courses
we teach have fallen dramatically (across campus) over the past 50 years, and the number of
course releases granted have increased dramatically: I estimate faculty in the humanities
teach 30% less than 50 years ago, and in the sciences 50% less. I imagine this is similar
across public research universities and SLACs.
So, purely anecdotal and from the perspective of a PhD and post-doc in Science at 2
different, fairly well thought of UK Universities (Russel group, etc. etc.).
PhD students are highly valuable. This is because a Masters or summer student are
necessarily short term, and it is difficult to fulfil much breakthrough research (sometimes
you need a few years of banging your head against a wall ). Post-docs are phenomenally
expensive as in the UK as the University charges a huge amount just to have them – e.g.
a rough breakdown (from some years ago, so a little out of date) is to just have a post-doc
(i.e. no equipment, materials, etc.) is in excess of £110K per year. Some 31000 is for
salary, the rest goes to the University to keep the lights on. Having more than a few
post-docs, for all but the most successful labs, became prohibitively expensive.
However, as a PhD most of my time was with my post-docs (in my first year I saw my
professor once, for 1hr, in later years maybe a few times more, so approximately 15 hr over
3.5 years). As a post-doc, the PhD students had regular meetings in a group format once per
month (so, more or less 2-3 hr per month). In both cases it, in principle, was possible to go
and meet the supervisor if you felt the need, but generally speaking your post-doc was the
point of contact on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.
I've not been a lecturer, so this is very speculative, but my impression is that
supervising PhD students is generally considered a research activity, and thus you are not
budgeted time for it specifically.
Not sure if any of this is useful, but feel free to hit me up for more details if you
think it is useful/interesting.
I taught for 15 years at 3 Dutch universities, 3 years at a Russell Group university in
England, and am now at an Irish university. I did my PhD in the United States. Like the other
posters, I have experienced wide variation in 'compensation' for PhD supervision. One of the
reasons I left my position at a British university was the bizarre (and I thought, unfair)
model for workload allocation. PhD supervision was highly 'compensated', and actual classroom
teaching of undergrads was not. I had colleagues who met all or most of their teaching
obligations with PhD supervision and did not teach undergrads.
I don't know what the best way to compensate PhD supervision is, but there are a couple of
aspects I think need more attention. The first is wide variation in the number of PhD
students in any given department and the rules/norms governing who is (de facto) permitted to
supervise PhDs. Dutch departments have fewer PhD students than UK/Irish departments (for
complicated reasons), and only full (and now associate?) profs are permitted to supervise.
PhD supervision is important for promotion (as it is in the UK and IE), so everyone wants to
do it, but not everyone has access. I am not sure that an activity that is so important for
career progression should be generously compensated.
The second issue concerns co-authoring with a PhD student. I can see the advantages of this
(which Ingrid mentions), but the proliferation of the article-based PhD where the supervisors
co-author all articles is a cause for concern. Again, I am not convinced that a PhD
supervisor should be generously compensated for something (publications) that strongly
advances their own career. And it is not clear to me that the supervisor's contribution to
the publication (in many cases, at least) amounts to more than what would be considered
'normal' PhD supervision in the US, Canada, and many European universities. This makes it
very difficult to evaluate a newly minted PhD's CV, and it inflates the publication list of
more senior academics.
A couple of ideas: 1) cap the number of PhD students that staff can supervise, or at least
cap the number for which teaching points are earned. 2) ensure that all academic staff have
access to PhD supervision.
Private university in Turkey : the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and
MA theses takes zero time (although people typically budget an hour per week per student.
The workload allocation for Humanities at the University of Exeter is similar to Chris's
account of Bristol (where I worked previously), though it's more common for the hours to be
divided 70/30, 60/40 or even 50/50 between first and second supervisors, with the latter
playing a much more active role. The biggest difference, however, is that you continue to
receive an allowance when the student is writing up, and even if they're revising after a
first examination, whereas the Bristol practice was, at least, that you get a workload
allowance for the first three years and then nothing for the period which in my experience
often required the greatest amount of work
I haven't – yet – supervised a doctoral student, but I did examine a viva this
year & was surprised to find that this carried no workload allowance at all, which seems
odd given the amount of reading time involved. (Fortunately I wasn't mad busy.)
Former US academic; taught at a few R1 uni's from 80s to aughts.
To echo the doughty Puritan: " the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students
and MA theses takes zero time."
We had a standard teaching load, and expectations for research and service. But there was
no calculation of supervisory load -- it simply was not tracked, budgeted, or accounted for.
As Harry says above, there were wide disparities from person to person, since some people
attract a lot of grad students and some do not (and some repel them, either for strategic
purposes, or because they are repellent no matter what they try).
No one cared whether you supervised 15 PhD students or zero. Not quite true -- there was
some unofficial awareness among colleagues who thought collegially about things. And you
might get some private thanks or informal kudos for doing more than your share. But there was
absolutely no official account of it. And this was true at all 3 R1s I taught at over several
decades.
That's partly because -- in a Humanities field -- the funding of grad students does not
follow the prof, but the program as a whole. So, Central Admin knows that your department is
training 25 PhDs, because Central Admin has to figure their tuition, stipends, etc. But the
money then flows to your department as a whole, with no closer investigation of who in your
department is doing the work.
The picture must be radically different in the Sciences, where there is literal accounting
of PhD students, since they are supported by the professor's grant-money.
Surely there are other ways to offload work to PhD students one would otherwise have to do
oneself besides getting research recognition for their thesis. How much of that is possible
should also vary across countries. So a comparsion of alocated supervision time only seems a
bit one sided.
As regards co-authorship, my PhD students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the
theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance. My
impression is that, in economics, the expectation is that the main job market paper will be
sole-authored or else co-authored with another junior researcher, but that others are likely
to be co-authored with the supervisor.
To complicate things further, economics (like philosophy, I believe) works on average
quality rather than total contribution. So, a publication with a student in a journal lower
ranked than my average paper is actually a negative for me.
I assume that "Harry" above is Harry B of the blog. If so, he's showing why comparisons w/
the US on this will be hard, if not impossible. In many countries, there is a weird fantasy
that academics can and should be treated like hourly employees, with "hours" assigned to
things. (This is certainly so in Australia.) Of course, it's a fantasy in that, if it in fact
takes a lot more "hours" to do the things you're assigned, you don't get over-time, comp
time, or paid more. The other down-side is that this system leads, in my experience, to more
micro-managing – being expected to "account" for your time to a much greater degree.
