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).
Globalism sounds like such a nice thing for many, it even has a nice ring to it! At least to
the naïve, whom actually believe that if the world could just get together and work out
its problems under one big umbrella, all would be great. I think most people would agree that
true free trade, coupled with safeguards to protect American jobs would be fine. The corrupted
globalism that this world has become nearly immersed in is a mechanism that, in reality, is
intent on creating a one world corporate owned planet operated under a top-down, locked-down,
political and economic management system backed up by coercion. Whew! That is a mouthful I
agree! It will be run by a partnership of the top .001% of wealthiest elites and administered
by the United Nations. International rules and laws for every single decision will nearly all
come under the auspices the United Nations. This plan has been laid out in various United
Nations publications and official policy.
President Trump has vowed to, and succeeded in some ways, to buck these one world
globalists, not to say he hasn't treated them to overly generous tax breaks since he has been
in charge! Not withstanding the prior, these one world globalists include even some of the most
prominent lawmakers in Washington D.C. far too often. The entrenched snake sales people over at
the White House lawmaking division are far too often part of the plan to decimate America
whether they believe it or not. We can only hope that a large part of them are do not realize
what the end-game is of this globalist cabal. Perhaps this is of course why we so often shake
our heads in disbelief when they utter ideas and beliefs that sound so foreign to ears,
anti-American and even scary!
So far, Pres. Trump seems to have accomplished about as much as any one president ever could
accomplish when walking into a room of entrenched den of thieves! Washington is not going to be
a part of solving the problems of globalism, for they and the globalists are in bed together.
Part of the problem remains that the establishment agenda is overrun by statists who walk in
lock-step with their leaders and party platforms even if corrupted. It is just too profitable
for them to ignore. Yet, the truth is that statism has no sense of proportion. These sometimes
well-meaning politicians, once they are put into power, knowingly or unknowingly become slaves
to their corporate owners. This is corporatocracy, and it is unsustainable. The one world
corporate pirates, comprising a collection of the largest 100 or so family dynasties, do in
fact control approximately 90 percent of the wealth of the world, hidden inside a dark web of
very complex multi-structured organizations and corporate nameplates. Such makes it very
difficult, but not impossible to truly figure out who the real owners are behind the maze. This
is perhaps the reason why I contend that President Trump, an outsider with a new direction for
America, may be our last chance. Most of these types hate Trump because he is hitting them
where it hurts on most fronts and is slowing down the globalist agenda!
Corporate socialism IS globalism. It is a growing and controlled oligarchy. As such, it
affords both the supranational capitalists, world's governments and non-elected quasi
governmental agencies to profit together as a baseball team would. Yes, working together with
one unified grand vision for the profit and powers of both. Globalism is the name. We already
see how nearly everything around us is becoming part of the so-called global order. These,
creating quid-pro-quo systems of control over the entire world economies, whom create wars for
profit, create inflation to inadvertently benefit themselves and enact so-called "free-trade
partnerships" that portend to help creates jobs here at home, only succeed occasionally of
creating low wage service jobs in large part in the parts of the world that the globalists
venture with their self-serving con-game. Limiting competition, being on the inside, having
power over others, this is what the global government and one world monopolistic corporations
are all about. The free trade agreements offer all of its members to petition, (and usually
get) allowances to get around many of the safeguards and traditional legal rules that used to
be sacrosanct in world trade. Especially as to food processing. The move toward monopolization
is perhaps the biggest motivator these have for supporting globalist (un)free trade
agreements.
What the true elite globalists (who reside in both political parties in Washington and world
power centers in particular) want is unbridled control over nearly everything in order to unite
us into a global world of subservient slaves unto them. So, what's the answer?
It is easy to witness that the far leftists often do not divulge they are socialists at all.
In recent years, this is changing, now that millions of young voters have been convinced by
their colleges and mass media outlets that socialism IS the answer. In the past, no candidate
would utter the word socialism for fear of many lost votes. Today, a surprisingly large
percentage of politicians in government are onboard. We can easily spot them if we compare
their voting records. Then compare them to the promises made when running for election! So,
before you get too comfortable with politicians who come off as infectiously kind and
compassionate while often using the words 'fairness', "world community", "social equality",
"open borders", "free trade", "globalism", "social justice" and other such pleasantly
attractive bleeding heart politicians using such catch-phrases, be careful. Although Democrats
will more often than not fall into this category of unsung globalists, many on both sides of
the isle fit the bill as well. Some more than others knowingly use these kind sounding
platforms in order to garner votes from the gullible young in particular. History shows over
and over again how gullible citizens can be duped into voting for someone they thought was a
caring politician, then come to discover they voted for a hidden socialist or communist in
fact. Although we can all agree on the responsibilities of our government as spelled out in the
Constitution, our founding fathers warned the new country that we must beware of politicians
who promise more than that great document promises.
Government / corporate partnerships, whether formal or consensual, create insanely
profitable fortunes for their owners while too often screwing over not only Americans but the
worlds taxpaying citizens and their industrialized countries as well. Who do you think the
prime contractors are who build and supply trillions of dollars of military weapons to the
huge, high testosterone American military machine? These war factories are largely owned by
billion-dollar super elites whose huge goliath corporations very often operate under a
duplicity of names that largely hides the true identities of the owners behind them. These true
owners often use layers of sub-corporations operating under various, differing names and
locations providing legal and illegal tax havens around the world. Apple pays zero US taxes for
example using such a scheme. This is just one case amongst thousands. Often the tax havens are
claimed are justified by the existence of a foreign post office box. Seldom are these caught or
fined by our U.S. authorities. When they do occasionally get caught, the fines are typically
just a miniscule part of the total savings they have accumulated over the past years.
With a little research we can find many of the same board members appearing again and again
on the rosters of the quietly interconnected mega corporations. This creates the long-time
problem of immoral collusions that often allow shifting of profits to other tax havens,
allowing American profits to go untaxed and shifting the responsibility fully onto the American
worker. Does it not make sense that a corporation that makes ridiculous record profits such as
Apple and others do, that they should pay their share? This globalist mindset of the elites
creates record profits at the expense of American workers and their spending powers.
Within our public "screwling system" as I call it, students are increasingly taught that
"globalism" is a new religion of sorts, a "cure-all" for world discourse perhaps! Those with
enough power to create massive changes in culture are behind the politically correct culture,
the green movement and most other leftist power grabs. These are often the very same
supra-national corporations and political kingpins who wish to undermine the America we
remember, its legal system while creating a monopolistic economic and totalitarian one world
state. It is wise to remember the confirmed beliefs and admissions o f the godfathers of the
one world order. Of course I am speaking of the Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan and dozens more of
the wealthiest families of the world whom have for centuries verifiably acted upon and talked
of such plans. Their heirs, as well as the new titans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos (Amazon
fame), Elon Musk (Tesla) and other such billionaire or trillionaire types are nearly all on
board vocally with a one world order system of governance. I will cover this much more further
on.
For over 100 years, much of American education has been stealthily entrenched in
anti-Western "cultural Marxism" propaganda and other damaging indoctrinations (as I document
later). Public schools have long promoted the globalism lie, teaching such as the yellow brick
road towards acceptance of a one world order that delivers utopia. It is hard indeed to find a
young person today in America who still believes strongly in traditional values and ideas of
self-responsibility, detest government interference in their lives, loves the Constitution,
what it stands for and protects. They have been indoctrinated by our schools to the point that
common sense no longer matters, for honest discourse in discussions are heavily discouraged in
many a classroom. I prove further along that most of the liberal ideology being increasingly
touted by the left is borne out of a long dreamt of socialist utopia carried out by a
partnership between the corporate globalists, the U.N. and those elites who desire power over
the world. And I can guarantee to you that these are getting impatient. These, their
cohorts/devotees are those whom desire to make the choices as to everything you buy, eat,
drive, live, your job destiny, how much or how little you make, etc. etc. Most of this agenda
is not so hidden, contained already within the prime vehicle to bring about the one world order
with the United Nations Agenda 21 policies taking place around the world.
Considering that at least 50% of the world's wealth is verifiably controlled by the top 1%
consisting of only 67 of the world's wealthiest individuals (and shrinking), this is pretty
good evidence that we are essentially being controlled by a very small corporate global elite
club designed and run for the few. These stats are verified later. The pace of their
destruction is staggering.
Today, the top 200 corporations are bigger than the combined economies of 182 countries and
have twice the economic influence than 80 per cent of all humanity as I prove!
Globalism has come very far in rendering world with greatly reduced amounts of anything
amounting to a capitalistic system that comes with practical safeguards against abuses that
place too much harm to the hard working stiffs. Increasingly, we witness wage inequalities
worse than in the Great Depression. Truly, the top 10 percent earners have left everyone else
in the dust increasingly over the last 50 years. The top 1 percenters incomes during this time
has gone to the moon at the expense of the masses.
Globalism is the vehicle to achieve the elite globalist goals of a one world order,
separate, nationalistic and independent nations with their own borders must be eliminated,
which shouldn't be too much of a problem to accomplish in much of the world, especially in the
current socialist run countries in and around the European continent and America who largely
embrace socialism. What is ironic is that socialist Briton's have turn their backs on Brexit,
meant to centralize nearly all power to the elite globalists. Little did they realize that you
can't have both, at least in the long run.
The League of Nations was the precursor of the United Nations. From their beginnings, the
primary long-term reason for both of them had always been to be the primary central agency of
the world, an assemblage of the top global power brokers created to steer and carry out the new
world order which has been dreamt of for millennium. Its creation has not been, as it touts,
"to create a harmonious and peaceful world". No, the U.N.'s overarching goal has been to create
a one world government using the ploy of globalism. There are ample records dating back before
its very creation, direct from the U.N.'s own publications and top officers and founders to
support this statement which I document quite fully in order to prove that point. This UN has
with much ambition endorsed and sanctioned one world inspired leaders, corporations, groups,
agencies, NGO's and billionaires from countries all around the globe in a long term unified
vision of this new world order in order to further the one world agenda. The help that the UN
has supplied in the creation of most planned wars, coups and disruptions across the world is
well known by those who have done their homework on that subject. It is this cabal and others
that are the enemies of true freedoms, borders, sovereignty across the globe yet are completely
onboard with creating a one world government. Americanism or any other type of governance
besides their one world order. These are the a major part of the world's Deep State apparatus
who are in fact often hidden forces behind the worlds corporate powered global power
structure.
The global multinational corporatist leaders have pushed their un-free trade treaties, long
creating a horrid record of killing millions of good paying jobs across America and nearly
everywhere they venture. These stealing of good jobs have swelled the bank accounts and powers
of these globalist multinational corporations while boosting their wealth into the top 1%
largely at the expense of the masses who now work for far less. lowered wages.
The globalists new world order plan requires a complete breakdown of the required systems
that have historically allowed nation to prosper on its own merits. Sold by both parties is the
false belief that big government can fix everything. This long-running sales job actually
promotes self-interest above all, using deceptive techniques as I cover. Such a sales job
requires a break away from traditions that bind us with our neighbors and family. It requires a
growth in narcissism, self above God so much so that we can now even witiness the horrid
reality of pedophilia becoming more mainstream! Since President Trump's reign, thousands of
pedophilia people and groups have been arrested as never before! Thousand of killer gang
members have been arrested as never before, especially those inside of the MS-13 ruthless
group. This is just one of many actions by this President that leads to my belief that our new
President is holding up his end of the agreement. Like him or not, he at least is holding up
his promises.
History is replete with all the immense damages that the globalist movement has brought upon
the world. These have sold the lie that globalism is the answer to the inequalities between the
haves and the have nots. While the opposite is the real truth! The truth is now evident when
one looks at the condition of the world they have pushed upon all of us over the last many
years.
The elite new world order operatives have infiltrated all the major nations governmental
agencies, top positions of power. Led by the lure of power, connectedness, money, these are
often not aware that they are actually perpetuating a plan that is deadly for much of the world
if the globalist elites they serve should get their way. Unfortunately for these self serving
minions only are concerned with self promotion often. Yet the fact remains that political
expediency and promotions come with compliance. The heads of nearly every major country are
working together with this huge one world apparatus machine that is enclosed within the UN,
World Bank, IMF, European Union, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Family, the corporation called America, and hundreds of other governmental and non-governmental
centers of power. Many of these hide behind nice sounding, humanitarian nameplates. Nearly all
the crises we see play out are ones they actually create, (of which American hegemony around
the world is a large player). For these, the ends always justify the means.
Continual non-stop conflicts around the world, of which America is often at the forefront of
are exponentially increasing. I will explain why and how America's endless war policies has
been implemented over the last many years, but I cannot divulge my take on who and what is
behind much of the openly visible powers working behind much of the news we hear.
Explained will be real, actual reasons why America has spent over 15 years in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Libya with nothing to show besides disasters and deaths, while earning a bad
reputation around the world as a bully. Be assured that the elites and banking system have made
trillions of dollars from these three examples. And lives mean little. Psychopaths don't care
about anything beyond their own desires and powers, and many of these are psychopaths indeed.
They use false justifications as a passport to sell many of their warring's and destructions.
This is globalism.
I predict that the CIA, (a globalist arm of the U.S. Government and deep state), armed with
an unlimited budget and trillions of dollars derived from their years of secret under the radar
dirty operations, are likely to be an agency to be reviewed, revamped or remodeled within the
not so distant future. The truths behind this clandestine, above the law and corrupted agency
may finally be surfacing as well. Ever since the Trump Russian collusion witch hunt also with
an unlimited budget as well both of these conducted, likely during Pres. Trump's time as
president, we should expect to witness a firestorm of controversy and change more momentous
than anything in American history, hopefully.
President Donald Trump has his work cut out, but his years in office have shown he is no
typical deep state establishment fixture of either political party! What we are now witnessing
is perhaps the most important and fateful elections in America's entire history. The results
will either allow the Republican Party to prove itself to be the party of the people, or become
impotent, simply becoming water boys for the Democrat Party, thereafter having little real
power for decades perhaps. The results of the coming elections leading into 2020, (general and
mid-terms), will in fact be the determining factor for whether America and the world reject
conservativism or falls into the clutches of a highly touted, yet untruthful liberalism that
doesn't even resemble the old party of the people that dems used to own in the far past. So, we
must ask ourselves, how did this all come to such a historic moment as we are living in?
Washington D.C. politicians and the elites have created a state seized by a tiny cabal of
oligarchs and tyrants of the U.S. corporation. Most of these types have no concept of what our
lives are like. These types don't use regular commercial airlines, definitely not in passenger
class! Many take a helicopter to work. Many have never been to a grocery market, instead always
being catered to. Pres. Bush Sr. admitted this about himself.
Obviously, the members of Congress lack the capacity to fix our mess. For some members, it
is purposeful. To make it worse, they only know how to piecemeal problems without having any
concept or willingness of how to replace a failed system to a new one or truly fix the present
one. Arguably, many of these same sold out souls believe that the the Fabian gradualism way to
a new world order is an inevitability, so why try to fix the unchangeable? With this thought
process, perhaps they escape any guilt to their predatory and self-serving largess. These
petty, timid and uncreative bureaucrats are trained to carry out systems management, seeing
only piecemeal solutions that simply move the chairs around on the titanic! They are too busy
favors to satisfy the corporate and banking structures that finance their re-elections.
Their entire focus is on numbers, profits and personal advancements. I contend that a large
majority lack a moral & intellectual core. They are able to deny gravely ill people to
medical coverage to increase company profits as they are to peddle costly weapon systems to
blood soaked dictatorships who pledge to kill us. The human consequences never figure into
their balance sheets. The democratic system, they believe, is a secondary product of the free
market, which they slavishly serve, and it applies to both parties.
Each political party claims to have the cures, but Americans have finally learned to not
believe them anymore. We see that it's largely just theatre and they are the actors. It's like
having buyer's remorse after the elections are done, with the realization that things won't
change except to move even farther over to the one world globalist agenda for another 4 years,
no matter who is in power.
Whatever mix of President, House or Senate you like, nothing seems to move towards good
commonsense changes that everyday people can appreciate. For proof that both political sides
belong to the corporatists, consider that even though the House Republicans fought against
Obamacare with theatrical fortitude, even when they won the House and in fact finally have
powers defund Obamacare, they didn't. This act is repeated time and time again, with
Republicans acting and talking like they just couldn't overcome the opposition! But wait!
Republicans have owned the House for years, so they have had full control of the nation's purse
strings as well! Yet, they never seem to use their powers to get anything accomplished as far
as really turning government around, creating a true economy, cut waste or nearly anything else
that Joe Six-Pack could appreciate. How about real reforms that would align our country with
the U.S. Constitution? How about using restraint before going into warring's by whatever
methods are needed to justify or reject a war? And how fairer campaign reforms, instilling true
and honest Wall Street reforms, balancing of the budgets. Isn't that odd? Once we realize that
there are powers above them all, especially those of the establishment, it isn't so odd at
all.