The US system treats academics more like salaried employees – you get paid a certain
amount, you have certain tasks to do, and you must do them (some of them at particular times,
like teaching classes) but otherwise you're not dealing with "hours" for things. The
down-side is that there can be lots of variation in how much work people actually do –
even teaching the same "number" of classes can vary a lot depending on the number of preps,
size, how often you've taught it, if you have TAs, etc., and having more advisees may not
lead to more recognition on its own. The plus side is that less time is spent on being
mico-managed and bureaucratic nonsense. The relevant point here, though, is that it's really
hard to make a comparison like the one asked for between systems where one treats academics
more like hourly employees and the other more like salaried employees.
My wife (a New Zealand academic with confirmation) is allocated a. 24 hours per year for
supervising PhD students. She trusts that the ludicrousness of this number is not lost on
those present.
I am a Professor in an Engineering discipline at a small, state engineering school in the US.
Our workload is departmentally determined. My department is fairly small, ~100 undergrads,
but does quite a bit of research. My nominal workload is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20%
service. This is based on 40 working hours per week. My effective workload is 46% teaching,
8% advising (both undergrad and grad), 23% overseeing my funded research projects and about
25% service. This is more than 100%, which is true for almost all faculty at my school.
Thus, I estimate how much time I spend doing various things and then convert that to
credit hours, as my contract is specified in terms of 18 credit hours of work per semester,
making a credit hour about 2 hours and 40 minutes
In Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology), supervision of
a full-time PhD student attracts a time allowance of 2 hours per week (48 hours per annum),
from a weekly teaching load of 16 contact hours for lecturers (18 hours for assistant
lecturers). So, for example, a lecturer with two full-time PhD students will allocate 25% (4
hours) of his / her weekly contact teaching duties to this role.
In my department (at Uppsala University, Sweden) the workload norm is 88 hours per year
supervisory time for the main supervisor and 20 for the assistant supervisor. This time
includes the face-to-face hours, as well as reading, commenting, etc. The split can be done
differently to reflect other kinds of co-supervisory arrangements. This seems very generous
compared to what others are reporting, which is sad, since an average of 1 hour meeting, 1
hour reading per week for 44 weeks in a year would work out as very minimal supervision --
and supervisors typically spend much more time on supervision related tasks than this.
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the formal teaching duties at polisci departments at
Scandinavian universities for a report published by the Swedish Institute for Labour Market
Evaluation. The survey looked at the formal percentage of teaching duty for senior lecturers
and full professors, and the formal compensation in terms of hours allotted for various
teaching activities (e.g., lectures, supervision at different levels, examination and so on).
We found, first, that the formal teaching duty varied quite a lot across Scandinavian
universities, but that all Swedish universities had less generous conditions than Danish and
Norwegian universities, which came closer to the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching and
research.
Second, by multiplying teaching duty and compensation for a standard set of teaching
activities, we found that the consequences for the individual lecturer could be quite
drastic: over a hypothetical career from age 35 to retirement at 67, a lecturer at the least
generous university could have ten whole years more of teaching duty than their colleague at
the most generous university.
I'm an Associate Professor in Computer Science at a US R1 university.
As Matt says, the description in Ingrid's post is totally unlike how things are thought of
at all in US universities. My load is 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service, which is
standard for tenure-track faculty in my department (and I think across departments here). The
standard teaching load is 3 courses per year (2 in one semester, 1 in the other). However,
there are several exceptions to this: before tenure, faculty are assigned only 2 courses per
year. Also, if you support (with external grant funding) 3 PhD students or post-docs in the
previous year then you only teach 2 courses the next year. Additionally, pre-tenure faculty
are asked to do considerably less service.
Furthermore, there are several additional differences that are relevant. First, and most
importantly, the distinction between "research" and "PhD supervision" does not exist in
science. Effectively all of my research is joint with PhD students, although sometimes they
are not "my" students, but those of my collaborators. Second, not all students are funded by
grants; PhD students can also be funded by teaching. So it's possible to have one or two
students without bringing in funding. Third, there's a strong expectation that training PhD
students is part of the job, you wouldn't get tenure/promotion/etc if you just didn't do
it.
In my institution, you don't get any teaching load reduction, whereas you do get a tiny but
non-zero reduction for supervising a master thesis, or even an undergraduate research
project. I believe that is the norm in France in science in general, and most likely overall.
The logic behind that choice is that supervising a PhD student is supposed to bring its own
benefits: the student will do a lot of lab work for the superviser, the superviser will
cosign the research papers etc.
In math (my own field), there is no lab work to be done and the French tradition is that
papers drawn from the PhD should be signed by the student alone, so the arrangement is quite
unfavorable to us.
On the other hand
So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year
Did I read that right? Can you clarify how many hours are counted for one hour in front of
the students? That number looks like madness to me (and I have a heavy teaching load
myself).
"Highly research-active" profs teach one fewer course per year. There is some flexibility
as to how to maintain this designation, but typically you must have at least 2 active
graduate students at any given time (and meet various other requirements).
Going through our standard courseload: if you ignore the other work related to maintaining
status, your first two Ph.D. students are worth about 90 hours/year, and the remainder are
worth nothing.
As regards co-authorship, my Ph.D. students and postdocs are often keen to include me on
the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of
acceptance.
This is an important point. I agree that it is somewhat dishonest to use your post-grad
students to increase you number of publications. But it should be weighted against the real
difficulties of young researchers to get their papers published. And the fact that sometimes
brilliant papers from them are rejected. Nobody can abolish clan behavior in the academy. And
the "academic kitchen" is pretty dirty, and takes years to understand ;-).
Sometimes publishing oversees helps here, and young researchers should keep this in mind.
For many foreign journals, just the fact that you are a foreigner from a prestigious
university is a plus that weights on the acceptance.
by Ingrid Robeyns on December 29, 2019 Some aspects of
academia show great international variation. There is one on which I haven't found any good
data, and hence thought I'll ask the crowd here so that we can gather our own data, even if it
will be not very scientifically collected.
The question is this: if you are a university teacher/professor and your department awards
PhD-degrees, do you get any official time allocated (or time-compensation) for PhD supervision?
If it is part of a teaching load model, how many hours (or % teaching load) is it equivalent
to? Or is there an expectation that you take on PhD-students but that this does not lead to a
reduction in other tasks?
How do international practices of the conditions for PhD-supervisors compare?
In my faculty (Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), all supervisors together
(which generally are two, sometimes three) are collectively given a teaching load reduction of
132 hours in the year follow the graduation of the PhD-candidate. So your teaching reduction
upon successful graduation of a PhD-candidate tends to be 66 hours. For the supervisory work
you effectively do in the four years prior to graduation, there is no time allocated; so you
effectively do this in your research or your leisure time.
To put this into perspective: most (assistant/associate/full) professors teach 50-70% of
their time, and a fulltime workload is 1670 hours, or 1750 hours if you are saving for a
sabbatical. This can be reduced if you have major managerial tasks (e.g. Head of Department) or
if a large part of your wage is paid by a research grant. So without reductions, we teach about
835-1190 hours a year (this includes the time for preparation and examination, but frankly, one
always needs more than the teaching load models allocate for a given course. And in general
there are no TAs or other support staff to help with the practical sides of teaching).
For writing the grants that are almost always needed to create the jobs for PhD students
(with success rates now around 15%), and for supervising those who in the end do not get their
PhD degree, there is no time put aside for the supervisor/applicants. That time also goes,
effectively, from our research time, or, more realistically, from our leisure time.
Recently, I heard from a British colleague and a Swedish colleague their models for
PhD-supervision, which were way more generous (and rightly so in my view), so thought I'll
throw the question on the table here: what, if any, time-compensation/teachingreduction do you
get for supervising PhD students?
I am not trying to suggest here that without adequate time set aside for doing this work, it
would not be worthwhile supervising PhDs. There are in many cases other forms of rewards for
the work one does as a PhD supervisor. One might be the honor of supervising PhDs, and in most
cases the intrinsic rewards of the supervisory process – the satisfaction of seeing a
young person take their first steps as a scholar, and being able to play a crucial role in this
process. There is , after all, a reason why the Germans call their PhD-supervisor
mein Doktorvater or meine Doktormutter – since yes, there is this element
of helping someone to grow, in a cognitive and professional sense. Professionally, there are
few people who had so much influence on me as my PhD-supervisor, and I am hoping that some of
my (former) PhD-students will think the same at some point in their lives. So it would be wrong
to frame it merely as a burden, since there is the intrinsic value of the rather unique
professional relationship. But that cannot be a reason to not give PhDsupervisors the time they
need to properly supervise, given how severe time pressure in academia is. I see this as a real
tension.
In some academic fields, there may be professional research benefits for the supervisors,
such as becoming co-authors on the publications the PhD-students write under your supervision.
I recently examined a PhD-thesis in medical ethics, and all chapters (being articles published
or under review) had been co-written with several members of the supervisory team. Even raising
the funds to hire the PhD is sometimes seen as sufficient reason to be listed as a co-author.
In the humanities there is no such a thing: we don't put our names on articles of our
PhDstudents, even if we contributed significantly to the development of that piece (rightly so
in my view).
I'm posting this because I am interested in the international comparison in its own right,
but also because of its relevance in discussions on higher education policies which are
currently very intense in the Netherlands, on which I'll write another blogpost
later.
In my part of my university each PhD student earns her supervisors around 60 notional
hours/1600 total per annum, but that's usually divided 5/1 between two supervisors, so that
the person actually doing the work has about 50 hours, so slightly over an hour/week given
annual leave etc. My greatest beef with this is when we admit non-anglophone PhD students.
Since they officially have a level of competence in English as a condition of their
admission, they do not get any extra time for supervision. But in practice, their work takes
much longer to read and you have to put a lot of work into improving their English.
In my faculty (Arts and Social Sciences at Sydney) the primary supervisor gets 40 hours per
year and an auxiliary supervisor gets ten. (There is some flexibility for the 50 total hours
to be divided differently.)
In a recent survey of faculty staff with a response rate of around 30%, most reported
spending longer per primary supervision: the median was 50 hours.
There's actually a growing literature on academic time use. Kenny and Fluck have published
a series of papers based on a large survey of Australian academics. The median reported time
spent supervising a higher degree student per year was 60 hours over all discipline groups,
50 hours for Arts, Law and Humanities. (Kenny and Fluck 2018 'Research workloads in
Australian universities', _Australian Universities Review_ -- and the companion papers on
teaching and admin workloads are also worth googling for the full results over lots of
tasks.)
When we tried to establish a "norm" at the University of York, it turned out that practice
varied widely not only across faculties, but within the arts and humanities and social
sciences. Some departments simply included it in "research time" and gave zero extra time,
others gave a (more-or-less generous) "teaching" allocation. So, I am not sure you can get
any useful comparisons even at an institutional level let alone internationally.
Currently, in the Law School at York, a PhD student – during the period of registration
(i.e., only for the first 3 years) – earns her supervisors around 80 notional hours of
teaching per year. This is split across the supervisory team in proportion to their
involvement.
Many colleagues think this is insufficient, in particular with non-anglophone students and it
can be particularly galling if one is putting a lot of work into the final "writing up"
year.
For what it is worth, I found this very hard to manage when I was Head of Department (and so
responsible for workloads). The issue for me was that in many cases senior colleagues had
several PhD students and (some) junior colleagues none (or very little involvement. This was
back in the day of most students have one supervisor.). Modelling a system where PhD
supervision was "properly" rewarded (that is, where I tried to allocate hours in accordance
to the amount of time it actually took) resulted in a very hierarchical department where
(roughly) senior colleagues did PhD supervision and junior colleagues taught undergraduates.
So, I didn't do it.
For what it is worth (addressing the wider issues of workload), it seems to me that there is
an inevitable gap between a workload system conceived of as a mechanism of "counting" (how
many hours does this job actually take?) and conceived of as a mechanism of "distribution"
(how much work is there to be done and how many people to do it?). Of course, the
distributive principles cannot stray too far from the realities revealed in counting, but it
(seems to me at least) perfectly okay to think that the distributive principles include other
considerations like the "shape" of the department, individual "goals" (having PhD students is
good for promotion at York) and personal development, gender, and so on.