Within this corporate inverted fascism we witness around us here in America today, any
substantial changes for the good of the country is difficult to achieve, to say the least. As
with so many problems America faces, many times we witness many controversial laws being
codified into law by liberal judges without a public vote or congressional vote. Sadly, in such
cases we see that it is not necessary for socialist and communist activists and leaders to
re-write the Constitution. It is easier for these cockroaches to exploit legitimate power by
means of judicial and legislative interpretations. The courts, populated by justices who are
often put behind the bench by politicians on both saide of the isle who act as representatives
of the corporate elites, this too often allows many corporate laws to be decided by the bench
while evading the taking of votes to decide their fates. This is part and parcel to the long
running Fabian plan to destroy the democratic system from within while the electorate is
asleep.
A recent example of the above statements follows: The Citizens United Supreme Court decision
in particular was a godsend to corporations in particular. Without much fanfare or public
knowledge, this decision insures that huge corporate campaign contributions are protected
speech under the First Amendment. Now, corporations are treated by the state as persons. Yes,
even though corporate misdeeds are allowed to escape personal prosecutions, somehow the court
decided this was a good and logical decision! These nice corporations have over 35,000
lobbyists in Washington who shape and write legislations in exchange for campaign
contributions. Now it is possible for campaign donors to make unlimited campaign contributions
to Super Pac's, for their corporate status allows them to do such.
Tens of millions of Americans are catching on to the extent of this takeover of our court
system and our country during the last couple of decades and are rising up, even though they
often don't really understand the crux of the problems and those behind the smoke screens of
political deception. Answers and fixes will not come unless people learn who the real enemies
of freedom are. They must engage in peaceful but loud revolt en-masse, if that is what it
takes, or else we shall face the music. In these situations, revolution is called for by our
Founding Fathers. We are at fault for falling asleep and allowing the real powers around the
world to fall more and more into the hands of the elites. We are now witnessing how effective
their slowly acquired manipulations and their acquisitions of power over state have led us to
this abyss. If allowed to continue, it is hard to believe but we will be faced with even more
laws, edicts, governmental oversight and new trade agreements that will water down and surely
eliminate most freedoms that we can still claim to have. Such will also elevate the costs to
small and medium American businesses to the point that they can no longer operate. Citizens
will face even larger losses of liberties, freedoms and economic inequalities than what we see
today.
Corrupted partnerships between Congress and corporatisms have increased so immensely in the
last 25 years that in one way or another, nearly all bills passing thru Congress today are
summarily stuffed with pork filled, anti-Constitutional, even foreign favoritisms aimed against
America's best interests in large part. And they are usually typed up by the corporate lawyers!
These silent partnerships between Washington and corporations are not slowing, quite the
opposite.
It has been no mistake that since the 2008 stock market and economic crash, Americas
economic system had still not boosted wages by much for the 90%. By 2018 only the top 10%,
again, had been the only ones to see large increases in real income. Is this just a mistake?
Not if history is any example! Both parties in Washington have been onboard with the corporate
ass kissings.
Just as in 2008, the un-federal reserve, the bankers and Wall Street are again playing even
larger risks with other people's money obtained through near zero interest rate policies. For
without the near zero un-federal reserve rates, this anemic economy would have crashed years
ago while the national debt exploded. Many top economists fell as I do that only because of the
near free interest rates has the American economy not crashed and burned. It has been on life
support, never truly recovering for the largess of American debt.
. The official economic indicators we hear on the television and news sources are largely
fabrications. Official economic numbers such as the unemployment rate, new jobs creation,
inflation, money supply, GDP, GNP, are all massaged by whoever is in power. The formulas and
the metrics that have been used for so many began changing around the time of President Bill
Clinton (that can be verified).
Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal
and business experiences? The problem lies in the biased and often-manipulated government
reporting. The quality of government reporting has deteriorated sharply in the last couple of
decades, largely for political gain in a particular year and who is in office. Reporting
problems have included methodological changes to economic reporting that have pushed headline
economic and inflation results out of the realm of real-world or common experience. Many
statistics have been massaged with new metrics that often do not take into consideration many
of the factors of the old methods, often leaving out inconvenient facts, and thus making it
possible for the governmental accountings to look so rosy. The unemployment rate now includes
anyone who works even one hour per week! I a person works three jobs in order to survive, this
counts as 3 jobs! After just a couple of weeks of unemployment, a person is dropped off the
unemployment rolls. On and on it goes!
I am one of the many who feel confident that the coming crash will have the job of not only
wiping clean the current world debts, but also the leftovers of the corporate, state and
federal debts of the 2008 world economic crash that were never fully flushed out of the
system!
The big banks have been back at their old games of leveraging for about 10 years since the
last crash. They have been quietly expanding and ravaging the financial markets, increasing
their risk takings far beyond that of 2008. They never learned any lesson it would seem. Or
perhaps we should consider that they actually are very smart indeed. With government guarantees
and other incentives, could it possibly be that those stellar bankers whom own those thirty
story swanky buildings in Manhattan might be complicit in purposely gaming the system AGAIN?
Before the next financial Armageddon takes place? Could this consortium of big banks, most of
whom are largely fronts for just a few mega wealthy families of the world, be partnering with
the un-federal reserve insiders as well? Could the run up of reckless behavior by the banks
really consist of an intentional act by the banking elites to rob the very same system that
propped them back up last time they took a big fall? The answer is obvious. It isn't real money
after all. They ran off with trillions of dollars of taxpayer's bailout money first time
around, and from all indications they will recover all of their paper losses during the next
crash of 2017-2018.
This time the new world order elites have engineered a coming economic crash that will many
financial analysts believe will be a boon for those on the inside. This will be on a scale as
the world has never seen. It will make the 1929 Great Recession look like a picnic! The bigger
they are, the harder they fall as the saying goes. We have seen every recession since the
1960's takes longer to take place. Always we see higher highs and the lower lows in each
successive crash. These charts are easily available online from the FED website. Without fixing
the systemic problems of a unfederal reserve and an out of control government, each one builds
upon the last one. If that's an indication, we are going to face financial Armageddon!
Before I go into the next section, I must preface it by explaining to the readers that I am
not anti-capitalism at all! Capitalism and democracy must work together, and government must
restrain capitalism from becoming a mechanism to be enjoyed only by a few. What we are
witnessing today is just the opposite of that widely desired ideal. I believe we can all agree
that too much of one or the other is dangerous. Karl Marx had even predicted the path that the
corporate elites have taken. He prophetically claimed as well that it would all end up as a
monopolized capitalism cabal if not stopped.
America and major nations have been duped into, or knowingly accepting, the globalists
callings for so-called free trade agreements, allowing these mega national corporations to
consolidate their trade rules under one big unregulated umbrella that only they benefit from.
The free trade argument has never really been about fair trade, it was about "managed trade"
devoted towards a monopolized market system. The following two quotes below come from two
Rockefeller globalist pigs and surely hit a cord with what has been talked of above. These past
tyrants and many like them run on the same old abusive tactics of their past lineages whom
share their last names They are the proven grand masters and architects of the global elite's
one world cabal. Forgive me if I have already included these two. These are just too good to
not be repeated often!
PLEASE don't make the common mistake of thinking that these old geezers are pass`e and those
days are gone, not relevant anymore for they have been extremely good at hiding their secrets
for all these years, at least for those too busy to pay attention and really follow their
trailing's for many years as some have. The plan has worked so well, we are on its doorsteps!
After what you now know, do not the bankers really run the world? The quote below may help with
that decision
"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely
preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." -David Rockefeller,
Memoirs
"Competition is a sin!" John D. Rockefeller
MARX KNEW!
Karl Marx warned that unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater
and greater numbers of human lives and whatever else it needs until it consumes itself.
Uncomfortable and unpopular as it might be for die hard in-the-wool capitalist lovers to admit
it, the huge mega capitalists of the world today do not care about individual nations or
sovereignty. They care not if they exploit the very poor, leave their more expensive workers
unnecessarily behind to suffer. Unrestrained capitalists are notorious for destroying forests,
habitats, lives, causing massive and avoidable oil spills, and basically whatever got in way in
their quest for profits. History is replete with examples. This is the uncomfortable bad side
of capitalism if not regulated properly.
Perhaps it was Jim Cramer on CNBC's Mad Money who admitted that what happened in the 2008
crash was in part a late stage symptom of capitalism written about by Karl Marx. His exact
words were "The only guy who really called this right was Karl Marx." It has become more and
more obvious since the 2008 crash that most of the "experts" don't have a clue in understanding
the underlying actions of the markets and the forces that manipulate it or how bad they damage
it, but Kramer obviously knows.
So, should we do away with capitalism? Of course not ! It by far offers the best economic
system of any other to benefit the good of mankind! It is a miraculous system that, if
practiced with common sense restraints and fair rules of trade, does benefit both the
corporations, the smaller businesses, workers and the general welfare of most all. Only
capitalism can offer so many benefits to so many, but it needs to be tamed with laws that
restrain those excesses. Today's globalism represents a style of capitalism that in large part
helps but for a few to any magnitude. Unfortunately, for the last 100 years the global
capitalist elites have ever increasingly abused everything in their path, laws or not. The
largest and most egregious violator of plundering the nation's wealth has of course been our
friendly un-Federal Reserve, an entity not commonly thought of as a "corporation", but it is in
fact a branch of the British /Rothschild's privately owned central banking system around the
world, a.k.a. the Bank of International Settlements. This entity is the godfather of the entire
central banking system. It controls the flow of money around the world in most respects, as is
explained elsewhere.
As their final push for total control is almost complete, the globalists already have
numerous, far reaching "free trade treaties" like the TPP, GATT, NAFTA, SPP, CATFA, PNTR, TAFTA
and a myriad of past trade treaties already in place all around the world. Such complicated
agreements are drawn up by the banker hired trade attorney's whom draft up legalese that few
besides them can decipher, purposely. Often being thousands of pages long, members of Congress
are rarely given enough time or energy to read these behemoth agreements.
The end game is to meld these varying trade agreement into just 4 major regional master
agreements that will cover the entire planet. The most ominous example of late is the TTIP (a
companion agreement to the TPP), standing for the "Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership" which is being implemented. It is a trade deal that melds together the American
TPP and the European Union. The TPP is the big daddy that drives even more American jobs
offshore. It dwarfs what NAFTA was in scope. Officials claim it is drafted to "provide
multilateral economic growth." Growth for who I ask?
During President John F. Kennedy's speech about "All boats rising" , he was not talking
about pure, unfettered capitalism to achieve that goal, but a more restrained, less
concentrated type of democratic capitalism perhaps, combined with proper laws that kept it from
abusing human rights while protecting good jobs. He knew too that if we could get rid of the
private Federal Reserve system, America could retake the powers over its money creation,
thereafter ridding ourselves paying interest on our debts while slowly become debt free!
President Trump has taken a tough, nationalistic fair play stance on the extremely unfair
tariff disparities that current exist between countries that import their products into the
U.S. and the high tariffs that America pays to those same countries when shipping to them. For
instance, for years America has only
charged a 2.5% tariff to import cars to China. He persuaded China to lower their 25% tariff
down to 15% effective July 2018. Canadian President Trudeau has been told to expect his tariffs
to be raised to 25% on many items. Mexico will be handing over many concessions as well within
the new NAFTA agreement under a new name. Of course, that will likely entail negotiations, but
the result is the same. Good news for America! Other deals are in the making to create a fair
playing field finally! Since when have we had a president that was not part of the good old
globalist boy's club?
Trump promises a lot of things and I am sure he is doing his best. Whatever political
persuasion you are, remember he is still our President and give him the respect he deserves as
leader of the greatest country on earth. Not perfect for sure, but he and the country don't
stand a chance of maintaining the freedoms we have enjoyed for two centuries if sanity does not
return to sound policies on borders, government spending, setting priorities that are more
nationalistic in nature and much more. We must stop the far leftist, sometimes communist
extremist groups right here in the United States who have been playing Americans as fools with
their stealthy tactics that mislead their followers using created crises and panics (the 2018
fake news event on illegal children kept in cages (hiding the fact that the photo was from back
in 2014 during Obama's term) all the while blaming Trump! Once Americans understand who backs
these slickly nefarious and anti-American stand-ins, the easier it will be to ban the evil
George Soros and his Open Society Foundation out of America! Proofs abounds to this man's evil
deeds, in 2018 Soros was banned from operating in his own native country Bulgaria! They know
how evil he is. Americans should wake up and learn about this $50 billion dollar anti-American
butches, self-promoter who is busy facilitating the one-world order with his billions at every
turn!
.2
POLITICALLY-CORRECT
MALEDUCATES
The years 2017-2020 will be a time that the leftists and the deep state government push
harder than ever before in history to squelch free speech, push the pc agenda, and spy on us.
Even with Pres. Trump cleaning house, we see instances of free speech being squashed more and
more so not only in America, but within countries all around the globe. This is the silencing
of the opposition to the new world order with politically correct speech derived from the
cultural Marxism revolution that came out of the Frankfurt School and flowed into our
universities as I elaborate elsewhere.
In August of 2018 it was the popular Infowars and Alex Jones broadcasts that were suddenly
banned in one fell swoop by Facebook, YouTube and just about every other social media behemoth.
A huge surprise for those who orchestrated this coupe` was that Jones gained 5 million viewers
overnight! An obvious blowback from all the negative lies about him. Whether you like him or
not is not the issue here. This is a slippery slope towards total censorship of any and all who
reject the official lines that the big state expects out of its citizens. This is only the
beginning. So lets get this right folks! Should these powerful and quasi private controllers of
information be able to gang up literally overnight in a coordinated effort and be able ban
anyone who they, (under orders of higher ups and deep state operatives) deem to be unfit to
talk to a willing public? Lest we not forget that we all share an on and off button! This is a
slippery slope to controlling news ala communist control tactics. This incident is the tip of
the iceberg folks! This is the first major effort, and possible win, for the one world order
tyrants operated by the Deep State and Shadow Government. The next calculated guess is that
Jones and others will be falsely and purposely implicated in serious and dangerous deeds, even
upon newscasters of the msn who have shown hate towards Jones. This is called a false flag
event meant to get rid of people like Jones by defaming the person. Jones is just an example of
what is to come. The Deep State and CIA have a long record of successfully carrying out these
covert types of operations.
Furthermore, Google, with its unmatched and fully proprietary informational control systems,
as well as becoming a single source military contractor for our military and all computer
system functions of such, is now a permanent and unabated partner with the U.S. Military, State
Department and much more as can be imagined. Without Google secret technologies, our military
would be impotent to defend America. This is just how important Google. Similarly, it is not
just a coincidence why most all large data and computer technology firms in Silicon Valley are
enjoying the highest growth and profitability numbers of all the fields out there today.
The above social media heads of companies are overwhelmingly quite frank about their one
world socialism philosophy. That is, as long as they don't have to be simple follower and can
continue to be a major profiteer in the coming corporate socialism world to come. What better
way to achieve an otherwise illogical idea as one worldism? Dumbing down with one source
informational news sources should work! China is using it now. With constant day in, day out
big state programming of news and opinions, (while offering incentives for good followers of
the state lines), China is far ahead of America. As one might admit, the many different
silencing techniques used for many years upon the public is having a profound affect upon how
the world sees their world!
Reporters Without Borders is a group that monitors freedom of press around the world. Around
2015 it took notice of Obamas administration in its quick stifling of the press. What did they
find? Since Obama's administration, freedom of press had dropped from 32 nd to 46 th among the
180 countries measured. This is from the same Obama that had promised his would be the "most
transparent" administration in American history. Presidential candidate Donald Trump learned
the hard way that saying the wrong thing could come at a high cost. Example: South American
Univision's airings of his upcoming Miss America pageant was threatened by that leftist media
outlet. His sin was saying that he wanted to build a wall along the length of the Mexican
border. Eventually he worked it all out, but it just shows how the big networks try to control
anyone who bucks their agenda of open borders and one world agenda. What happened to free
press? The globalist owned media's really do have immense sway as to what can be said, or
they'll make sure you pay a price! Many accuse these liberal universities as a leading force
toward the "standardization of culture." This term is their plan to squelch real free speech
and regional cultures in exchange for their one size fits all global world and singular rules
on conduct for all. It is in its essence Cultural Marxism.
"... The core beliefs of these people was in a world where money, labor and products could flow across borders without any limit. Their vision was to remove these subjects (tariffs, immigration and controls on the movement of money) from the control of the democracy-based nation-state and instead vesting them in international organizations. International organizations which were by their nature undemocratic and beyond the influence of democracy. That rather than rejecting government power, what they rejected was national government power. They wanted weak national governments but at the same time strong undemocratic international organizations which would gain the powers taken from the state. ..."
"... The other thing that characterized many of these people was a rather general rejection of economics. While some of them are (at least in theory) economists, they rejected the basic ideas of economic analysis and economic policy. The economy, to them, was a mystical thing beyond any human understanding or ability to influence in a positive way. Their only real belief was in "bigness". The larger the market for labor and goods, the more economically prosperous everyone would become. A unregulated "global" market with specialization across borders and free migration of labor being the ultimate system. ..."
"... The author makes the point, though in a weak way, that the "fathers" of neoliberalism saw themselves as "restoring" a lost golden age. That golden age being (roughly) the age of the original industrial revolution (the second half of the 1800s). And to the extent that they have been successful they have done that. But at the same time, they have brought back all the political and economic questions of that era as well. ..."
"... He also makes a good point about the EEC and the organizations that came before the EU. Those organizations were as much about protecting trade between Europe and former European colonial possessions as they were anything to do with trade within Europe. ..."
"... But he has NOTHING to say about BIll Clinton or Tony Blair or EU expansion or Obama or even the 2008 economic crisis for that matter. Inexplicably for a book written in 2018, the content of the book seems to end in the year 2000. ..."
"... I'm giving it three stars for the first 150 pages which was decent work. The second half rates zero stars. ..."
"... It would have been better yet if the author had the courage to talk about the transformation of the parties of the left and their complicity in the rise of neoliberalism. The author also tends to waste lots of pages repeating himself or worse telling you what he is going to say next. One would have expected a better standard of editing by the Harvard Press. ..."
"... However, most importantly it follows the thinking and the thoughts behind the building of a global empire of capitalism with free trade, capital and rights. All the way to the new "human right" to trade. It narrows down what neoliberal thought really consist of and indirectly make a differentiation to the neoclassical economic tradition. ..."
"... Slobodan does a really masterful exposition of the roots of neoliberalism and neoliberals like Von Mises and Hayek by going all the way back to the 'Geneva School'. It is amazing to see the dedication and devotion of these water carriers for the owners of capital spend their entire life times devising subtle and sleight of hand schemes and methods to basically subvert society to serve the owners of capital. Fantastic work Slobodan. I await your next work. ..."
Chosen by Pankaj Mishra as one of the Best Books of the Summer
Neoliberals hate the state. Or do they? In the first intellectual history of neoliberal
globalism, Quinn Slobodian follows a group of thinkers from the ashes of the Habsburg Empire to
the creation of the World Trade Organization to show that neoliberalism emerged less to shrink
government and abolish regulations than to redeploy them at a global level.
Slobodian begins in Austria in the 1920s. Empires were dissolving and nationalism,
socialism, and democratic self-determination threatened the stability of the global capitalist
system. In response, Austrian intellectuals called for a new way of organizing the world. But
they and their successors in academia and government, from such famous economists as Friedrich
Hayek and Ludwig von Mises to influential but lesser-known figures such as Wilhelm Röpke
and Michael Heilperin, did not propose a regime of laissez-faire. Rather they used states and
global institutions―the League of Nations, the European Court of Justice, the World Trade
Organization, and international investment law―to insulate the markets against sovereign
states, political change, and turbulent democratic demands for greater equality and social
justice.
Far from discarding the regulatory state, neoliberals wanted to harness it to their grand
project of protecting capitalism on a global scale. It was a project, Slobodian shows, that
changed the world, but that was also undermined time and again by the inequality, relentless
change, and social injustice that accompanied it. >
This is a rather interesting look at the political and economic ideas of a circle of
important economists, including Hayek and von Mises, over the course of the last century. He
shows rather convincingly that conventional narratives concerning their idea are wrong. That
they didn't believe in a weak state, didn't believe in the laissez-faire capitalism or
believe in the power of the market. That they saw mass democracy as a threat to vested
economic interests.
The core beliefs of these people was in a world where money, labor and products could flow
across borders without any limit. Their vision was to remove these subjects (tariffs,
immigration and controls on the movement of money) from the control of the democracy-based
nation-state and instead vesting them in international organizations. International
organizations which were by their nature undemocratic and beyond the influence of democracy.
That rather than rejecting government power, what they rejected was national government
power. They wanted weak national governments but at the same time strong undemocratic
international organizations which would gain the powers taken from the state.
The other thing that characterized many of these people was a rather general rejection of
economics. While some of them are (at least in theory) economists, they rejected the basic
ideas of economic analysis and economic policy. The economy, to them, was a mystical thing
beyond any human understanding or ability to influence in a positive way. Their only real
belief was in "bigness". The larger the market for labor and goods, the more economically
prosperous everyone would become. A unregulated "global" market with specialization across
borders and free migration of labor being the ultimate system.
The author shows how, over a period extending from the 1920s to the 1990s, these ideas
evolved from marginal academic ideas to being dominant ideas internationally. Ideas that are
reflected today in the structure of the European Union, the WTO (World Trade Organization)
and the policies of most national governments. These ideas, which the author calls
"neoliberalism", have today become almost assumptions beyond challenge. And even more
strangely, the dominating ideas of the political left in most of the west.
The author makes the point, though in a weak way, that the "fathers" of neoliberalism saw
themselves as "restoring" a lost golden age. That golden age being (roughly) the age of the
original industrial revolution (the second half of the 1800s). And to the extent that they
have been successful they have done that. But at the same time, they have brought back all
the political and economic questions of that era as well.
In reading it, I started to wonder about the differences between modern neoliberalism and
the liberal political movement during the industrial revolution. I really began to wonder
about the actual motives of "reform" liberals in that era. Were they genuinely interested in
reforms during that era or were all the reforms just cynical politics designed to enhance
business power at the expense of other vested interests. Was, in particular, the liberal
interest in political reform and franchise expansion a genuine move toward political
democracy or simply a temporary ploy to increase their political power. If one assumes that
the true principles of classic liberalism were always free trade, free migration of labor and
removing the power to governments to impact business, perhaps its collapse around the time of
the first world war is easier to understand.
He also makes a good point about the EEC and the organizations that came before the EU.
Those organizations were as much about protecting trade between Europe and former European
colonial possessions as they were anything to do with trade within Europe.
To me at least, the analysis of the author was rather original. In particular, he did an
excellent job of showing how the ideas of Hayek and von Mises have been distorted and
misunderstood in the mainstream. He was able to show what their ideas were and how they
relate to contemporary problems of government and democracy.
But there are some strong negatives in the book. The author offers up a complete virtue
signaling chapter to prove how the neoliberals are racists. He brings up things, like the
John Birch Society, that have nothing to do with the book. He unleashes a whole lot of venom
directed at American conservatives and republicans mostly set against a 1960s backdrop.
He
does all this in a bad purpose: to claim that the Kennedy Administration was somehow a
continuation of the new deal rather than a step toward neoliberalism.
His blindness and
modern political partisanship extended backward into history does substantial damage to his
argument in the book. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on the political issues of
South Africa which also adds nothing to the argument of the book. His whole chapter on racism
is an elaborate strawman all held together by Ropke. He also spends a large amount of time
grinding some sort of Ax with regard to the National Review and William F. Buckley.
He keeps resorting to the simple formula of finding something racist said or written by
Ropke....and then inferring that anyone who quoted or had anything to do with Ropke shared
his ideas and was also a racist. The whole point of the exercise seems to be to avoid any
analysis of how the democratic party (and the political left) drifted over the decades from
the politics of the New Deal to neoliberal Clintonism.
Then after that, he diverts further off the path by spending many pages on the greatness
of the "global south", the G77 and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) promoted by
the UN in the 1970s.
And whatever many faults of neoliberalism, Quinn Slobodian ends up
standing for a worse set of ideas: International Price controls, economic "reparations",
nationalization, international trade subsidies and a five-year plan for the world (socialist
style economic planning at a global level). In attaching himself to these particular ideas,
he kills his own book. The premise of the book and his argument was very strong at first. But
by around p. 220, its become a throwback political tract in favor of the garbage economic and
political ideas of the so-called third world circa 1974 complete with 70's style extensive
quotations from "Senegalese jurists"
Once the political agenda comes out, he just can't help himself. He opens the conclusion
to the book taking another cheap shot for no clear reason at William F. Buckley. He spends
alot of time on the Seattle anti-WTO protests from the 1990s. But he has NOTHING to say about BIll Clinton or Tony Blair or EU expansion or Obama or even the 2008 economic crisis for that
matter. Inexplicably for a book written in 2018, the content of the book seems to end in the
year 2000.
I'm giving it three stars for the first 150 pages which was decent work. The second half
rates zero stars. Though it could have been far better if he had written his history of
neoliberalism in the context of the counter-narrative of Keynesian economics and its decline.
It would have been better yet if the author had the courage to talk about the transformation
of the parties of the left and their complicity in the rise of neoliberalism. The author also
tends to waste lots of pages repeating himself or worse telling you what he is going to say
next. One would have expected a better standard of editing by the Harvard Press.
Anybody interested in global trade, business, human rights or democracy today should read
this book.
The book follow the Austrians from the beginning in the Habsburgischer empire to the
beginning rebellion against the WTO. However, most importantly it follows the thinking and
the thoughts behind the building of a global empire of capitalism with free trade, capital
and rights. All the way to the new "human right" to trade. It narrows down what neoliberal
thought really consist of and indirectly make a differentiation to the neoclassical economic
tradition.
What I found most interesting is the turn from economics to law - and the conceptual
distinctions between the genes, tradition, reason, which are translated into a quest for a
rational and reason based protection of dominium (the rule of property) against the overreach
of imperium (the rule of states/people). This distinction speaks directly to the issues that
EU is currently facing.
The author explicates how with Hayek and von Mises the economics of the central Europe has
had a development, such that we can consider it a true entry in the modernity.
The structures
which the neo-liberalism introduced were truly important for allowing the social progress. So
some politicians have had the way for following particular models, which also today are
considered with interest by many experts. The result is that the globalization has given to
the several countries the same possibility . This competence has a strong value, because the
author has a clear style and an efficient vision of the reality.
This is a fantastic God send for those who are interested in the neoliberal disease that
has caught this globe in the last 3 decades. It is different from other books like 'A Brief
History of Neoliberalism' by David Harvey.
The difference is that Slobodan does a really
masterful exposition of the roots of neoliberalism and neoliberals like Von Mises and Hayek
by going all the way back to the 'Geneva School'. It is amazing to see the dedication and
devotion of these water carriers for the owners of capital spend their entire life times
devising subtle and sleight of hand schemes and methods to basically subvert society to serve
the owners of capital. Fantastic work Slobodan. I await your next work.
In a nation grappling with growing inequality, stagnating social mobility, crushing
personal debt, and crumbling job security, efforts to set America's generations against one
another persist. Don't blame the system, blame the "greedy" boomers. Or the "slacker" Gen
Xers. Or "entitled" millennials. But who gains from such discourses?
Efforts to foment that warfare, intentionally or not, serve specific agendas. Numerous
writers warn that age-group hostilities are "coming." And then, pitting generations against
one another, aside from their war metaphors, writers reach for doomsday predictions,
lachrymose empathy for "our kids," and questionable data. All this relies on the invention of
mendacious attributes, conferring on millions of diverse people implausible character flaws
or virtues. Karl Mannheim, the 20th-century sociologist known for explaining the uses of
generational units, would be rolling over in his grave.
Here is the hidden history of a perverse political discourse: It started with the
so-called boomers. As they aged toward peak midlife wages in the 1980s, they got saddled with
a reputation for being rich and greedy. The media concocted a lie that made it seem as if
they wouldn't ever need Social Security.
Bill Gates was born in 1955. That makes him what is commonly called a boomer. Rene Lavoie
was also born in 1955. The Globe recently recounted the problems that led this white Army vet
to spend time in Boston's homeless shelters. According to the principal investigator of a
recent study, Dennis Culhane, many people of Lavoie's age are indeed part of a boom -- "a
boom in aging homeless people." They were "less well educated people who faced economic
challenges in their youth -- falling wages and rising housing costs -- and never recovered
financially. ... Now in their 50s and 60s, they are biologically older than most people their
age. ... The average lifespan for a homeless person is 64."
Unlike Gates's co-billionaires in the .01 percent, 29 percent of people 55 and over have
nothing at all saved for retirement, according to the Government Accountability Office, and
many of the rest have little. Ageism in the workforce is one reason they lose a job and then
can't find an equally good one -- or find any work at all. Boomers are often treated as
"deadwood." Corporations drop them by the thousands. Even Xers are now old enough to be at
risk of having their resumes discarded. When people suffering from middle ageism stop looking
for work they are omitted from the unemployment data. At midlife, some submit to deaths of
despair.
Succeeding cohorts (all containing the same disparities -- of class, race, gender, and
education) have also been treated as if they were a single human with a character flaw.
During the 1990s recessions, when the so-called Xers couldn't find work, they too were
branded with a slur -- "slackers" -- while boomers were represented as the horde bullies who
held onto all the good jobs.
The baleful technique is still at work today. Given the same problem -- lack of decent
jobs for all ages, especially people without college degrees and people over 50 -- it's the
turn of the millennials. One of them complains about the stereotypes, defensively, in Vox:
"We demand participation trophies, can't find jobs, and live with our parents until we're
30." His response is to bash -- you guessed it -- the boomers, who "have a ton of maladaptive
personality characteristics."
In the Atlantic, pundits Niall Ferguson, from the Hoover Institution, and Eyck Freymann
defend millennials because their "early working lives were blighted by the financial crisis"
-- but ignore how home foreclosures, sluggish growth, and job losses also blighted people
around Ferguson's own age (55).
Millennials are supposed to be so ignorant and cruel that they would dismiss old people's
needs because of the boomers' alleged wealth. "Cutting old-age benefits for boomers would be
an easy call if millennials are anywhere on the line of fire," write the original concoctors
of the age-war distraction, Neil Howe and William Strauss, in their latest pandering assault,
"Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation."
We frequently hear that our elders' retirement needs will "break the bank" despite their
lifelong pay-ins. If Republicans manage to destroy the whole system of social trust, cutting
Social Security could indeed be one of the dire outcomes of the lies of generational warfare.
Otherwise, experts say, its financial failure is not remotely in the cards. For families it
has always been the most popular government program, because it provides a measure of
dignified independence for older people and a measure of relief for their adult children.
Younger people should support the expansion of Social Security for another reason, writes
one millennial who doesn't take the bait. Nick Guthman argues in The Hill that because of
student debt, "Millennials and Generation Z will need Social Security even more than our
parents and grandparents do."
The 2100 Act, now before Congress, would raise the cap on taxable-wage contributions.
Conservatives reject this easy fix, but it is overwhelmingly popular with the public.
Manipulating cohort characteristics damages far more than attitudes toward Social
Security, bad as the effect of that contrived skepticism could be. Blaming an older
generation that is already maligned allows many real perpetrators to smugly hide from their
irresponsibility. Will the climate movement find youngsters blaming the boomers for
ecological destruction, because some drove big cars? Wouldn't it be better to turn on the
CEOs of Exxon, who hid the dangers of burning fossil fuels that their scientists discovered
so thoroughly that few of us knew to stop flying?
Persistent precarity is indeed the historical issue that is obscured by these discourses.
The fact of American decline is this: Most people in each generation have had it worse than
their parents. According to a report on The State of Working America, the United States lags
behind its peer countries in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
in measurements of father-son mobility. In the United States, the "sons" have been receiving
stagnant wages, fewer benefits, jobs in the insecure gig economy. Many women too have lost
the progress narrative of rising expectations. That progress narrative, when upward mobility
was more widespread, supported the American Dream. It gave hope that democracy would work for
increasing numbers.
Don't blame your parents. Every article manipulating cohort stereotypes lets the
government and corporations off the hook for outsourcing abroad, the crash of rust-belt
industries, de-unionization, and the decades of cascading downward mobility we now endure.
You can't even want to get justice until you know the true sources of injustice.
How do imaginary reputations and hostile emotions get nailed onto struggling groups,
decade after decade, in this pernicious way? Naming each imagined age cohort makes it
possible. The process is called reification. Naming makes vague temporal proximity into a
thing.
Only the name baby boomers had an adequate demographic and historical reason to exist.
These millions were born (from 1946 to 1964) of the relative affluence that spread after
World War II. Their numbers did give them unifying experiences as they grew up -- made their
elders build new schools for them, made their working lives more competitive. Now they are
confronted by a president who, after promising not to, is cutting their security and health
care in devious ways.
But, even undergoing historical events together, age-peers don't build the same memories,
share the same beliefs, behave uniformly. During Vietnam, some young men were conscripted
into the war while others fought to end it. Stark differences likewise mark the current group
of young people (unimaginatively called "post-millennials"). Some of them are woke and ready
to take on racism, sexism, homophobia, gun control, global warming. At the same age,
neo-Nazis are setting fire to synagogues.
Once cohorts are reified by name, the labels become dog-whistles. Envy and fear can divide
a nation and abet destructive political changes. Malice can turn one generation against
another.
We could mitigate the divisiveness. Editors could stop soliciting age-war articles by
second-rate phrasemakers. We ordinary people need to defy the lies, and build
intergenerational bonds. Let us understand that capitalist and neoliberal choices have
worsened life, for decades, for every later, unequal subculture. And a comforting, unifying
cross-age coalition should eject politicians unwilling to maintain and repair our precious
communal institutions.
Computer programmer Steve Relles has the poop on what to do when your job is outsourced to
India. Relles has spent the past year making his living scooping up dog droppings as the
"Delmar Dog Butler." "My parents paid for me to get a (degree) in math and now I am a pooper
scooper," "I can clean four to five yards in a hour if they are close together." Relles, who
lost his computer programming job about three years ago ... has over 100 clients who pay $10
each for a once-a-week cleaning of their yard.