Finally, this problem does not seem to be unique to PhD supervision (the current "hot topic"
at York is how to count/distribute time for research grant writing, which at the moment is
simply included in individual research in most, but not all, departments). York tried to
introduce a workload model across the university and never managed it because departmental
variations were so huge (in everything from whether/how to include teaching preparation time
to how to rank administrative tasks). That said, this may be the result of our particular
institutional history (until recently, we had a very flat structure with only relatively
autonomous departments and no faculties).
In Japan as far as I know there is no allowance at all, and senior staff (the professor who
is the official supervisor) often dump all supervisory responsibility on the most junior
staff. There is also often no limit on how many PhD students the professor can take on (and
dump on their assistant prof). This is particularly bad with masters students, whose theses
are much more time limited and challenging to supervise.
I don't know if it's a general thing but my colleagues in China tell me they are only
allowed a PhD student if they publish above a certain level – PhD students are treated
as a valuable asset you need to struggle to get. (I think they are paid by the uni but don't
quote me). In the universities I know of in China the PhD student has to publish to graduate
(sometimes like 3 papers) so the benefits to the supervisor are obvious.
I'm in public health where publication is relatively easy and quick. I don't know how it
is in other disciplines (but the Japanese professor dumping his responsibilities on junior
staff is quite common across disciplines as far as I can tell).
It's not part of a workload model for us. We're expected to teach 2 classes a semester (8
contact hours a week total), then research, service, and graduate supervision on top, but the
only thing that is specified is the 2 classes. So no compensation for PhD students. In
practice the number of PhD supervisions varies greatly across faculty (as you'd expect), as
does the amount of service work we do (if you're good at it you get asked to do more, if
you're tenured and responsible you generally try to say yes), as does the amount of time we
actually spend on the courses we teach.
As do our salaries, to be fair, which reflect years of service, perceived quality of
research, how much the people elected to the department budget value the other things we do,
and, to some extent, market forces.
What I've described is my own department. There's huge variation across campus, including
variation in numbers of courses we're expected to teach.
Possibly worth mentioning that from what I have gathered expectations of how many courses
we teach have fallen dramatically (across campus) over the past 50 years, and the number of
course releases granted have increased dramatically: I estimate faculty in the humanities
teach 30% less than 50 years ago, and in the sciences 50% less. I imagine this is similar
across public research universities and SLACs.
So, purely anecdotal and from the perspective of a PhD and post-doc in Science at 2
different, fairly well thought of UK Universities (Russel group, etc. etc.).
PhD students are highly valuable. This is because a Masters or summer student are
necessarily short term, and it is difficult to fulfil much breakthrough research (sometimes
you need a few years of banging your head against a wall ). Post-docs are phenomenally
expensive as in the UK as the University charges a huge amount just to have them – e.g.
a rough breakdown (from some years ago, so a little out of date) is to just have a post-doc
(i.e. no equipment, materials, etc.) is in excess of £110K per year. Some 31000 is for
salary, the rest goes to the University to keep the lights on. Having more than a few
post-docs, for all but the most successful labs, became prohibitively expensive.
However, as a PhD most of my time was with my post-docs (in my first year I saw my
professor once, for 1hr, in later years maybe a few times more, so approximately 15 hr over
3.5 years). As a post-doc, the PhD students had regular meetings in a group format once per
month (so, more or less 2-3 hr per month). In both cases it, in principle, was possible to go
and meet the supervisor if you felt the need, but generally speaking your post-doc was the
point of contact on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.
I've not been a lecturer, so this is very speculative, but my impression is that
supervising PhD students is generally considered a research activity, and thus you are not
budgeted time for it specifically.
Not sure if any of this is useful, but feel free to hit me up for more details if you
think it is useful/interesting.
I taught for 15 years at 3 Dutch universities, 3 years at a Russell Group university in
England, and am now at an Irish university. I did my PhD in the United States. Like the other
posters, I have experienced wide variation in 'compensation' for PhD supervision. One of the
reasons I left my position at a British university was the bizarre (and I thought, unfair)
model for workload allocation. PhD supervision was highly 'compensated', and actual classroom
teaching of undergrads was not. I had colleagues who met all or most of their teaching
obligations with PhD supervision and did not teach undergrads.
I don't know what the best way to compensate PhD supervision is, but there are a couple of
aspects I think need more attention. The first is wide variation in the number of PhD
students in any given department and the rules/norms governing who is (de facto) permitted to
supervise PhDs. Dutch departments have fewer PhD students than UK/Irish departments (for
complicated reasons), and only full (and now associate?) profs are permitted to supervise.
PhD supervision is important for promotion (as it is in the UK and IE), so everyone wants to
do it, but not everyone has access. I am not sure that an activity that is so important for
career progression should be generously compensated.
The second issue concerns co-authoring with a PhD student. I can see the advantages of this
(which Ingrid mentions), but the proliferation of the article-based PhD where the supervisors
co-author all articles is a cause for concern. Again, I am not convinced that a PhD
supervisor should be generously compensated for something (publications) that strongly
advances their own career. And it is not clear to me that the supervisor's contribution to
the publication (in many cases, at least) amounts to more than what would be considered
'normal' PhD supervision in the US, Canada, and many European universities. This makes it
very difficult to evaluate a newly minted PhD's CV, and it inflates the publication list of
more senior academics.
A couple of ideas: 1) cap the number of PhD students that staff can supervise, or at least
cap the number for which teaching points are earned. 2) ensure that all academic staff have
access to PhD supervision.
Private university in Turkey : the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and
MA theses takes zero time (although people typically budget an hour per week per student.
The workload allocation for Humanities at the University of Exeter is similar to Chris's
account of Bristol (where I worked previously), though it's more common for the hours to be
divided 70/30, 60/40 or even 50/50 between first and second supervisors, with the latter
playing a much more active role. The biggest difference, however, is that you continue to
receive an allowance when the student is writing up, and even if they're revising after a
first examination, whereas the Bristol practice was, at least, that you get a workload
allowance for the first three years and then nothing for the period which in my experience
often required the greatest amount of work
I haven't – yet – supervised a doctoral student, but I did examine a viva this
year & was surprised to find that this carried no workload allowance at all, which seems
odd given the amount of reading time involved. (Fortunately I wasn't mad busy.)
Former US academic; taught at a few R1 uni's from 80s to aughts.
To echo the doughty Puritan: " the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students
and MA theses takes zero time."
We had a standard teaching load, and expectations for research and service. But there was
no calculation of supervisory load -- it simply was not tracked, budgeted, or accounted for.
As Harry says above, there were wide disparities from person to person, since some people
attract a lot of grad students and some do not (and some repel them, either for strategic
purposes, or because they are repellent no matter what they try).
No one cared whether you supervised 15 PhD students or zero. Not quite true -- there was
some unofficial awareness among colleagues who thought collegially about things. And you
might get some private thanks or informal kudos for doing more than your share. But there was
absolutely no official account of it. And this was true at all 3 R1s I taught at over several
decades.
That's partly because -- in a Humanities field -- the funding of grad students does not
follow the prof, but the program as a whole. So, Central Admin knows that your department is
training 25 PhDs, because Central Admin has to figure their tuition, stipends, etc. But the
money then flows to your department as a whole, with no closer investigation of who in your
department is doing the work.
The picture must be radically different in the Sciences, where there is literal accounting
of PhD students, since they are supported by the professor's grant-money.
Surely there are other ways to offload work to PhD students one would otherwise have to do
oneself besides getting research recognition for their thesis. How much of that is possible
should also vary across countries. So a comparsion of alocated supervision time only seems a
bit one sided.
As regards co-authorship, my PhD students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the
theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance. My
impression is that, in economics, the expectation is that the main job market paper will be
sole-authored or else co-authored with another junior researcher, but that others are likely
to be co-authored with the supervisor.
To complicate things further, economics (like philosophy, I believe) works on average
quality rather than total contribution. So, a publication with a student in a journal lower
ranked than my average paper is actually a negative for me.
I assume that "Harry" above is Harry B of the blog. If so, he's showing why comparisons w/
the US on this will be hard, if not impossible. In many countries, there is a weird fantasy
that academics can and should be treated like hourly employees, with "hours" assigned to
things. (This is certainly so in Australia.) Of course, it's a fantasy in that, if it in fact
takes a lot more "hours" to do the things you're assigned, you don't get over-time, comp
time, or paid more. The other down-side is that this system leads, in my experience, to more
micro-managing – being expected to "account" for your time to a much greater degree.
The US system treats academics more like salaried employees – you get paid a certain
amount, you have certain tasks to do, and you must do them (some of them at particular times,
like teaching classes) but otherwise you're not dealing with "hours" for things. The
down-side is that there can be lots of variation in how much work people actually do –
even teaching the same "number" of classes can vary a lot depending on the number of preps,
size, how often you've taught it, if you have TAs, etc., and having more advisees may not
lead to more recognition on its own. The plus side is that less time is spent on being
mico-managed and bureaucratic nonsense. The relevant point here, though, is that it's really
hard to make a comparison like the one asked for between systems where one treats academics
more like hourly employees and the other more like salaried employees.
My wife (a New Zealand academic with confirmation) is allocated a. 24 hours per year for
supervising PhD students. She trusts that the ludicrousness of this number is not lost on
those present.
I am a Professor in an Engineering discipline at a small, state engineering school in the US.
Our workload is departmentally determined. My department is fairly small, ~100 undergrads,
but does quite a bit of research. My nominal workload is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20%
service. This is based on 40 working hours per week. My effective workload is 46% teaching,
8% advising (both undergrad and grad), 23% overseeing my funded research projects and about
25% service. This is more than 100%, which is true for almost all faculty at my school.
Thus, I estimate how much time I spend doing various things and then convert that to
credit hours, as my contract is specified in terms of 18 credit hours of work per semester,
making a credit hour about 2 hours and 40 minutes
In Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology), supervision of
a full-time PhD student attracts a time allowance of 2 hours per week (48 hours per annum),
from a weekly teaching load of 16 contact hours for lecturers (18 hours for assistant
lecturers). So, for example, a lecturer with two full-time PhD students will allocate 25% (4
hours) of his / her weekly contact teaching duties to this role.
In my department (at Uppsala University, Sweden) the workload norm is 88 hours per year
supervisory time for the main supervisor and 20 for the assistant supervisor. This time
includes the face-to-face hours, as well as reading, commenting, etc. The split can be done
differently to reflect other kinds of co-supervisory arrangements. This seems very generous
compared to what others are reporting, which is sad, since an average of 1 hour meeting, 1
hour reading per week for 44 weeks in a year would work out as very minimal supervision --
and supervisors typically spend much more time on supervision related tasks than this.
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the formal teaching duties at polisci departments at
Scandinavian universities for a report published by the Swedish Institute for Labour Market
Evaluation. The survey looked at the formal percentage of teaching duty for senior lecturers
and full professors, and the formal compensation in terms of hours allotted for various
teaching activities (e.g., lectures, supervision at different levels, examination and so on).
We found, first, that the formal teaching duty varied quite a lot across Scandinavian
universities, but that all Swedish universities had less generous conditions than Danish and
Norwegian universities, which came closer to the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching and
research.
Second, by multiplying teaching duty and compensation for a standard set of teaching
activities, we found that the consequences for the individual lecturer could be quite
drastic: over a hypothetical career from age 35 to retirement at 67, a lecturer at the least
generous university could have ten whole years more of teaching duty than their colleague at
the most generous university.
I'm an Associate Professor in Computer Science at a US R1 university.
As Matt says, the description in Ingrid's post is totally unlike how things are thought of
at all in US universities. My load is 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service, which is
standard for tenure-track faculty in my department (and I think across departments here). The
standard teaching load is 3 courses per year (2 in one semester, 1 in the other). However,
there are several exceptions to this: before tenure, faculty are assigned only 2 courses per
year. Also, if you support (with external grant funding) 3 PhD students or post-docs in the
previous year then you only teach 2 courses the next year. Additionally, pre-tenure faculty
are asked to do considerably less service.
Furthermore, there are several additional differences that are relevant. First, and most
importantly, the distinction between "research" and "PhD supervision" does not exist in
science. Effectively all of my research is joint with PhD students, although sometimes they
are not "my" students, but those of my collaborators. Second, not all students are funded by
grants; PhD students can also be funded by teaching. So it's possible to have one or two
students without bringing in funding. Third, there's a strong expectation that training PhD
students is part of the job, you wouldn't get tenure/promotion/etc if you just didn't do
it.