Relles competes for business with another local company called "Scoopy Do." Similar
outfits have sprung up across America, including Petbutler.net, which operates in Ohio.
Relles says his business is growing by word of mouth and that most of his clients are women
who either don't have the time or desire to pick up the droppings. "St. Bernard (dogs) are my
favorite customers since they poop in large piles which are easy to find," Relles said. "It
sure beats computer programming because it's flexible, and I get to be outside,"
"... This is the direction in which the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary world situation. ..."
"... Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours. ..."
"... Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish. ..."
"... Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't you think? ..."
"... Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. ' ..."
Because i feel that some agenda is at play. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling, or even a bit of gas lighting, but
it seems like a slide into classic red scaring and recasting of Eric Blair
By way of explaining my emotion and since you mention Warburg, here is an example of Orwellian post humous attribution.
He never said "imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
'from a post-publication press release directed by publisher Fredric Warburg toward readers who "had misinterpreted [Orwell's]
aim, taking the novel as a criticism of the current British Labour Party, or of contemporary socialism in general." The quotation
from the press release was "soon given the status of a last statement or deathbed appeal, given that Orwell was hospitalized
at the time and dead six months later."
You can read more at georgeorwellnovels.com, which provides a great deal of context on this press release, which runs, in
full, as follows:
It has been suggested by some of the reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four that it is the author's view that this, or something
like this, is what will happen inside the next forty years in the Western world. This is not correct. I think that, allowing
for the book being after all a parody, something like Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen. This is the direction in which
the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary
world situation.
Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity
to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and
the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.
The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: Don't let it happen. It depends on you.
George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four come into being there will be several
super states. This is fully dealt with in the relevant chapters of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is also discussed from a different
angle by James Burnham in The Managerial Revolution. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other or (a
novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are.
Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks
line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize
themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested
in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism"
or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish.
If there is a failure of nerve and the Labour party breaks down in its attempt to deal with the hard problems with which
it will be faced, tougher types than the present Labour leaders will inevitably take over, drawn probably from the ranks of
the Left, but not sharing the Liberal aspirations of those now in power. Members of the present British government, from Mr.
Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps down to Aneurin Bevan will never willingly sell the pass to the enemy, and in general the older
men, nurtured in a Liberal tradition, are safe, but the younger generation is suspect and the seeds of totalitarian thought
are probably widespread among them. It is invidious to mention names, but everyone could without difficulty think for himself
of prominent English and American personalities whom the cap would fit.' http://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html
-- -- -- -
Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't
you think?
Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. '
'
As i wrote earlier, perhaps Blair of Eton ultimately saw how clearly hist talents had been misused by the 'totalitarians' before
he died.
I understand that some of his works are still censored and others never published. As are his state employment in propaganda
on which he probably based his 'parody' on.
They say, No more IT or system or server admins needed very soon...
Sick and tired of listening to these so called architects and full stack developers who watch bunch of videos on YouTube and Pluralsight,
find articles online. They go around workplace throwing words like containers, devops, NoOps, azure, infrastructure as code, serverless,
etc, they don't understand half of the stuff. I do some of the devops tasks in our company, I understand what it takes to implement
and manage these technologies. Every meeting is infested with these A holes.
Your best defense against these is to come up with non-sarcastic and quality questions to ask these people during the meeting,
and watch them not have a clue how to answer them.
For example, a friend of mine worked at a smallish company, some manager really wanted to move more of their stuff into Azure
including AD and Exchange environment. But they had common problems with their internet connection due to limited bandwidth and
them not wanting to spend more. So during a meeting my friend asked a question something like this:
"You said on this slide that moving the AD environment and Exchange environment to Azure will save us money. Did you take into
account that we will need to increase our internet speed by a factor of at least 4 in order to accommodate the increase in traffic
going out to the Azure cloud? "
Of course, they hadn't. So the CEO asked my friend if he had the numbers, which he had already done his homework, and it was
a significant increase in cost every month and taking into account the cost for Azure and the increase in bandwidth wiped away
the manager's savings.
I know this won't work for everyone. Sometimes there is real savings in moving things to the cloud. But often times there really
isn't. Calling the uneducated people out on what they see as facts can be rewarding. level 2
my previous boss was that kind of a guy. he waited till other people were done throwing their weight around in a meeting and
then calmly and politely dismantled them with facts.
no amount of corporate pressuring or bitching could ever stand up to that. level 3
Ive been trying to do this. Problem is that everyone keeps talking all the way to the end of the meeting leaving no room for
rational facts. level 4 PuzzledSwitch 35 points ·
4 days ago
This is my approach. I don't yell or raise my voice, I just wait. Then I start asking questions that they generally cannot
answer and slowly take them apart. I don't have to be loud to get my point across. level 4
This tactic is called "the box game". Just continuously ask them logical questions that can't be answered with their stupidity.
(Box them in), let them be their own argument against themselves.
Most DevOps I've met are devs trying to bypass the sysadmins. This, and the Cloud fad, are
burning serious amount of money from companies managed by stupid people that get easily impressed by PR stunts and shiny conferences.
Then when everything goes to shit, they call the infrastructure team to fix it...
The Iron Heel is a dystopian[1] novel by American writer Jack London, first published in
1908.[2] Generally considered to be "the earliest of the modern dystopian" fiction,[3] it
chronicles the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States.
In The Iron Heel, Jack London's socialist views are explicitly on display. A forerunner of
soft science fiction novels and stories of the 1960s and '70s, the book stresses future changes
in society and politics while paying much less attention to technological changes.
The novel is based on the fictional "Everhard Manuscript" written by Avis Everhard... The
Manuscript itself covers the years 1912 through 1932 in which the Oligarchy (or "Iron Heel") arose in the United
States. In Asia, Japan conquered East Asia and created its own empire, India gained independence,
and Europe became socialist. Canada, Mexico, and Cuba formed their own Oligarchies and were
aligned with the U.S. (London remains silent as to the fates of South America, Africa, and the
Middle East.)
In North America, the Oligarchy maintains power for three centuries until the Revolution
succeeds and ushers in the Brotherhood of Man. During the years of the novel, the First Revolt is
described and preparations for the Second Revolt are discussed. From the perspective of Everhard,
the imminent Second Revolt is sure to succeed but from Meredith's frame story , the reader knows that Ernest
Everhard's hopes would go unfulfilled until centuries after his death.
The Oligarchy is the largest monopoly of trusts (or robber barons ) who manage to
squeeze out the middle class by bankrupting most small to mid-sized business as
well as reducing all farmers to effective serfdom . This Oligarchy maintains power through a
"labor caste " and the
Mercenaries . Laborers in
essential industries like steel and rail are elevated and given decent wages, housing, and
education. Indeed, the tragic turn in the novel (and Jack London's core warning to his
contemporaries) is the treachery of these favored unions which break with the other unions and
side with the Oligarchy. Further, a second, military caste is formed: the Mercenaries. The Mercenaries are
officially the army of the US but are in fact in the employ of the Oligarchs.
Jack London ambitiously predicted a breakdown of the US republic starting a few years past
1908, but various events have caused his predicted future to diverge from actual history. Most
crucially, though London placed quite accurately the time when international tensions will reach
their peak (1913 in "The Iron Heel", 1914 in actual history ), he (like many others at
the time) predicted that when this moment came, labor solidarity would prevent a war that would
include the US, Germany and other nations.
The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced
Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four .
[4] Orwell himself
described London as having made "a very remarkable prophecy of the rise of Fascism ", in the book and believed that
London's understanding of the primitive had made him a better prophet "than many better-informed
and more logical thinkers." [5] ( The Iron Heel - Wikipedia )
As writer or thinker, Jack London can't touch George Orwell, but he's nearly the Brit's
equal when it comes to describing society's bottom. To both, being a writer is as much a
physical as an intellectual endeavor. Wading into everything, they braved all discomforts and
dangers. This attitude has become very rare, and not just among writers. Trapped in intensely
mediated lives, we all think we know more as we experience less and less.
At age 14, London worked in a salmon cannery. At 16, he was an oyster pirate. At 17, he was
a sailor on a sealing schooner that reached Japan. At 18, London crossed the country as a hobo
and, near Buffalo, was jailed for 30 days for vagrancy. At 21, he prospected for gold in the
Klondike. London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt,
carpet cleaner and electrician, so he had many incidents, mishaps and ordeals to draw from, and
countless characters to portray.
London's The Road chronicles his hobo and prison misadventure. Condemned to hard labor, the
teenager nearly starved, "While we got plenty of water, we did not get enough of the bread. A
ration of bread was about the size of one's two fists, and three rations a day were given to
each prisoner. There was one good thing, I must say, about the water -- it was hot. In the
morning it was called 'coffee,' at noon it was dignified as 'soup,' and at night it masqueraded
as 'tea.' But it was the same old water all the time."
London quickly worked his way up the clink's hierarchy, to become one of 13 enforcers for
the guards. This experience alone should have taught him that in all situations, not just dire
ones, each man will prioritize his own interest and survival, and that there's no solidarity
among the "downtrodden" or whatever. Orwell's Animal Farm is a parable about this. Since man is
an egoist, power lust lurks everywhere.
During the Russo-Japanese War a decade later, London would approvingly quote a letter from
Japanese socialists to their Russian comrades, but this pacific gesture was nothing compared to
the nationalistic fervor engulfing both countries. Like racism, nationalism is but self love.
Though clearly madness if overblown, it's unextinguishable.
Jailed, London the future socialist stood by as his gang disciplined a naïf, "I
remember a handsome young mulatto of about twenty who got the insane idea into his head that he
should stand for his rights. And he did have the right of it, too; but that didn't help him
any. He lived on the topmost gallery. Eight hall-men took the conceit out of him in just about
a minute and a half -- for that was the length of time required to travel along his gallery to
the end and down five flights of steel stairs. He travelled the whole distance on every portion
of his anatomy except his feet, and the eight hall-men were not idle. The mulatto struck the
pavement where I was standing watching it all. He regained his feet and stood upright for a
moment. In that moment he threw his arms wide apart and omitted an awful scream of terror and
pain and heartbreak. At the same instant, as in a transformation scene, the shreds of his stout
prison clothes fell from him, leaving him wholly naked and streaming blood from every portion
of the surface of his body. Then he collapsed in a heap, unconscious. He had learned his
lesson, and every convict within those walls who heard him scream had learned a lesson. So had
I learned mine. It is not a nice thing to see a man's heart broken in a minute and a half."
Jailed, you immediately recover your racial consciousness, but London apparently missed
this. In any case, a lesser writer or man wouldn't confess to such complicity with power.
Elsewhere, London admits to much hustling and lying, and even claims these practices made him a
writer, "I have often thought that to this training of my tramp days is due much of my success
as a story-writer. In order to get the food whereby I lived, I was compelled to tell tales that
rang true [ ] Also, I quite believe it was my tramp-apprenticeship that made a realist out of
me. Realism constitutes the only goods one can exchange at the kitchen door for grub."
Informed by hard-earned, bitter experience, London's accounts resonate and convince, even
when outlandish, for they are essentially true about the human condition.
London on a fellow prisoner, "He was a huge, illiterate brute, an
ex-Chesapeake-Bay-oyster-pirate, an 'ex-con' who had done five years in Sing Sing, and a
general all-around stupidly carnivorous beast. He used to trap sparrows that flew into our hall
through the open bars. When he made a capture, he hurried away with it into his cell, where I
have seen him crunching bones and spitting out feathers as he bolted it raw."
Though London often uses "beast" or "beastly" to describe how humans are treated, this
fellow appears to be congenitally bestial, with his all-around stupidity. As for the other
prisoners, "Our hall was a common stews, filled with the ruck and the filth, the scum and
dregs, of society -- hereditary inefficients, degenerates, wrecks, lunatics, addled
intelligences, epileptics, monsters, weaklings, in short, a very nightmare of humanity." Though
many are wrecked, others are born deficient, addled or weak, but in our retarded days, morons
must be smart in other ways, and raging monsters are merely oppressed into mayhem or
murder.
ORDER IT NOW
But of course, society does oppress, then and now. Remember that an 18-year-old London was
sentenced to 30 days of hard labor for merely being in a strange city without a hotel
reservation. Another inmate was doing 60 for eating from a trash can, "He had strayed out to
the circus ground, and, being hungry, had made his way to the barrel that contained the refuse
from the table of the circus people. 'And it was good bread,' he often assured me; 'and the
meat was out of sight.' A policeman had seen him and arrested him, and there he was." Well, at
least Americans are no longer locked up for dumpster diving, so there's progress for you, but
then many must still feed from the garbage, with that number rapidly rising.
Though London was a worldwide celebrity at his death in 1916, his fame faded so fast that
Orwell could comment in 1944, "Jack London is one of those border-line writers whose works
might be forgotten altogether unless somebody takes the trouble to revive them."
London's most enduring book may turn out to be The People of the Abyss, his 1903
investigation into the abjectly impoverished of London's East End.
Dressed accordingly, London joined its homeless to see how they survived. With a 58-year-old
carter and a 65-year-old carpenter, London wandered the cold streets, "From the slimy,
spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they were picking up bits of orange peel, apple skin, and grape
stems, and, they were eating them. The pits of greengage plums they cracked between their teeth
for the kernels inside. They picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so
black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took
into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o'clock
in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest,
and most powerful empire the world has ever seen."
Having mingled with many homeless in cities across America, I can attest that the food
situation is not as bad in that unraveling empire, but the squalor is just as appalling, if not
worse. A Wall Street Journal headline, "California's Biggest Cities Confront a 'Defecation
Crisis'." There's no need to import public shitting from shitholes, since there's already
plenty of it, homegrown and well-fertilized with smirkingly cynical policies.
Trump, "We can't let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves
by allowing what's happening," but he's only talking about the unsightliness of it all, not its
root cause, which is a deliberately wrecked economy that, over decades, has fabulously enriched
his and our masters. This, too, is a controlled demolition.
Ensconced in some leafy suburb, you might be missing this beastly, raving, zonked out and
shitty transformation. Jack London, though, never recoiled from society's diarrhea. My favorite
passage of The People of the Abyss is his account of bathing, so to speak, in a workhouse:
We stripped our clothes, wrapping them up in our coats and buckling our belts about them,
and deposited them in a heaped rack and on the floor -- a beautiful scheme for the spread of
vermin. Then, two by two, we entered the bathroom. There were two ordinary tubs, and this I
know: the two men preceding had washed in that water, we washed in the same water, and it was
not changed for the two men that followed us. This I know; but I am also certain that the
twenty-two of us washed in the same water.
I did no more than make a show of splashing some of this dubious liquid at myself, while I
hastily brushed it off with a towel wet from the bodies of other men. My equanimity was not
restored by seeing the back of one poor wretch a mass of blood from attacks of vermin and
retaliatory scratching.
If other men had to endure that, why shouldn't London, especially since he was trying to
understand these wretches?
Many moons, suns and saturns ago, I taught a writing course at UPenn, and for one
assignment, I asked students to take the subway to a strange stop, get off, walk around and
observe, but don't do it in the dark, I did warn them. Frightened, one girl couldn't get off,
so simply wrote about her very first ride. At least she got a taste of an entirely alien world
beyond campus. Considering that her parents had to cough up over 60 grands annually to consign
her to the Ivy League, they'd probably want to murder me for subjecting their precious to such
needless anxieties.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
London insisted a worldwide class revolution was the answer. A century and several gory
nightmares later, there are those who still cling to this faith, but only in the West. In the
East, even the most ignorant know the survival of his identity and dignity is conterminous with
his nation's. Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage
in a flash.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals, with
existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
In the US, at least, this shouldn't be too complicated, for their crimes are mostly out in
the open, and their enforcers appear nightly in your living room, not unlike 1984. As you
watch, they cheerfully lie, silence witnesses, mass murder, squander your last cent and
dismantle, brick by brick, the house your forefathers built and died defending. Even if all
they saw was its basement, it was still their everything.
Lexicologically, Jack London far surpasses Orwell. He mixes erudite and argot. Stylistically
London far surpassed anything Orwell ever came up with. Orwell is a man of unum librum.
Nor would I say Orwell was a better thinker than London. 1984 is partly inspired by the
Iron Heel, an image coined by London in a namesake book.
Reducing London to being a mere "socialist" is moronic.
London is one of those authors whom aesthetes despise, but who- against all odds- stubbornly
refuse to go away. When he wrote about "serious" topics, London was a failure (Burning
Daylight, Martin Eden, ); on the other hand, when he wrote about animals, primitives,
mentally impaired, (white) underclass & quasi-fascist-Darwinian fantasies (most stories
& short novels) -he was an unavoidable writer, one that will be read long after most
canonized authors are just a footnote.
By the way, he was extremely popular even in Czarist Russia, something along the lines of
American vitalism & energy.
Jack London's "The Iron Heel" is another of his fictional stories about the working classes
and in the book he attacks capitalism and promotes socialism while presenting the story of
the US turned into an oligarchy in 1913 (the book was written in 1907). What's interesting
about "The Iron Heel" is that by 1900 it must have been quite obvious as to how the world's
more powerful nations were planning on parceling up the world, and London makes reference to
this in his novel about the future military campaigns that will take place in the book's
dystopian future, and his fiction was not far wrong from what actually transpired in WW1 and
WW2.
After Jack London gained fame he did not work alone, he hired aspiring writers to
"fill-in" his fiction, much like famous painters painting large commissions would hire
subordinates to "fill-in" their canvas after the outline was drawn. The plot and subplots
would come from London, but his underlings would write the stories. At this point in time I
can't remember the names but as I recall a few famous authors got their start working for
Jack London.
London was also cursed with the writer's nemesis, he was an alcoholic, and his
autobiographical novel "John Barleycorn" treats the "demon drink" as one of the world's great
ills. The book being published in 1913, it is noteworthy that the eighteenth amendment
banning alcohol was passed by congress a few years later in 1919, so it could be that London
was at least a minor fulcrum in giving a push to the moral crusade against alcohol being sold
in the US.
Much of Jack London's work is classic like his short story fiction placed in Alaska, "To
Start a Fire" about a man exposed to the elements and slowly freezing to death, or his
fictional tales about being a constable sailing a schooner chasing pirates off the coast of
California. Also unique and thrilling is the short story "A Piece of Steak" about an aging
boxer hoping to win one last fight. These were tough and gritty stories about men at their
extremity, and not tales for children.
London wrote a good tale and he understood human nature, and perhaps that's what motivated
him to become an alcoholic socialist.
@Bardon
Kaldian I enjoyed much of London's works. Although I read many of his books when
young,and I don't remember them too much, they helped inspire me to head north in the very
backyard of Burning Daylight, a best seller in it's day. His portrayal of characters of the
North seem quite believable and his description of the land and it's peculiar traits are also
accurate. The short story 'All Gold Canyon' is spot on for how a prospector prospects.
I read the Jack London Reader (for sale in Chicken, ak) a few years ago and enjoyed it
immensely as I did the Sea Wolf.
Martin Eden is a depressing read. I have only read Animal Farm so I really can't compare.
Depends how much one 'likes' to get disgruntled.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
Funny, all I ever read on the Internet these days are articles about America's
destruction. This article's another one. Yet according to some pouty guy on the other side of
the planet, we're oblivious.
And Pornhub is #32 according to Alexa. That's really high, but 31 websites precede it.
I've never visited Pornhub, and I'd bet neither have 9 out of 10 Americans. Eliminate kids
under 10, adults over 80, most women, and all those without Internet access, and you're left
with a core of certain primetime lusty guys who are comfortable with pornography. Couldn't be
more than 10%.
It'd be wonderful if we could have a single calendar day, say October 21, when everyone
declares a moratorium on blithely shitting on America. Or is this part of the Jewish strategy
to keep us divided and unhappy?
"London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt, carpet
cleaner and electrician" and – not least – SPORTSWRITER!John Griffith Chaney
packed a lot of experience into his short forty year span on this wretched earth but his
stint on the Oakland Herald & later sports writing – especially about surfing
– are some of his best & consistent with his own fiery enjoyment of active outdoor
sports. Perhaps best summed up in his aphorism:"I would rather be ashes than dust." London
was not known for being a soccer fan but nonetheless, he would probably still be pleased to
know that there is in his hometown today a very large & thriving Jack London Youth Soccer
League. Anybody's guess how long it will be before the Woke Folk in town try to shut it down
for being named after a 'white supremacist'.
Eric Arthur Blair had a similarly short stay in this world – only seven more years than
London – but didn't much share his enthusiasm for the sporting life. Orwell was quite
candid in his rejection of the world's favorite past time, explaining in an essay: "I loathed
the game, and since I could see no pleasure or usefulness in it, it was very difficult for me
to show courage at it. Football, it seemed to me, is not really played for the pleasure of
kicking a ball about, but is a species of fighting." Orwell was even more pointed in a London
Tribune op-ed during his early newspaper days, commenting on a recent series of matches
between a Russian & English clubs, " the games cult did not start till the later part of
the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school,
looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States,
games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and
rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most
violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be
much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism -- that is, with the
lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in
terms of competitive prestige."
"Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage in a
flash."
Or beat their national team. Go Golden Dragons!
When I read about a woman dying from a rooster attack, or people falling to their death to
take selfies, or the growing number of hikers who venture out into semi- wilderness with
their cell phones but not adequate water, I always think of London's "To Build a Fire."
If London observed man's diminished capacity to measure and survive nature in his era,
what would he make of any airport or street today? Like the parasite creature in "Alien",
phones are stuck to every face encountered. Most people are not "present" in any sense when
in the public sphere now, let alone taking note of the world around them.
Great essay. I made it a point to visit Jack London's ranch on a California visit. The ranch
was a huge unfulfilled project with the sad burnt out ruins of his dream house reminding us
of his grand plans. The condition of his grown-over untended grave startled me. I find it
interesting that many men of that time viewed socialism as a panacea; however, the intellect,
ambition and energy of a man like Jack London would never have survived the ideology he
espoused.
@Paul Did
you see the "Trotsky" miniseries on Netflix? It was in Russian with English subtitles, but I
enjoyed reading them all and found it riveting. It appeared to be historically accurate to
someone like me who knows little of Russian history. Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) was a
Ukrainian Jew who cared little for how many Russians he killed. I guess Ukies hated Russians
even back then.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals,
with existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
This is why I don't get your disgust at President Trump. He has the will and the position
to do just as you recommend and he would do it if the ruling class weren't trying to cut him
off at the knees 24-7. Trump is the people's first successful attempt to drive the destroyers
from the forum. I fear for coming generations if he doesn't.
@simple_pseudonymic_handle
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Herman Melville
Walt Whitman
Mark Twain
Stephen Crane
T.S. Eliot
Henry James
Tennessee Williams
Saul Bellow
John Updike
I wish the author would have done an analysis of London's "Iron Heel." I just read it for
the first time, and what he was writing about 100 years ago on the dominance of the
"oligarchs", i.e., the "iron heel" rings as true today as it did back then.
Curious also how he died so suddenly. There is a YouTube video of him at his ranch looking
as healthy as can be only a couple of days before he mysteriously died.
@AaronB
An empire exploits and abuses all natives, including those of its host nation. Just think of
how they must send these natives to foreign lands, not just to kill, but die. It's better to
be a house slave than a field one, however, so many far flung subjects of the empire will try
to sneak into the house. It's also safer there, generally. Except for rare instances, as in
9/11, the empire won't blow up natives inside its borders.
I am struck by the variety of ways in which the actual spiritual state of Americans is
denied by people who have every reason to know what that state is: our educators, artists,
and politicians. It is hard for me to believe, for example, that educators do not know the
sorry truth behind the lack of real education here. It seems very clear to me that until the
educators themselves believe in what they teach, there is no hope for their students. But the
educators cannot accept this, because in order to do so they would have to overhaul every
aspect of their private lives, which effort would hurl them forever beyond the bounds of the
academic life.
James Baldwin, 1961
The catastrophe which is education in this country is not new. For the majority of students
in the United States, black students in particular, education has never meant anything more
than a training to stay in one's place. Over the past several decades, however, with the
American Empire in an accelerating free-fall, American education, ever the handmaiden of
society's rich and powerful, has in tandem spiraled downward: our schools endlessly drill our
children with boring and meaningless "worksheets"; we subsidize and celebrate the digital
economy by "teaching" children with computers and computer programs; we script our teachers to
guarantee a minimum of human interaction in the classroom; we strip our schools of art and
music, making sure that our students never see beauty or truth in the world; and, of course, we
drill our students for weeks and months on end with testing, and more testing, and still more
testing, lest our students find any joy whatsoever in learning. In short, our schools dull the
intelligence and curiosity of our young people such that they will never question the
meaningless and unpleasant lives they will be forced to lead in a society that is everywhere
falling apart around them.
In higher education, too, we see this dramatic narrowing of the already slim chances that
any of our students will achieve a real education. Our state legislatures, in the most telling
example, cut state support for higher education requiring that university administrations jack
up tuition, tuition that rises far more rapidly than does inflation. Higher tuition yields both
higher student debt and more students working twenty, thirty, or forty hours a week in paying
jobs while they attend school. Our indebted students then must hew as closely as they possibly
can to career paths which enable them to minimize and pay back their debts; and the long hours
of minimum wage work taken on by our students all but guarantee that they cannot be serious
students, cannot devote the hours they need to study and reflection, cannot, in short, do the
work most necessary for them to become educated, mature, human beings. But then educated,
mature human beings do not fit well into our global economy.
In the face of this disaster, our university faculty refuse to take any stand against the
strangling of education in this country. We mouth words in our classrooms about truth, and the
search for truth, and the value and necessity of honesty and ethics, and democracy, and
responsible citizenship. Privately, we condemn the various assessment schemes we're compelled
to carry out; privately, we denounce the rapid multiplication of educationally meaningless
administrative and compliance positions on our campuses. And privately, we bemoan the ignorance
of our students, their lack of curiosity and their lack of academic preparation. But when it
comes to denouncing all the various assaults upon education occurring across the entire
spectrum of our educational landscape, when we are compelled to speak to the reasons why our
students enter our universities uneducated, and still more seriously, why they leave our
universities uneducated, we lose our voice. As more than one of my colleagues has said to me in
explanation of his silence: "I don't want to stick my neck out."
As one who never finished the 'official' "education" process, I can look back and see that
I was reacting to an almost subconscious realization that I was 'there' for the wrong
reasons, according to the received wisdom of that, and every other, time. This disconnect
between the 'ideal' of education and the 'reality' of the "Paper Chase," is perennial.
Historically speaking, a 'proper' higher education serves the purpose of producing a 'well
rounded' person. Traditionally, that process was reserved for those with a high amount of
disposable income; the children of the wealthy. The "lower orders" beavered on in technical
colleges and apprenticeships. The odd 'special' case was made in the 'proper' universities
for the exceptionally bright and the token 'charity' student. Call it an institutional case
of virtue signalling.
Today, those two disparite streams of education have been melded into one almost
monolithic bloc. The original utilitarian view of education, previously reserved for the
'technical' fields has invaded and corrupted the "higher" educational sphere. Now, everything
has a "price." Presumably, that formulation also applies to the students enmeshed in the new,
magisterial 'education' instrumentality. Roughly speaking, the 'students' are now the
'product' of the universities, not the education.
Finally, all this might be a socially 'agreed upon' process to short circuit the
production of intellectually and emotionally 'well balanced' individuals. There is nothing
more fear producing in any ruling elite than the prospect of an 'aware' public.
As a consumer, and producer of higher education curricula over 20 years in academia, this
article is spot on in how it describes the bezzle. And the area of specialization for me
(family finance – human ecology) is the prototypical example of the Neoliberal
university coaxing students into believing that incremental change, small bits of
knowledge/courses will change their lives for our students for the better -- while large
institutions continue to cheat, obscure malfeasance, and promote the administrative culture.
Its sickening on so many levels.
It is sickening to experience (teaching and learning). And if we remembered more than we
forget, it would take about 20 seconds to remember how the market has changed higher
education in terms content (what is studied), how we study (crammage), and why we study.
Lastly, if we imagine the exact same degree type for two different eras we can see the main
focus very clear:
1. Tuition at Cal Berkley in 1970? Around 1K 2019 – more like 1K per credit
hour.
2. Paying for your future assumes that we have a future (climate change, job market
opportunities)
3. Debt peonage and rentier education squatting requires the right mix of desperation and
time
When I think about the time/money/energy that is wasted in this country (not just in
universities – anyone just has to spend 1 minute with someone who participates in
fantasy football or sports gaming to see how out of wack we are as a culture and as a
people.
The hollowed out spaces in universities are now more about pretending to be competent,
maintaining the status quo -- each unit within departments competing against one another for
resources and students rather than we are all in this together (for the student).
If education can be seen in the lens of abuse, we have the profiteers abusers, and the
admin enables with chaos for everyone else.
Crazy
As Regina Spektor says: Living in Den of Thieves – its contagious
What Barber is saying: Teaching is hard, and my students aren't very bright (look in a
mirror, sir, neither are you). Revolutions are fun. Let's do that instead.
Yes, most people are educated, especially these days, to be conformist, to adopt the
current economic fantasies, and to be highly verbal.
But Barber does himself no favors: What can he possibly mean by the American Church? I am
detecting someone who has spent too much time in the U.S. South (Tennessee) where the
"church" is those nice Methodists down the street. Along with some required singing of
Amazing Grace. So what he may think of as an insightful critique of Americans' flexible
morals doesn't get to the center of the problem. The American "church" is utilitarianism.
Whatever one can get away with one gets away with. Actions have no consequences among the
perfected.
And the mention of the Greeks by Barber and Deneen is gratuitous. Neither of them has much
use for the Greeks and Greek philosophy. Each of them likely considers Greek philosophy
mainly to be the support that makes the American Church intellectually legitimate.
I understand the moral problem of anyone trying to get an education in the U S of A these
days. My alma mater is one of the main cheerleaders for fundamentialist free-market fantasy.
(Alma mater: What an idea.) Yet the diploma is only a start: Education has to go throughout
one's life, and sentimental education (is that even a "thing" here in the U S of A?) has to
go on everyday for the rest of one's post-diploma life.
Actually, the diploma is the end of the beginning. The start is "the first five" years of
life (talk, read, sing) which is likely to expose the growing brain to stimuli that allows
for future "discovery". The beginning of formal education (K-12), unfortunately for many,
starts with poverty (25% of all school children) and impoverished school resources (including
underpaid, over-worked teachers) that conspire toward an assembly-line methodology (testing,
and more testing). Those who make it to college (honestly) are well-versed in manufacturing
"acceptable" papers on topics not understood. But then the college curricula (more demanding
than H.S.) and the concept of "critical thinking" (ignoring the social implications of 18-20
y.o.'s on their own) makes the idea of "learning how to learn" a difficult grasp. Some get
it, some don't.
It is after getting the college diploma, and maybe of few years of travel (for pleasure or
a job) that a much broader, mature perspective of the world (Plato) emerges. (Hopefully those
Classics, or an introduction to NC, comes across your path.) It is then the real learning
starts.
I agree wholeheartedly with your diagnosis (not to mention greatly appreciate your lovely
prose), however, I think your theory of change as stated here – "force the issue and
meaning of education before American society" – misses the mark.
I have spent the better part of 2 decades studying, first history, then education, with
the goal of becoming an educator (accumulating no small amount of debt in the process). So
long as I stuck to diagnosing the problem as you did here, and keeping my calls to arms
strictly in the rhetorical realm, I was welcomed as an "ally" and fellow traveler by a not
insignificant portion of my colleagues.
Unfortunately for my career (not to mention mental health), I wasn't satisfied with that,
and began to delve and a very focused and specific way into the actual structure of
educational systems, and looking for levers to gain the power necessary to change them (or,
more specifically, to shift power from those who hold it to those who do not). That was when
I learned just how thin of a gruel "allyship" really is in academia.
I think you are assuming educators have real power. They do not. Power, real power, comes
from control over the material necessities and niceties of life. The primary social function
of our educational institutions, from pre-k through endowed chairmanship is to sort people
into an unequal society. If the "real issue and meaning of education" (i.e. creating the
conditions and connections necessary for truly democratic life) were to take hold in such an
institution, it would either destroy the institution or turn it into something else
entirely.
I agree "an educated people" is indeed our only hope, because to me an educated people is
synonymous with a democratic people. Indeed, I think education is the inevitable result of
people getting together to solve problems nonviolently with a coequal distribution of power.
Where it has truly taken root (e.g. Freedom schools in the 60s, the meetings organized by
populist party at the turn of the 19th/20th century), it has had a material function and base
that is diametrically opposed to the way virtually all today's "educators" earn their daily
bread.
IMO, the way people become true "educators" – those who "force the issue and meaning
of education before American society" – is by serving the educational function in a
democratic movement. They are people who are delegated authority democratically (i.e. without
coercion) by those they serve because they, in essence, are effective hubs for the
uninhibited flow of social information. In other words, they are authentically democratic
leaders, whose power is entirely dependent on maintaining trust because trust is fundamental
to the uninhibited flow of social information, and the temptation to violate social trust is,
well, why human societies have more drama than ant colonies.
You are a professor, and no doubt do a great deal of good for a great many students (I did
a brief stint of that as well, and in no way am trying to undermine how valuable and
rewarding it can be), but you will never be, in that role, an "educator" in the truly
democratic sense because every one of your students knows you could, if you wanted,
completely screw them over and there's not a family blogging thing they could do about
it.
You can, however, be a real educator (i.e. democratic leader) in your spare time, and are
in a unique and special institutional position to prepare future (and support present) real
democratic educator/leaders to manage one hell of a clusterfamilyblog of a global
civilizational collapse that is coming whether we want it to or not. I hope you will do so
with a hard-nosed evaluation of the relationship between power, information flows, democracy,
and the material world, as I fear anything less will be far from adequate.