In my institution, you don't get any teaching load reduction, whereas you do get a tiny but
non-zero reduction for supervising a master thesis, or even an undergraduate research
project. I believe that is the norm in France in science in general, and most likely overall.
The logic behind that choice is that supervising a PhD student is supposed to bring its own
benefits: the student will do a lot of lab work for the superviser, the superviser will
cosign the research papers etc.
In math (my own field), there is no lab work to be done and the French tradition is that
papers drawn from the PhD should be signed by the student alone, so the arrangement is quite
unfavorable to us.
On the other hand
So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year
Did I read that right? Can you clarify how many hours are counted for one hour in front of
the students? That number looks like madness to me (and I have a heavy teaching load
myself).
"Highly research-active" profs teach one fewer course per year. There is some flexibility
as to how to maintain this designation, but typically you must have at least 2 active
graduate students at any given time (and meet various other requirements).
Going through our standard courseload: if you ignore the other work related to maintaining
status, your first two Ph.D. students are worth about 90 hours/year, and the remainder are
worth nothing.
As regards co-authorship, my Ph.D. students and postdocs are often keen to include me on
the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of
acceptance.
This is an important point. I agree that it is somewhat dishonest to use your post-grad
students to increase you number of publications. But it should be weighted against the real
difficulties of young researchers to get their papers published. And the fact that sometimes
brilliant papers from them are rejected. Nobody can abolish clan behavior in the academy. And
the "academic kitchen" is pretty dirty, and takes years to understand ;-).
Sometimes publishing oversees helps here, and young researchers should keep this in mind.
For many foreign journals, just the fact that you are a foreigner from a prestigious
university is a plus that weights on the acceptance.
Imbecilization is a normal historical process where intellectual declines follows the
economic decline of a given empire. There's growing evidence the West is going through the
same process.
A with any composite, complex historical process, imbecilization doesn't happen in a
uniform and linear way. Economics was the first science that descended into pseudo-science in
the capitalist world (after Marx dismantled Classic Economics). Philosophy followed. Erudite
art degenerated after the fall of Modernism somewhere in the 1950s. Human sciences in general
became fragmented and little more than a constelation of esoterism and pseudo-sciences - a
condition they still enjoy today (e.g. the dismembering of History into Sociology, Behavioral
Economics and others).
Meanwhile, the so-called STEM or "Hard Sciences" continued to prosper for some decades,
until they also hit a ceiling in the 1990s. The fall of the profitability of the capitalist
world led it to resort to "financialization" to keep the system going, which resulted in the
most brilliant capitalist mathematicians to be hosed to Wall Street instead to the likes of
NASA. Those MIT mathematicians and rocket scientists created the algorithms Wall Street still
uses today, but they did not stop the 2008 meltdown.
Nowadays, those brilliant STEM minds are nothing more than fraudsters who keep their
careers going by creating meaningless experiments (because they need the funding) only to
publish articles and keep their production quotas or self-censuring bootlickers for Wall
Street and Big Pharma. When they get to work for a big corporation, they are mere architects
of planned obsolescence or patent renewing. There's a new book I strongly recommend all of
you to read:
This author is brilliant. He gave a comprehensive yet very compact overview of neoliberalism
the first part of the book. An overview which IMHO is very difficult to match. Here are the key
ideas and periods that he outlined:
== quote ==
This is not an ordinary political moment. Everywhere around us, the old order is collapsing.
The golden age of postwar economic growth is over, replaced by a new Gilded Age of inequality
and stagnation... People once united by common culture and information are now fractured into
social media echo chambers.
The [neo]liberal international order is cracking as nationalism grows in strength and global
institutions decay. The United States' role as a global superpower is challenged by the rising
strength of China and a new era of Russian assertiveness.
Optimists hope that generational and demographic change will restore inexorable progress.
Pessimists interpret the current moment as the decline and fall of democracy.
.. we are currently in the midst of one of these epochal transitions. We live on the edge of
a new era in politics -- the third since the Great Depression and World War II. The first era
is probably best described as liberal.... from the 1940s through the 1970s, a version of
political liberalism provided the paradigm for politics. Charting a path between the state
control of communists and fascists and the laissez-faire market that dominated before the Great
Depression, liberals adopted a form of regulated capitalism. Government set the rules of the
road for the economy, regulated finance, invested to create jobs and spark consumer demand,
policed the bad behavior of businesses, and provided a social safety net for Americans. Big
institutions -- big government, big corporations, big labor -- cooperated to balance the needs
of stakeholders in society. In the United States, it was called New Deal Liberalism. In Europe,
social democracy. There were differences across countries, of course, but the general approach
was similar. ...even the conservatives of the time were liberal. Republican president Dwight
Eisenhower championed the national highway system and warned of the military-industrial
complex. President Richard Nixon said, "I am now a Keynesian in economics." His administration
created the EPA and expanded Social Security by indexing benefits to inflation.
...since the 1980s, we have lived in a second era -- that of neoliberalism. In economic and
social policy, neoliberalism's tenets are simple: deregulation, privatization, liberalization,
and austerity. Under neoliberalism, individuals are on their own and should be responsible for
themselves. Instead of governments, corporations, and unions balancing the interests of all
stakeholders, the primary regulator of social interests should be the marketplace. Neoliberals
opposed unions and unionization, they wanted to pursue vouchers instead of public provision of
services, and they sought to shrink the size and functioning of government, even if it meant a
less effective government. Markets worked like magic, and market logic would be applied to all
aspects of life. Around the world, the neoliberal era came with an aggressive emphasis on
expanding democracy and human rights, even by military force. Expanding trade and commerce came
with little regard for who the winners and losers were -- or what the political fallout might
be. ...It was President Bill Clinton who said that the "era of big government is over" and who
celebrated the legislation deregulating Wall Street.
...With the election of Donald Trump, the neoliberal era has reached its end. While in
control of the House, Senate, and presidency, Republicans neither repealed the Affordable Care
Act nor privatized Social Security and Medicare. Their party is increasingly fractured between
Trumpist conservatives, who are far more nationalist, and the never-Trump old-line
conservatives like Bill Kristol or Jeb Bush. An increasing number of people recognize that
neoliberalism's solutions are unsuited to the challenges of our time.