These comments appear to me to be the epitome of neoliberal doctrine:
1. People have everything they need to excel
2. Its never been easier to study as information has been democratized
3. Invocation of Maslow, ambient culture (interesting view of life-stage development for
young adults too
4. Individualistic lens – "addressing the big issues of your time"
Maybe I read this wrong, or it started with "NC folk" – but there is no mention
of:
Debt peonage
Administrative culture
Global Labor Markets
Real Costs for Students – Tuition Inflation (higher than healthcare costs over last 30
years)
– Parking predation
– Textbook Bezzles
– Adjunct – itus
– Pay to Play Tenure
– Darwinian death struggle among college units in departments (Survival =
Resources)
– Forgetting – a major theme (making meaning of one's education) – moving
onto CV building
Social Costs of Expensive Higher Education (delay family formation)
Long term wealth implications for this generation's graduates
Education is not a solitary event, with isolated moments of brainstorming and
individualistic memes of hardwork. It is a system with millions of parts -- and these parts
have been bent to serve our neoliberal masters in about every domain imaginable.
And in my experience, (as Yves says) this is not a bug in the system -- it was a feature
of a system reboot designed especially for these outcomes
Last year I went to the local library book sale, and bought a stack of college textbooks
– chemistry, physics, elec engineering, calc, etc. The stack was 3′ tall, and it
cost me $26.
A few months ago, I downloaded the latest Linux & Java development workbench onto the
computer I built from components sourced from Ebay/Amazon. Full, up-to-date, latest edition
of Java development workbench on killer hardware $650, including 21″ monitor. Software
and how-to materials all free. I have done this several times during my career, and it's
never been easier or cheaper to do.
To glean those textbooks, all I have to do is read, do the probs at the back of the
chapter. To build salable skills, all I have to do is think up a problem to solve, and write
the software to solve it. Effort. Those two things – ID useful problem, and the
marshalling of components to solve it – gives me demonstrable evidence of competency,
and I can parlay that into a good job.
When I look a the amount of time expended on smart phones, Facebook, etc. I become less
sympathetic about people's plight – in general. One counter-example: the 450-year
systematic repression of blacks is one issue that merits societal redress.
And whether this cultural malady of victimhood is by design (by the "elites", for ex), or
by circumstance, it is not mandatory . No one is making people watch TV. There are
choices, and some are making different, better choices, and benefiting from it.
Visit http://www.coursera.org .
Tell my why I would go into debt to get what I need when it's available (from many of the
elite schools and professors) for free.
So, if taking initiative to address my own needs is what you call NeoLiberal, then I'm all
for neoliberalism. I get confused about all the political classifications afoot these days,
so I'm not real sure what bin I fit into, exactly.
Lastly, I doubt anyone could name 100 parts (types, not instances) of their educational
experience, let alone millions. It's not nearly as complex as all that.
While there a many areas where the web and libraries do indeed offer the curious and
disciplined an opportunity to better themselves with book knowlege of software. Much of what
we hope to understand about our world – fundamental research, and many speciality areas
of knowlege require a 'craft' or hands on component that no amount of book reading can
replace. Skill crafts of cabinetmakers, tailors, chefs and and product designers, or in my
field of biology. Lab 'bench craft' is fundamental to learning: microbiology, molecular
biology and much of fundamental physics requires labs. I understand from engineering friends
that trial test rigs during university are also fundamental to locking in skills. Many areas
of STEM require significant funds to back the student, because the study work loads make
academic excellence really challenging, and part time jobs nearly impossible. I know, I
worked 20 hours in a lab on weekends during much of my undergraduate. At graduate school the
extra hours 'spare' ideally are spent working on one's bench craft as free slave labour to
the senior ranking (i.e. higher skilled, greater knowledgeable senior scientists). In biology
labs, there is almost a medieval apprentice, journeyman, master craftsman route of skill
acquisition. There is as much an art to casting an agarose gel as there is in knowing the
tweak of the 'recipe' for the molecular attributes desired. It is with great relief that I am
not part of the US system, but sitting in a well funded more democratic (free) educational
system in Europe. Our world needs to radically think how to put much ore cash into STEM and
fundamental research. Incentivise school students (everywhere on planet) to commit the insane
hours needed for genetics, molecular biology and all the other emerging areas of life
sciences. It requires countries to overhaul education to allow curious minds regardless of
family finances. I agree with many NC readers that wide systematic overhaul is needed to
untangle many of these difficult and decaying situations (not just US).
Yes. It is still possible to get an education if you are self-motivated and
self-disciplined. Either inside or outside the academy – and which academy is
secondary. But in my view education requires teachers – this is missing from your model
and a very important part of the Academy.
However, Credentialling is only available if you pay the price of attaching yourself to
the academy. DOn;t worry – credentials are becoming less and less important as changing
times and institutional decay make truly educated and adaptable people more and more
important and the obedient credentialled irrelevent and useless.
Only how many hundreds of job ads on Indeed use "do you have a bachelors degree" as a
screening question? And straight into the circular disposal unit your digital submission goes
if you don't.
Ah well pesky reality of the job market and all, sure does reduce philosophizing about
"the pointlessness of credentials and formal education" down to size. And no my position is
not that noone can succeed without credentials, just that it's obviously harder.
I've never had an employer, in the last 35 years, who would give you any credibility for
stuff you learnt on your own.
If it isn't on your school transcripts or a diploma, you don't get to negotiate with it.
If you have great knowledge, acquired on your own, and use it on the job, you will get no
mention of it, no credit, nada. They will keep taking until they are made to stop, and nary
so much as a "thank you".
But that's just my experience of 35 years on the job.
"I've never had an employer, in the last 35 years, who would give you any credibility for
stuff you learnt on your own."
+1 and most WILL NOT give any credibility for class you take either, under no
circumstances.
There are two things employers give weight to:
1) on the job experience
2) credentialing, not taking a class in this or that but having a bachelors or a masters. And
this #2 is only as a screening device, #1 is still paramount, #2 can be used to screen out
but seldom is it by itself an "in". Now there are unique circumstances, if you are still in
your 20s, some will let you start out with just a degree as "you have to start somewhere",
but after that age, no you need #1 and best to have #2 as well.
+1 on this as well. My experience is that either you have the knowledge certified by
diploma or you are considered to know nothing about the subject & that is even more true
when dealing with people with neither diploma nor knowledge of/in the subject matter. They
use what little they know and what they know is to look at a diploma.
Ignoring opinions/knowledge from non-certified people is something actively taught at
universities and especially at business schools – if things go wrong then the defense
can be: He/she was the expert and had the diploma to show for it. People in positions of
responsibility are experts at avoiding responsibility, credentials help to deflect
blame/responsibility so it is often used.
IT has been slightly different, in the older days, but now it is settling in and even IT
recruiters no longer need to take chances on the uncredentialled.
Plinking away on a keyboard may feel like you're doing "real work", but there's a lot more
that's necessary to keep any kind of civilization going than developing a new Java app.
Training yourself to do any of these myriad other tasks takes more capital, financial and
otherwise, than the $700 you've laid out above. Not to mention that staring at a computer
screen is profoundly unhealthy and not suitable work for us jumped-up monkeys.
But that's where we are now, aren't we? The only work that Americans think of as "good real
work" these days is on a family-blogging computer, and everything else that keeps things
going has had the living wage taken away from it and the training ignored.
Everything is a waste of time if it's not improving one's usefulness to the economic
system I guess you would argue. And whether it's spending time on facebook and smart phones,
or taking care of old people, or raising kids, or engaging in political activism, or
increasing one's understanding of the world, or volunteering, or hanging out with friends
which Americans increasingly don't even have, or etc.. Because you know it's not just
Facebook people spend time on.
This is the philosophy of a tool. Your soul was bought on the cheap and you don't even
have the inner spirit to miss it.
As I re-read my piece a key question descended upon me. Since Maslow's hierarchy is a
guide, or a possibility, it's not a given that someone ever will "self-actualize", or will do
so in some socially- or ecologically-useful manner. So what happened to make you
"self-acualize" in a direction that might include an NC and the values it espouses?
A parent? A book? A Ken Burns documentary? Did you decide one day to sail outside the safe
harbors of conformity, and got swept – with malice afore-thought, and cocktail in hand
– into the currents of worldliness?
This is a key question for you democratic educators, ref. funemployed above: "Where's the
launch button?"
When I first encountered Maslow, I was puzzled, thinking I was missing something profound.
Now I'm simply amazed that he can be celebrated as an intellectual with penetrating insight
for stating the obvious.
"Food, clothes and shelter
All the poor man asking for"
– Misty in Roots
None of the answers I have received when younger, about how society was organized made any
sense in justice or fairness. Thus, the quest for better answers began. If that is an
awakening, then perhaps it is genetic. Some just seek to know more. Or perhaps more have had
that curiosity defeated by society's need for conformity earlier. The quest for knowledge
often is the lonelier path, for conforming to thr tribe brings fellowship and norms to
follow. There is safety in the middle of the pack.
Now, having observed a better understanding of the intrinsic unfairness of societal
arrangements and structures, the question turns to what nudges to the body may be possible to
limit the damage we bring upon ourselves as a species to strive for better returns (profits?
Benefits?) without the understanding of what "better" or "returns" means.
Smokers know smoking is bad, but the nicotine calls are here and now answered.
Feed scrollers know it doesn't improve their lives, but the hope for just a bit of pleasure
keeps the finger scrolling.
As to the digital opiate of the masses, is it because they have been conditioned/addicted
to lose their own agency to said opiate? Perhaps the very discussions here in NC is but a
different flavour of the same digital opiate. Or to paraphrase Mulder, "The answer IS out
there", and we just have to discover it.
The more things change Check out Thorstein Veblen, The Higher Learning in America (1918)
or John Dewey The Public and its Problems and other works. Formal education, divorced as it
is from the practices of everyday life, presents these sorts of problems as a feature, not a
bug. That said, it has been my experience over the past 35 years that education can be and is
world opening for many young students. I have also found that the problem often rests with
the educator as much as it does the system of education. Well recognized philosophies of
education underlay a fundamental split teaching practice, (e.g., transmission of "facts"
versus enlivenment of knowing). Those that don't take the time to learn how to teach end up
frustrated that the "system" is failing. That a tenured full professor is lamenting thus,
just as Veblen did a century ago, is suggestive.
The prof can complain about students, but I think the students know what's going on better
than does the prof. The problems are much higher up the ladder than lowly students readiness
for college humanities courses. I expect the students are learning a great deal that's not in
the official curriculum. See:
tools for an economic system that prizes 'flexibility' (geographic, interpersonal,
ethical
Learning tools to develope flexible ethics kind of creeps me out.
Yup, training up thinkers is tough, I agree.
I think this is corollary to the above article–and if you've been in the classroom any
year for the past forty this should ring sickeningly familiar:
I loved the book about Summerhill – the alternative education option in the UK (back
in the 70s). Everyone was aghast because they thought it was remiss not to educate children
rigidly. It never got traction here in the US. But last night there was a segment on
alternative education in the UK, allowing children to go at their own pace, find their own
interest and above all learn that they didn't need an intermediary (teacher basically) to
learn – they could be successful autodidacts. It sounds like it is taking off in
England. How nice. Summerhill is still alive and kicking – it advertises itself as a
student democracy. Choose what you want to study. I certainly still like the idea because I
had my nose in a book from about the age of 7. I always read what interested me and it has
been a true pleasure. That's gotta be worth somthin.
Permit me to add three more books to your recommendation:
1. The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and
Education by Grace Llewellyn. I don't think this one's in print anymore.
2. The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. Still in
print. Here's the author's website: https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
3. The Day I Became an Audidact by Kendall Hailey. As far as I can tell, no longer
in print.
Enjoy your self-education outside the system, everyone!
From the OED: educate, v. [f. L. ēducāt- ppl. stem of ēducāre to rear, bring up
(children, young animals), related to ēdūcĕre to lead forth (see educe), which
is sometimes used nearly in the same sense.] 1 To rear, bring up (children, animals) by
supply of food and attention to physical wants. Obs. 2 To bring up (young persons) from
childhood, so as to form (their) habits, manners, intellectual and physical aptitudes. b To
instruct, provide schooling for (young persons). 3 To train (any person) so as to develop the
intellectual and moral powers generally. 4 To train, discipline (a person, a class of
persons, a particular mental or physical faculty or organ), so as to develop some special
aptitude, taste, or disposition. b To train (animals).
It would seem that Prof. Barber bemoans the demise of meaning 3, if that ever was the purpose
or function of our educational system.
Meanings 2 and 4 are alive and well. A special aptitude for narrow-minded submission is
successfully cultivated, the more so as the academic ladder is scrambled up.
But it's in Deneen's characterization of our students as "individuals without a past
cultureless ciphers".
I get that.
Americans have no use for History (with a capital H). American History is trail of carnage
and savagery on the scale of Attila and Hitler. Any discussion of History is replete with
irony, exceptions and contradictions. Things that Americans do not do well, and things that
you do not want rattling around in the heads of right-thinking citizens. Critical thinking
could be the catastrophic result.
OK then! Well enculturated Americans know that we have an exceptional past and we are an
exceptional people. But, History meh!
What we do have is a future. That's what America is all about. The wonderful, wonderful
future with it's myriad fabulous possibilities. Really, you could wet your pants just
thinking about it!
By 8th grade students are well versed in basic math and language arts. At that point the
student and family should have a choice between a college bound liberal arts education or a
technical education where they have a choice of several knowledge disciplines to choose to
study during High school. That way kids who leave high school and are not college bound at
least have one skill they can take anyplace in the USA and get a job.. Auto Mechanic, Diesel
Mechanic, Marine Mechanic, Chef, Software Development, Website Development, Cosmetology,
Adobe Creative Suite (video and photo editing), etc. Not all of those careers would be
offered at every high school. But at least 2 or 3 at a minimum and more choices the better.
After 12 years of state schooling students should have a skill or a plan to attend college to
acquire that skill.
World War II ended nearly three generations ago, and few of its adult survivors still walk
the earth. From one perspective the true facts of that conflict and whether or not they
actually contradict our traditional beliefs might appear rather irrelevant. Tearing down the
statues of some long-dead historical figures and replacing them with the statues of others
hardly seems of much practical value.
But if we gradually conclude that the story that all of us have been told during our entire
lifetimes is substantially false and perhaps largely inverted, the implications for our
understanding of the world are enormous. Most of the surprising material presented here is
hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon
or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and
scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions.
Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular
media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder
what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving
incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous
practical significance. As I pointed out several years ago in my original American Pravda article :
Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the
news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately
over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of
information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the
unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least
there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of
falsehood.
We must also recognize that many of the fundamental ideas that dominate our present-day
world were founded upon a particular understanding of that wartime history, and if there seems
good reason to believe that narrative is substantially false, perhaps we should begin
questioning the framework of beliefs erected upon it.
ORDER IT NOW
George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s and discovered that the true
facts in Spain were radically different from what he had been led to believe by the British
media of his day. In 1948 these past experiences together with the rapidly congealing "official
history" of the Second World War may have been uppermost in his mind when he published his
classic novel 1984, which famously declared that "Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past."
Great article, thank you. The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of
the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of
choosing sides in foreign conflicts. Is seems credible to think that FDR enabled Churchill's
blood lust because encouraging the seriously weakened British empire to finish committing
suicide by engaging in another ground war in Europe would clear the way for the US to finally
replace the hated mother country as the world's great power- just as another faction of the
Founders dreamed. The motto on our National Seal "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is quoted from
Virgil's Eclogues, where it is the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to
rule the world.
Historian Murray Rothbard best described the impact of the war in this obituary he wrote
for fellow popular historian Harry Elmer Barnes, "Our entry into World War II was the crucial
act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the
country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent
system of conscription. It was the crucial act in expanding the United States from a republic
into an Empire, and in spreading that Empire throughout the world, replacing the sagging
British Empire in the process. It was the crucial act in creating a Mixed Economy run by Big
Government, a system of State-Monopoly-Capitalism run by the central government in
collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism. It was the crucial act in elevating
Presidential power, particularly in foreign affairs, to the role of single most despotic
person in the history of the world. And, finally, World War II is the last war-myth left, the
myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a
good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown
into our faces by the war-making Establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to
wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II."
For those who lack the time to read these books, or even this great essay, here is a
13-minute video summary. For those shocked by this information, return and read this entire
essay, then the books if you still fail to understand that history has been distorted.
"Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a
possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon
began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in
February 2003."
I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government
was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the
main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest
producers of Iraqi oil.:
Thank You to Mr. Unz for mentioning the long-forgotten hero of the America First Committee,
John T. Flynn.
His biography, by Michele Stenehjem Gerber, is called An American First: John T. Flynn
and the America First Committee and has not yet been banned on Amazon:
Nonetheless I read it years ago, and it confirmed my suspicion that Lillian Gish,
pioneering film actress, was on a blacklist of some sort, and indeed she was. And this was
years before her name was removed from a college building here in Ohio. It is short, not hard
to read, less a full biography of Flynn than an interesting look at that filthy period in US
history when non-interventionists were slimed as "isolationists" and had their reputations
ruined. Or at least dinged quite a bit.
From an Amazon review:
This book inspires the broadening of the America First discussion, making references to
Lillian Gish, who proved she was blacklisted , Charlie Chaplin, whose The Great
Dictator was itself attacked as propaganda, and the charges of anti-Semitism from some
names not already researched, like Brooklyn Dodgers' president Larry MacPhail, S. H. Hauk,
Laura Ingalls, and Wilhelm Kunze of the German-American Bund (but still no Walt Disney
I went to Cambridge University in 1966 to study history. Two things I recall very distinctly:
the powerful impression Taylor's books made on me; and the very subtle but unmistakable
deprecation my tutors and lecturers applied to him and his work.
Taylor was certainly very talented, they said, but prone to "bees in his bonnet";
over-enthusiastic; sometimes unreliable.
Looking back, I can see how very effective this treatment was. As a rebellious and
iconoclastic 18-year-old, if I had been told that Taylor was wicked and wrong and I must
ignore his books, I would have hurried to study them deeply. But since I was cleverly
informed that he was just mildly eccentric and prone to unjustified speculation, I neglected
him in order to concentrate on the many other writers we had to read.
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
So now, instead of now [erroneously] believing, as we were all , er, "taught", that the
allies were the good guys of WW2, and that the Japs and Germans were the bad guys, we are now
supposed to believe the exact opposite, right, Mr Unz ? Jap and German governments now"good"-
WW2 allies governments now "bad"?
Reality fact: before, during and after WW2 and all the way up to this present
moment in time, the US, Soviet, French , Polish, Brit [etc. etc. ad infinitum] governments
lied; the German government lied, the Jap government lied. They ALL lied [and lie]!
Reality fact: It [lying] is what all governments everywhere all do – , all of
the time!
Reality fact: It's what they _must_ do to maintain power over their slave
populations [ see the Bernays quote below].
Regarding the fundamental nature of all governments, past, present, or future – this
"just" in :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
" The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of
the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ~ Adolf Hitler
"My first rule- I don't believe anything the government tells me- nothing!- ZERO!" George
Carlin
@Tom67
Thank God we American's were pillars morality. LOL
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the
American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi,
"the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose
progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his
race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
This is a classic catch 22 situation with this "oath" described below...
Also I think a lot of professors of neo-classical economics look like the member of Komsomol
described below ;-) For them it is about opening new opportunities for advancement not about the
truth and the level of corresponding to the reality of this pseudo-scientific neo-classical garbage, with the smoke screen of
mathematics as a lipstick on the pig (mathiness)
Most such people will teach students complete garbage understanding that this is a complete garbage with a smile.
Still, in in Soviet way it is possible for some to accept the position and work to undermine neo-classical economics acting within
the institution using Aesopian language in lectures and papers.
"... Consider an example from the contemporary United States. Today a number of private universities, colleges, and schools in several states require teachers and professors to take a "loyalty oath" to ensure that they do not "hold or foster undesirable political beliefs.... ..."
"... From a political standpoint she disagreed with the practice of taking loyalty oaths, and later, in her role as professor of the sociology of law, she voiced political positions counter to those mentioned in the oath and challenged the oath-taking practice itself. ..."
"... However, before she could do this, she first had to take the oath, understanding that without this act she would not be employed or recognized by the institution as a legitimate member with a voice authorized to participate in teaching, research, and the institution's politics (committees, meetings, elections, and so forth), including even the possibility to question publicly the practice of taking oaths. ..."
"... "The oath did not mean much if you took it, but it meant a lot if you didn't." ..."
"... However, "when a vote had to be taken, everyone roused -- a certain sensor clicked in the head: 'Who is in favor?' -- and you raised your hand automatically" (see a discussion of such ritualized practices within the Komsomol in chapter a). ..."
"... Participating in these acts reproduced oneself as a "normal" Soviet person within the system of relations, collectivities, and subject positions, with all the constraints and possibilities that position entailed, even including the possibility, after the meetings, to engage in interests, pursuits, and meanings that ran against those that were stated in the resolutions one had voted for. ..."
"... These acts are not about stating facts and describing opinions but about doing things and opening new possibilities. ..."
A general shift at the level of concrete ritualized forms of discourse, in which the
formal dimension's importance grows, while the
informal, substantiative dimension opens up to new meanings, can and does occur in different historical and
cultural contexts.
Consider an example from the contemporary United States. Today a number of private
universities, colleges, and schools in several states require teachers and professors to take a
"loyalty oath" to ensure that they do not "hold or foster undesirable political
beliefs....
While the statutes vary, [these institutions] generally deny the right to teach to those who
cannot or will not take the loyalty oath" (Chin and Rao 2003, 431 -32). Recently, a sociologist
of law took such a loyalty oath at a Midwestern university when her appointment as a professor
began.
From a political standpoint she disagreed with the practice of taking loyalty oaths, and
later, in her role as professor of the sociology of law, she voiced political positions counter
to those mentioned in the oath and challenged the oath-taking practice itself.
However, before
she could do this, she first had to take the oath, understanding that without this act she
would not be employed or recognized by the institution as a legitimate member with a voice
authorized to participate in teaching, research, and the institution's politics (committees,
meetings, elections, and so forth), including even the possibility to question publicly the
practice of taking oaths.
Here, the informal, substantiative dimension of the ritualized act experiences a shift, while the
formal dimension remains fixed and important: taking the oath opens a world of
possibilities where new informal, substantiative meanings become possible, including a professorial position
with a recognized political voice within the institution. In the sociologist's words, "The
oath did not mean much if you took it, but it meant a lot if you didn't." 3
^
This example illustrates the general principle of how some discursive acts or whole types of
discourse can drift historically in the direction of an increasingly expanding formal
dimension and increasingly open or even irrelevant informal, substantiative dimension. During Soviet late
socialism, the formal dimension of speech acts at formal gathering and rituals became
particularly important in most contexts and during most events.
One person who participated in large Komsomol meetings in the 1970s and 1980s described how
he often spent the meetings reading a book. However, "when a vote had to be taken, everyone
roused -- a certain sensor clicked in the head: 'Who is in favor?' -- and you raised your hand
automatically" (see a discussion of such ritualized practices within the Komsomol in chapter
a).
Here the emphasis on the formal dimension of organizational discourse was unique both
in scale and substance. Most ritualized acts of "organizational discourse" during this time
underwent such a transformation.
Participating in these acts reproduced oneself as a
"normal" Soviet person within the system of relations, collectivities, and subject positions,
with all the constraints and possibilities that position entailed, even including the
possibility, after the meetings, to engage in interests, pursuits, and meanings that ran
against those that were stated in the resolutions one had voted for.
It would obviously be wrong to see these acts of voting simply as informal, substantiative statements
about supporting the resolution that are either true (real support) or false (dissimulation of
support). These acts are not about stating facts and describing opinions but about doing
things and opening new possibilities.
"... By Jeff Bryant, a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools , a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is a communications consultant, freelance writer, advocacy journalist, and director of the Education Opportunity Network, a strategy and messaging center for progressive education policy. His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear in prominent online news outlets, and he speaks frequently at national events about public education policy. Follow him on Twitter @jeffbcdm. produced by Our Schools , a project of the Independent Media Institute. ..."
"... One of the first school districts to become entangled in the conglomeration of firms Wise and Sundstrom assembled was Nashville, which in 2016 chose Jim Huge and Associates to help with hiring a new superintendent. The following year the board hired Shawn Joseph, whom Huge had recommended. ..."
"... Shortly after Joseph arrived in Nashville, according to local News Channel 5 investigative reporter Phil Williams, he began pushing the district to give $1.8 million in no-bid contracts to Performance Matters, a Utah-based technology company that sells "software solutions" to school districts. ..."
"... In addition to pushing Performance Matters, Williams reported, Joseph gave an "inside track" to Discovery Education, a textbook and digital curriculum provider and another company he and his team had ties to from their work in Maryland. ..."
"... By June 2018, Nashville school board member Amy Frogge was questioning Joseph about possible connections these vendors might have to ERDI. A district audit would confirm that ERDI's affiliated companies -- including Performance Matters, Discovery Education, and six other companies -- had signed contracts totaling more than $17 million with the district since Joseph had been hired. ..."
"... "Too often, national search firms are also driven by money-making motives and/or connections with those seeking profit," Frogge contended. That conflict of interest is a concern not only in Nashville but also in other districts where school leaders with deep ties to education vendors and consultants have resulted in huge scandals that traumatized communities and cost taxpayers millions. ..."
Lambert here:
More corruption in the professional class.
By Jeff Bryant, a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools , a project of the
Independent Media Institute. He is a communications consultant, freelance writer, advocacy
journalist, and director of the Education Opportunity Network, a strategy and messaging center
for progressive education policy. His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear
in prominent online news outlets, and he speaks frequently at national events about public
education policy. Follow him on Twitter @jeffbcdm. produced by Our Schools , a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
In July 2013, the education world was rocked when a breaking story by Chicago independent
journalist Sarah Karp
reported that district CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett had pushed through a no-bid $20 million
contract to provide professional development to administrators with a private, for-profit
company called SUPES Academy, which she had worked for a year before the deal transpired.
Byrd-Bennett was also listed as a senior associate for PROACT Search, a superintendent search
firm run by the same individuals who led SUPES.
By 2015, federal investigators
looked into the deal and found reason to charge
Byrd-Bennett for accepting bribes and kickbacks from the company that ran SUPES and PROACT. A
year-and-a-half later, the story made national headlines when Byrd-Bennett was convicted and
sentenced to prison for those charges. But anyone who thought this story was an anomaly
would be mistaken. Similar conflicts of interest among private superintendent search firms,
their associated consulting companies, and their handpicked school leaders have plagued
multiple school districts across the country.
In an extensive examination, Our Schools has discovered an intricate web of businesses that
reap lucrative school contracts funded by public tax dollars. These businesses are often able
to place their handpicked candidates in school leadership positions who then help make the
purchasing decision for the same businesses' other products and services, which often include
professional development, strategic planning, computer-based services, or data analytics. The
deals are often brokered in secrecy or presented to local school boards in ways that make
insider schemes appear legitimate.
As in the Byrd-Bennett scandal, school officials who get caught in this web risk public
humiliation, criminal investigation, and potential jail time, while the businesses that
perpetuate this hidden arrangement continue to flourish and grow.
The results of these scandals are often disastrous. School policies and personnel are
steered toward products that reward private companies rather than toward research-proven
methods for supporting student learning and teacher performance. School governance becomes
geared to the interests of well-connected individuals rather than the desires of teachers and
voters. And when insider schemes become public, whole communities are thrown into chaos,
sometimes for years, resulting in wasted education dollars and increased disillusionment with
school systems and local governance.
While media accounts generally frame these scandals as examples of corrupt school leaders
who got caught and brought to justice, reporters rarely delve into the corporate-operated
enterprises that undergird the whole system.
A Potent Business Model
Months before Byrd-Bennett's conviction, another individual connected to the Chicago
scandal, SUPES co-owner Gary Solomon,
pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges related to a scheme that diverted over $5 million in
public money from the Chicago contracts into his private pocket.
Solomon, who had been forced out of a previous job as a high school administrator after he
was accused of racist
comments and "preying" on female students, cofounded SUPES -- along with sister companies
PROACT Search and Synesi Associates -- with his former student Thomas Vranas, who also pleaded
guilty to charges stemming from the Chicago deals.
Although Solomon and Vranas got caught and were convicted for their scheme, they
nevertheless stumbled on a potent business model that combined PROACT's superintendent search
services with SUPES Academy professional development programs and consulting by Synesi
Associates to help districts "implement
reform strategies." Combining leader recruitment with leadership training and consulting gave
Solomon and Vranas three ways into a business relationship with a school district and multiple
ways to upsell clients into more expensive new contracts.
New administrators PROACT helped place in leadership roles could be reliable allies for
pitching professional development services to the district. School districts that had employed
SUPES might be more inclined to hire PROACT for a leadership search. And Synesi would have an
inside track for its consulting services. Further, any of the firm's school leader contacts who
became idle between full-time jobs, which often happens in this profession, would be able to
work for the firm as "associates."
School districts may have welcomed this arrangement as a form of "one-stop shopping" for
their needs, but it's not hard to see how it could lead to conflicts of interest and a veil for
fraud.
Chicago was not the only district that fell for the pitch. Shortly after news of the
Byrd-Bennett scandal broke, school districts in
DeKalb County , Illinois;
Fayette County (Lexington), Kentucky; and
Lancaster , Pennsylvania ended their contracts with PROACT.
In Iowa City, Iowa, a local reporter
found the district had a contract with Synesi Associates to conduct an audit of the
district and then hired PROACT to recruit candidates for a vacant director position. At the
same time, superintendent Stephen Murley took 34 days off work to do paid consulting for those
two organizations and for SUPES Academy.
In St. Louis ,
superintendent Kelvin Adams started consulting for SUPES shortly after the school board awarded
a $125,000 contract to the firm, Sarah Karp and Melissa Sanchez reported. The district also
awarded a $16,500 no-bid deal to Synesi.
But Solomon and Vranas did not invent this money-making strategy, nor did it die when they
were convicted and sent to jail.
From Retail Store to Mega-Mall
In June 2016, the Chicago Sun Times
reported that in the wake of the Byrd-Bennett scandal, parts of SUPES Academy were
purchased by Joseph Wise and his partner David Sundstrom. Their Chicago-based firm Atlantic
Research Partners (ARP) had already gotten at least $5 million in recent business from Chicago
schools. (Sundstrom would later
contend ARP rescinded the agreement to acquire SUPES and that the "only remaining
connection between the companies" was a licensing of training material.)
Wise founded ARP with Sundstrom in 2007 after both had been ousted from their jobs in the
Duval County, Florida, school district due to alleged
"serious misconduct." According to the ARP website, the project's mission was to launch a
"teacher-training program focused on instructional coaching and school capacity-building."
Around the same time ARP was acquiring parts of SUPES, the company also
merged with Jim Huge and Associates, a firm with deep experience in school superintendent
and other talent searches. Huge had also
served as chief strategy officer for PROACT Search. The announced rationale of the merger
was "to maximize seamless delivery of the intensive executive services to schools and school
leaders."
Undoubtedly, what Wise and Sundstrom assembled was similar to the three-part business model
Solomon and Vranas put together. What was different, though, was Wise and Sundstrom would
expand on the model with their
subsequent acquisition of Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI).
According to Louisiana school teacher and wily blogger
Mercedes Schneider , Sundstrom registered an entity called ERDI Partners as a business with a Florida address in 2017.
But an entity called ERDI had been in existence since at least 2005 when an article in
Education Week described the company as
an intermediary organization bringing together school administrators and education vendors to
help companies improve the products and services they offer school systems. Specifically, ERDI
arranged get-togethers by paying superintendents consulting fees plus expenses to travel to
conferences at luxury resorts where they would meet with company representatives. The
companies, in turn, underwrote the conferences with substantial fees paid to ERDI.
Critics of ERDI
argue that the company's model for paying school administrators for their advice on
education products inevitably leads to conflict of interest issues when those administrators
are presented with offers to purchase products promoted by ERDI.
Byrd-Bennett had a relationship with ERDI dating back to at least 2014 and was listed as senior
advisor on the firm's website while she was employed as Chicago schools' CEO.
With the acquisition of ERDI, Wise and Sundstrom could transform their business model from a
lone retail operation to a mega-mall of
education vendors of all kinds.
'The Search Was Manipulated'
One of the first school districts to become entangled in the conglomeration of firms Wise
and Sundstrom assembled was Nashville, which in 2016
chose Jim Huge and Associates to help with hiring a new superintendent. The following year
the board
hired Shawn Joseph, whom Huge had recommended.
Shortly after Joseph arrived in Nashville, according
to local News Channel 5 investigative reporter Phil Williams, he began pushing the district to
give $1.8 million in no-bid contracts to Performance Matters, a Utah-based technology company
that sells "software solutions" to
school districts.
Williams found Joseph had spoken at the company's conference and he had touted the company's
software products in promotional materials while he was employed in his previous job in
Maryland. Williams also unearthed emails
showing Joseph began contract talks with Performance Matters two weeks before he formally
took office in Nashville. What also struck Williams as odd was that despite the considerable
cost of the contract, district employees were
not required to use the software.
In addition to pushing Performance Matters, Williams reported, Joseph gave an
"inside track" to Discovery Education, a textbook and digital curriculum provider and another company he and his team had
ties to from their work in Maryland. With Joseph's backing, Discovery Education received an
$11.4 million contract to provide a new science, technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM)
program even though a smaller company came in with a
bid that was a fraction of what Discovery proposed.
By June 2018, Nashville school board member Amy Frogge was
questioning Joseph about possible connections these vendors might have to ERDI. A district
audit would confirm that ERDI's affiliated companies -- including Performance Matters,
Discovery Education, and six other companies -- had signed contracts totaling more than $17
million with the district since Joseph had been hired.
Frogge also came to realize that all these enterprises were connected to the firm who had
been instrumental in hiring Joseph -- Jim Huge and Associates.
"The search that brought Shawn Joseph to Nashville was clearly manipulated," Frogge told Our
Schools in an email, "and the school board was kept in the dark about Joseph's previous tenure
in Maryland and his relationships with vendor companies."