== end ==
The most valuable part of the book IMHO are two chapters devoted to the collapse of
neoliberalism
The author also proposes a very interesting approach to evaluation of the identity politics
as a political strategy:
== quote ==
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important
to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking
problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used
to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires
uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political
community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part of that same
shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial,
nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society.
Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of
everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the
preconditions for a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield
to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class
politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which
individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means
is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus
claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in
politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the
space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and
austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the
very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of
the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better than economic
policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the
war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal
democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq lead to a domino effect that
swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic
State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are
dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a
peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability, with thousands
dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On the grounds of
democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those
motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as
humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have
been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers largely assumed that all good things would go together
-- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening China to trade would
inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would
become liberal through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was
desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They
were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump had nothing to do with
them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
== end ==
In other words identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political
strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (aka "soft neoliberals".)
Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss by Clinton
Democrats of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to
Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it
was correct for first decade or so of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower
middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit; compare with Brexit) and that where
identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
We also can identity politics as a double edge sword, which the second edge being the
political strategy of the "soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of
the rising nationalism.
The author correctly argues that the resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct
of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable to bury neoliberalism as
it lost the popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income
professional groups, such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT
sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals, etc.)
In other words, if you are interested in this topic (as well as the most probable outcome of
2020 elections which would be the second referendum on neoliberalism held in the USA) , please
buy the book; you will never regret this decision ;-)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most
problems are relatively minor and can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because
the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal ideology. And they
can't be solved within this framework.
This was an objective and readable history of libertarian economics (sometimes called
neo-liberal economics) especially in the United States beginning in the 50s. It will be
highly influential book especially if the next recession is as terrible as 2007 and a strong
reform movement develops. Whether you support libertarian ideas of the free market or you
support the reform and regulation of our current form of capitalism the book is informative.
If you are an ideologue you will not be satisfied and the book offers no solutions. One
reviewer seems to think book is pro-Democratic but the book gives ample evidence that the
elites of both parties have bought in to libertarian economic ideas. Whether you watch CNBC
or follow politics this book will help you understand the buzz words used by some
commentators and what they really mean. The personal history of economists was interesting
too.
When the economy was booming after WWII, economists were found primarily in academia, but
as the economy slowed and solutions were sought, the economists came out of hiding. Starting
with Milton Friedman, economists entered the political arena, and their ideas began to shape
the economy not just of the United States, but of the world.
The author tells the story of how these economists came to the forefront of political
thought with their belief that the economy given the impetus of free markets would bring
prosperity and did not need so much government intervention. The author tells the stories of
Walter Oi, whose calculations persuaded President Nixon to end conscription, and Thomas
Shelling who made value assessments of human life to underpin his suggested policies.
This book is very readable. It focuses on the stories of individual economists, their
ideas, and how the ideas impacted the lives of people. I enjoyed the book very much. It tells
you a lot about policy and economics, but isn't preachy or dry. The author uses his focus on
individuals and episodes in their lives to bring this rather deep discipline to life. I
highly recommend it.
Level of talent is another important factor. Especially difficult people are able to succeed in fields which are
absolutely closed for others. Think about the level of competition in middle ages when a single academic position needed to be
waited until previous holder retires. Still it did not prevented rising people like Euler to the top.
You should take the results from Clever.com published below with a grain of slat.
The unjustifiably high cost of college tuition in the US has dragged a whole generation into
debt slavery. The average cost of a 4-year degree in the US is 3x higher than it was in 1990.
Even tuition at in-state schools is climbing more quickly than incomes.
As more people are forced to go into deep levels of debt to afford an education, more
would-be students are being forced to take a hard look and reevaluate the ROI on a college
degree.
And as college tuition continues to outpace wage growth, for a growing number of people, the
answer to 'is college worth it?' is going to be no.
A reporter at
Clever.com did some digging, and tabulated the ROI on different types of degrees: the
bachelor's, master's and doctorate.
Generally speaking, people with at least a bachelor's degree typically earn more money over
their lifetime than those who never attended college, and it's also easier to get a job with a
degree.
But while Americans with a bachelor's degree might be on to something, those who earn a
Master's and PHD-level degrees can't say the same.
While nearly half the population has a bachelor's degree, only 13% of Americans have a
master's or Phd-level degree.
And according to Clever's analysis, many higher-level degrees may not be worth the time and
money that students spend.
In fact, the longer someone spends in school, the more the value of their degrees
diminishes.
Of course, ROI changes depending on the subject that an individual studies. Clever found
that the best bachelor's degrees, unsurprisingly, tend to be in the STEM area: operations
research, petroleum engineering, biological and physical sciences, biopsychology and
gerontology.
Here, the data are showing us something that we find to be very interesting. Namely, that
those who spend more money on a low-ROI bachelor's degree often find their careers to be more
'meaningful' than your average engineer. Does this mean there's an inverse relationship between
spiritual fulfillment and monetary compensation when it comes to ones' career path? Possibly.
But would like to suggest another possible explanation.
The children of America's wealthy often choose low-yield fields like journalism and English,
since they don't face as much pressure to maximize earnings (their parents very often cover the
cost of their education and living expenses) they can enjoy finding 'meaning' in low-paying
careers like being a social media manager or writing for Gawker Media - careers that also don't
require the hard work and dedication required of, say, a mechanical engineer at Boeing.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone is one of those books you
might want to get in its physical form so you can shove it full of bookmarks, highlight
sentences, write notes, stick little sticky arrows to note something special, and generally
leave it in unfit condition for anyone but you, but that will be okay because you will be
going back to it again and again whenever you want to argue about something. Yes, it's that
good.
Astra Taylor does the difficult job examining democracy, something we talk about a lot
without ever completely understanding its full implications. To do this, she examines eight
tensions that pull democracies in different directions and are critical to balance or at
least understand when understanding democracy. These tensions are interrogated in separate
chapters, looking at history, research, and political experience that impinge on them. The
vast research involved in these explorations is astonishing.
In the first chapter she examines the tension between freedom and equality and notes
that once upon a time we thought they went hand in hand, but that they have become
oppositional thanks to political movements that serve the powerful who define freedom in
terms of making money and avoidance of regulation rather than freedom from want, hunger, or
fear. Equality has become, to American eyes, the enemy of freedom. The second chapter looks
at decision-making, the tension of conflict and consensus. This includes the understanding
of loyal opposition, something that seems to be lost with a president who calls his
political opponents traitors. I appreciated her taking on how consensus can become
anti-democratic and stultifying.
The third chapter looks at the tension of inclusion and exclusion, who is the demos, to
whom is the democracy accountable. In the fourth, the balance between choice and coercion
is explored. Pro-corporate theorists talk about government coercion and attacks on liberty
when they are not allowed to poison our drinking water and make government the enemy of the
people. She also explores how we seem to think freedom is the be all, end all except at
work. Chapter Five looks at spontaneity versus structure. This has an important analysis of
organizing versus activism and how the focus on youth movements has weakened social justice
movements overall as the energy dissipates after college without the labor and community
organizations to foster movement energy. Chapter Six explores the balance between mass
opinion and expertise and how meritocracy works against democracy. This chapter looks at
how education functions to keep the powerful powerful from generation to generation, "the
paradoxical, deeply contradictory role of education under capitalism , which facilitates
the ascension of some while preparing a great many more for lowly positions of
servitude."
Chapter Seven looks at the geography of democracy, not just in terms of federalism and
the federal, state, and local levels of participating in democracy but also the
supranational entities like the World Trade Organization and how they undercut democracy
and the integrity of the state. Chapter Eight considers what we inherit from the past, the
traditions and norms of democracy and what we owe the future, including our obligations to
pass on a livable planet.
Needless to say, this is all very discouraging in its totality, but the final chapter
encourages us to balance pessimism with optimism just as democracy must balance all those
other tensions.
It took me forever to read Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone.
That is because after I read a chapter I needed to think about it before I moved on to the
next. I took sixteen pages of notes while reading it. I hate taking notes, but I did not
want to lose the ideas.
This is also a book you might want to read with some other people, perhaps discussing a
chapter at a time. I do not think it is a book you can read passively, without stopping to
talk to someone, tweet, or reread. It's that good.
That does not mean I agree with every word of the book, but then the author does an
excellent job of interrogating her own ideas. She might seem to be asserting an opinion,
and then offer a counter-example because she is rigorous like that. She perhaps places too
much faith in Marxist theory from time to time, but then that may be because like
democracy, it has never really existed except in conceptual form.
Taylor does not offer a simple answer because there are no simple answers. She does not
pretend to know how to, or even if we can, fix democracy. She gives us the questions, the
problems, and some ideas, but as someone who truly believes in government by the people,
she asks us to take up the challenge.
I received an e-galley of Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone from
the publisher through NetGalley.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means without permission in writing from the Brookings Institution Press.
The Brookings Institution is a private nonprofit organization devoted to research,
education, and publication on important issues of domestic and foreign policy. Its principal
purpose is to bring the highest quality independent research and analysis to bear on current
and emerging policy problems. Interpretations or conclusions in Brookings publications should
be understood to be solely those of the authors.
The Library of Congress has cataloged the hardcover edition as
follows:
Hill, Fiona, 1965–
Mr. Putin : operative in the Kremlin / Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy.
pages ; cm. -- (Brookings focus book)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8157-2376-9 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1952– 2. Presidents -- Russia (Federation) 3. Russia
(Federation) -- Politics and government -- 1991– I. Gaddy, Clifford G. II. Title. III.
Series: Brookings focus books.
THIS BOOK IS THE REVISED and considerably expanded version of the
first edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin , which we finished
writing in September 2012 and was published in 2013. The original manuscript was the result of
a long-standing collaboration between Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy as colleagues at the
Brookings Institution, dating to the beginning of Mr. Putin's presidency in 2000. The
background for the authors' research work (individually and jointly) was outlined in the
acknowledgments to the 2013 edition. These acknowledgments also thanked all the colleagues and
contacts who assisted in fleshing out specific ideas and identifying source material.
Fiona Hill researched and wrote the additional material for this second edition, which moves
the narrative frame of the original book from its focus on the Russian domestic scene to the
international arena. Between the launch of the first edition in early 2013 and September 2014,
Fiona Hill collected and analyzed new source material and embarked on a series of international
research trips to conduct supplemental interviews with analysts, policymakers, government
officials, and private sector representatives on the key themes of the book. Some of these
trips were sponsored by external organizations, including the Embassy of the United States in
Berlin and the U.S. consulates in Germany (through the U.S. Department of State's Strategic
Speaker Program); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (through its official visitors and
speakers program); and the Department of National Defence of Canada (through the National
Defence, Defence Engagement Program). Other trips and interviews were facilitated through
meetings and conferences arranged by partner organizations, including the Aspen Institute,
Chatham House, the Council on the United States and Italy, the Ditchley Foundation, the
European Council on Foreign Relations, the EU Institute for Strategic Studies, the German
Marshall Fund, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the French Institute of International
Relations (IFRI), the Körber Stiftung, the London School of Economics, and the Munich
Security Conference. Participation in numerous Brookings Institution conferences, seminars, and
private meetings in Washington, D.C., and Europe also provided opportunities to engage in
one-on-one or small-group discussions with a range of U.S., European, and Russian officials, as
well as U.S. and international business figures active in Russia.
Other interviews with officials were conducted in Washington, D.C. (as indicated in the
endnotes), with the assistance of the embassies of many foreign countries, including Australia,
Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United
Kingdom, and the Delegation of the European Union.
Clifford Gaddy contributed new material and conclusions from two separate research projects:
on the reform of the Russian military and the evolution of Russia's new military doctrine
(conducted with Michael O'Hanlon), and on the state of the Russian economy (conducted with
Barry Ickes). Some of this material will also be reflected in Clifford Gaddy and Barry Ickes's
forthcoming book: Russia's Addiction. The Political Economy of Resource
Dependence.
The book was written between June and September 2014 with the help and hard work of
Brookings senior research assistant Hannah Thoburn. Hannah was a genuine collaborator on both
editions of the book, carrying out painstaking work on Russian source material and playing an
essential role in all aspects of the manuscript preparation.
Here, the data are showing us something that we find to be very interesting. Namely, that those who spend more money on a low-ROI bachelor's degree often find their careers to be more 'meaningful' than your average engineer. Does this mean there's an inverse relationship between spiritual fulfillment and monetary compensation when it comes to ones' career path? Possibly. But would like to suggest another possible explanation.