Frogge said some of the manipulation occurred when the search firm told school board members
that disputes among current board members -- over charter schools, school finances, and other
issues -- indicated the district was "'too dysfunctional' to hire top-level superintendents and
therefore needed to hire a less experienced candidate."
But
previous investigations of school leadership search firms conducted by Our Schools have
found companies like these frequently forego background checks of prospective candidates they
recommend, promote favored candidates regardless of their experience or track record, and push
board members to keep the entire search process, including the final candidates, confidential
from public scrutiny.
"Too often, national search firms are also driven by money-making motives and/or connections
with those seeking profit," Frogge contended. That conflict of interest is a concern not only
in Nashville but also in other districts where school leaders with deep ties to education
vendors and consultants have resulted in huge scandals that traumatized communities and cost
taxpayers millions.
In the Youngstown City School District in Ohio, CEO Krish Mohip
became mired in questions about his role as a paid consultant for ERDI while the district
had a $261,914 contract with a partner company of ERDI. Under calls for his resignation, Mohip
left before his contract was up.
Beaufort County School District in South Carolina became the
subject of an FBI investigation because of contracts with ERDI and 30 other companies
connected to the firm while superintendent Jeff Moss worked as a paid consultant for ERDI. He
resigned from the district two years before his contract was up.
In Pittsburgh, superintendent Anthony Hamlet drew
scrutiny when reporters found the district spent more than $14 million on dozens of no-bid
contracts to firms connected to ERDI at the same time Hamlet was serving as a paid consultant
with the company.
In Baltimore County, Maryland, Shaun Dallas Dance made national
headlines when he was convicted of perjury committed during his time as superintendent of
the district. Dance had concealed $4,600 he'd been paid by ERDI. After Dance participated in
confidential meetings with vendors at an ERDI conference, the district extended contracts from
companies connected to the firm.
Obviously, school board members could avoid these conflicts by avoiding leadership search
firms and consultants connected to ERDI. But that is easier said than done.
After Baltimore County's troubles with Dance, it hired
the independent firm Ray and Associates to conduct a search to find an interim leader. The
search resulted in six finalists, from which the board chose Verletta White. Shortly after she
took the job, the board's ethics review panel found she had violated financial disclosure rules
and "used the prestige of her office or public position for private gain" by accepting
compensation from ERDI.
Indeed, superintendent search firms
frequently fail to find conflicts of interest and other problems in the candidate
background checks they conduct. And some of these firms operate side businesses that also lead
to conflict of interest issues.
A Revolving Door of Business Deals Funded by Taxpayers
One of the largest superintendent search firms in the United States, Schaumburg,
Illinois-based Hazard, Young, and Attea (HYA), is part of
the ECRA Group , a consulting firm providing an array of services to schools.
ECRA claims to have worked with over 1,000 districts, but a close examination of how the
company worked with a number of school districts in Illinois reveals how the firm uses a
revolving-door business model in which its search service rotates administrators into and out
of leadership positions while the company uses those leadership connections to successfully
upsell districts into expensive long-term consulting contracts funded by taxpayers.
ECRA's business relationships with Oak Park Elementary District 97 in Illinois go back to at
least 2010 when it was
hired to help replace outgoing superintendent Constance Collins. With HYA's
help , the district
hired Albert Roberts. In 2013, during Roberts' tenure, school board minutes
show the district considered a plan to hire ECRA to analyze the district's achievement data
at a cost of $74,000 a year. The following year, the district
hired ECRA to produce an analysis of the achievement gap between white and nonwhite
students in the district. Board minutes from 2015
show the district continuing to work with ECRA.
When Roberts retired, District 97 used HYA again for a superintendent search that resulted
in hiring
Carol Kelley. Kelley currently appears in ECRA's marketing literature touting the firm's Strategic Dashboard, which
District 97 apparently employs.
Former superintendent Collins was
hired to lead Round Lake District 116, also in Illinois, just before HYA and ECRA acquired
the district's superintendent search and strategic planning contracts. Under her tenure, Round
Lake paid ECRA $75,918 for consulting services in
2016 ,
2017 , and 2018 .
Collins
retired from Round Lake in 2018, but, according to her LinkedIn page, she became an HYA
associate in 2017. She also serves on the advisory board of ECRA, according to her bio at a nonprofit for developing school
leaders.
Another Illinois district, Niles Township High School District 219, placed its
superintendent on administrative leave after it became known she was the daughter of the
president of ECRA, which had a contract with the district worth $149,419 and $120,389 in the
final two years of her tenure. (She claimed that relationship with ECRA
dated to before she was made superintendent, but she decided to resign anyway.)
Huntley Community School District 158, also in Illinois, had contractual arrangements with
ECRA dating to at least 2009 when
John Burkey was superintendent. When Burkey
resigned in 2017, District 158
hired HYA to find a new superintendent at a cost of $17,500. At the end of a hiring process
in which HYA kept all finalists
confidential , District 158 announced it had hired Scott Rowe. Under his leadership, District 158
spent $94,980.11 on ECRA in 2018
alone.
One more example in Illinois: Evanston/Skokie School District 65 has hired ECRA for a
variety of consulting services since at least 2010 when it paid the firm $22,737.50, according
to state records, to survey
the district's administrators. By 2013, Evanston/Skokie
considered ECRA a "long-standing partner" and hired
the firm to help pick its new superintendent. Outgoing superintendent Hardy Murphy also
recommended
the district hire the firm for teacher appraisal work.
Based on HYA's recommendations
, Evanston/Skokie
hired Paul Goren in 2014, and under his tenure, checks continued to flow to ECRA's
consulting business, including $129,855.92 in 2015 .
However, Goren's tenure was troubled and brief, and in 2019 he
resigned with a $100,000 severance package. A local reporter
noticed that unmentioned in the district's settlement statement was that under his
leadership "the district's own progress reports [showed] declines in test scores across all
groups of students and district losing ground against its own five-year targets."
ECRA's own leadership has also been embroiled in conflict of interest issues. Current ECRA
president Glenn "Max" McGee
resigned from his last superintendent job, in Palo Alto, California after an outside
investigation found the district had mishandled claims of sexual assault. With a payout of
roughly $150,000, McGee, on his way out the door,
recommended the district hire HYA to conduct the search for his replacement, just after he
had accepted the offer to become leader of ECRA. The district went with McGee's
recommendation.
When asked whether this relationship among McGee, ECRA, and the Palo Alto district was a
possible conflict of interest, McGee told Our Schools in a phone call that he "stayed out of
the search" to fill his old position. Of his replacement, Don Austin from nearby Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District in California, McGee admitted being an acquaintance of "many
years."
Who's to Blame?
When controversies arise over superintendents and contracts with outside services, private
firms that are responsible for pushing these hiring and outsourcing decisions are
quick to blame school board members who signed off on the decisions. And critics of public
schools frequently
use these scandals to argue that democratically elected school boards are dysfunctional and
need to be scrapped for other governance structures.
These criticisms leave a lot of context out.
First, being a school board member is customarily a part-time job paying very little money.
And school board members are elected to serve as representatives of parents and voters, not to
be experts on school finance and administration.
"School board members, although often well intentioned, are sometimes too unqualified and
uninformed to exercise effective oversight of spending, and board members are not aware of the
personal relationships and personal interests that may be driving decisions by administrative
leaders," Nashville board member Frogge explained.
Also, there are multiple ways superintendents can keep board members in the dark about the
inner workings of contractor relationships and district operations.
"From the beginning, Joseph surrounded himself with those who promoted him, including
organizations he hired to 'train' the board," Frogge explained. "Joseph also prohibited all
district employees from speaking to school board members, which prevented board members from
recognizing leadership problems during the early days of his tenure. When board members finally
began to confront Joseph about problems, including disturbing financial irregularities and his
failure to follow board policy, Joseph lied to board members, exacted retribution from those
questioning him, and stirred up controversy to distract from the issues at hand."
That said, Frogge noted school boards have alternatives to using private search firms that
promote tainted candidates willing to feed the search firms' side businesses.
"School board members need to become better informed and more savvy about profit motives and
organizations that seek to influence their selection," she wrote. "School boards can instead
opt to hire a local school boards association (for example, the Tennessee School Boards
Association) or a local recruiter with a reputation for personal integrity to conduct a search.
They can also choose to hire from within."
How school boards decide to avoid conflicts of interest with school leaders and outside
consulting firms is "critical" according to Frogge because decisions that are driven by these
insiders "can lead to catastrophic outcomes for students and staff."
Among those negative outcomes are increased community acrimony, wasted education funds, and
career debacles for what could perhaps have been promising school leaders.
In the case of Joseph and Nashville, controversies with his leadership decisions strongly
divided
the city's black community, and taxpayers were
stuck with a $261,250 bill for buying out the rest of his contract. As a result of the
fallout, Joseph
lost his state teaching license, and he
vowed never to work in the state again.
In the meantime, HYA continues to win contracts for high-profile superintendent
searches, and ERDI's conferences bringing school leaders and vendors together continue to
sell out .
perhaps, just like proponents of AI and self driving cars. They just love the technology,
financially and emotionally invested in it so much they can't see the forest from the
trees.
I like technology, I studied engineering. But the myopic drive to profitability and
naivety to unintended consequences are pushing these tech out into the world before they are
ready.
engineering used to be a discipline with ethics and responsibilities... But now anybody
who could write two lines of code can call themselves a software engineer....
When Students Melt Down Over a 'B'
Rampant grade anxiety is a reflection of deeper American social dysfunction, with our children the biggest
victims.
By
David Masciotra
•
September 17, 2019
By Marjan Apostolovic /Shutterstock
The library on campus of a small Catholic university in Illinois was largely empty. Since
the administrators had replaced most of the bookshelves with plush furniture, conference tables, and chairs, it better
resembled an airport terminal just before a redeye. A handful of students were staring intensely into computer screens,
while another pair talked loudly -- no more than 10 feet from the silent, visibly demoralized librarian -- about the rap song
that one of them had just played moments earlier. Not one student was near a book. There wasn't a single newspaper or
journal in sight. The university had canceled its subscriptions and removed the periodical section a few semesters
earlier.
I was making my way toward the front door when one of the students
from my Intro to Literature course stopped me, tears rolling down her cheeks, her body nearly convulsing as she
attempted to suppress her sobs. Because any human contact is potentially criminal, I ignored my impulse to offer a
consoling hand to the shoulder, and asked what was wrong. Expecting her to tell me about a personal tragedy -- perhaps the
terminal diagnosis of a loved one -- I almost began to weep myself when she said, "You gave me a 'B' on the paper."
Her crying made the harangue that followed difficult to fully comprehend, but it
seemed that she must maintain a certain GPA to remain in athletics. When I countered that a "B" is a good grade and that
she would have plenty of time to aspire towards an "A" on other assignments, she began pleading with me for
opportunities to "bring up the grade." I declined, and asked if some other, more personal factor was contributing to her
stress over a passing grade on one paper in a course entirely unrelated to her major. She insisted that there was not.
Helpless and baffled, I wished her well, offered her reassurance, and proceeded out of the library and into the parking
lot.
Fielding an existential meltdown, complete with a crying jag, is not part of my
professional training. Yet rarely does a semester go by without some kind of grade-related complaint, appeal for mercy,
and panic attack. When a student appears as if he has just undergone a life-altering trauma because he's realized he is
hanging over the edge of a "C," I think of my father, who at around the same age was in Vietnam. We all have our crosses
to bear, whether surviving guerrilla warfare or dealing with a professor who will not give extra credit.
Advertisement
"Grade anxiety," to use the more popular term, is not unique to my students or school
of employment. Studies from Penn State and reports from
Psychology Today
,
Boston University
, and many other
sources have confirmed that debilitating anxiety is now the leading mental health problem for college students. A quick
Google search of "grade anxiety" reveals endless pages of advice to students apoplectic about their exam scores, the
professors on the receiving end of their complaints and concerns, and the parents who cannot cope with anything other
than perfection.
In all fairness, contemporary college students, contrary to Baby Boomer sanctimony, do
have a tougher task than their predecessors. More of them work, often full-time, while completing their degree
requirements, and must shoulder heavy financial burdens to acquire their education -- which they understand they will
carry, in the form of student debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy, for the majority of their working lives.
Yet even acknowledging the peculiar injustice that exists in American higher
education, there is no avoiding the conclusion that 20-year-old adults obsessing and crying over their grades is not a
sign of societal health. It's a tornado siren blasting 100 yards away from a trailer park.
As tempting as it is to ridicule the students for their inability to put their lives
in mature perspective, it's more instructive to recognize that they are products of American families, institutions, and
culture. The overwhelming prevalence of severe grade anxiety indicts a society that is failing to strengthen children
into thoughtful and resilient adults. As Gore Vidal once quipped, "I've never met a boring six-year-old in America, and
I've never met an interesting 16-year-old."
Even before reaching the age of six, children are under the constant influence of
their families. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff document in their important book
The Coddling of the American Mind
how
"helicopter parenting" has weakened us all. Paranoid about safety, aggressively committed to their children's
achievement, parents aspire to protect their sons and daughters from all potential hardship, pushing them into closely
monitored extracurricular activities. They treat school work as an accountant treats an actuarial table. The wealthier
the parents, the more likely they are to enter their children into the vigilant competition of meritocracy. Some
families even send their kids to elite preschools, believing that failure to do so will keep them off the Ivy League
university trajectory.
The self-esteem movement has ensured that children will not only aspire to the
materialistic measurement of the "best," but believe that they are innately worthy of it. Hearing for their entire lives
that they are flawless specimens of Da Vinci-esque brilliance and creativity leaves them unprepared for even the mildest
form of criticism. One of the most common rebuttals to a low grade from a student is an indignant "I think I did a great
job," spoken as if the teacher should receive a pupil's opinion about his own work as a Catholic priest receives a papal
encyclical.
Since the move toward standardized testing as the ultimate metric for student and
school success, educational institutions in both rich and poor neighborhoods have relegated the learning experience to
high stakes exam preparation, indoctrinating children to believe that they can reduce the value of their intellectual
pursuits to a number on a results sheet. The testing model of education complements the American adult's inevitable
entrance into a consumer culture with a hierarchy of social status and purchasing power. The earning power of the
Kardashians or Waltons allows them to accrue more political influence and cultural value than the typical family in a
city without a "Real Housewives" franchise.
Too many conservatives insist on demoting education to nothing more than job training,
encouraging the prevalent anti-intellectualism in the United States with suspicion, or outright derision, towards the
"impractical" liberal arts. Liberals don't help matters by too often transforming the humanities into conduits of
leftist social theory, and before that making elementary and secondary schools too bureaucratic. Formulaic lesson plans
and mechanical approaches to pedagogy prevent teachers from developing fruitful bonds with their students, or adjusting
their class agendas according to student need and interest.
The
Atlantic
has run informative but also demoralizing reports on how elementary schools in Finland
allow children plenty of free time for play, while also encouraging them to indulge their curiosities in the classroom.
In the United States, organic and unrestrained learning is a privilege for children whose parents pay the high prices of
a Montessori school. An American kindergartener has an average of 30 minutes of homework per night.
One of my favorite assignments as a child, at the Lutheran elementary school I
attended from first through eighth grade, was the book report. Our teacher would walk us to the library and tell us to
pick any book, read it, and write a page on it. Depriving children of choice robs them of any joy they might associate
with learning. I now teach students in perpetual panic over their grades, and more times than not, the only questions I
receive after attempting to facilitate a discussion on a masterpiece of literature is "Will this be on the test?" or
"How long does the paper have to be?"
Standards of evaluation are necessary. But I often try to inculcate in my students the
knowledge that, in any walk of life and in comparison with the development of passions and the need to sharpen one's
ability to look at a complex world, grades are not that important.
This is a tough sell -- pun intended -- in a country that has so thoroughly degraded its
public vision of life to an endless quest for wealth and power. There is now a handy measurement of everything. Are you
successful? Check your bank account. Are you important? Check your social media followers. Are you attractive? Check the
likes on your latest profile picture.
Grades, with the weight of an institution behind them, act as a final judgment in the
minds of too many students. They equate A's not only with immediate academic success, but also the chance of having a
successful life. Anything less than the optimum might lead to unhappiness.
All lives have moments of failure, pain, and agony. Real adversity is not a "B" on a
paper, but your best friend in a coffin, your child's frightening medical condition, your injury that leads to a
permanent disability. Education at its best can bequeath what Albert Murray called "equipment for living."
Students who panic and cry over less than perfect grades demonstrate that America has
not given them equipment that is helpful and durable. America, in that respect, is worthy of an "F."
"... The new feudalism, like the original, is not based simply around the force of arms, or in this case what Marx called "the cash nexus." ..."
"... Similar attitudes can be seen in virtually all other culturally dominant institutions, starting with Hollywood. Over 99 percent of all major entertainment executives' donations went to [neoliberal] Democrats in 2018 ..."
"... The great bastion of both the financial Oligarchy and high reaches of the Clerisy lies in the great cities, notably New York, London, Paris, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. These are all among the most expensive places to live in the world and play a dominant role in the global media. ..."
"... In his assessment in "Democracy in America ," Alexis de Tocqueville suggests a new form of tyranny -- in many ways more insidious than that of the monarchical state -- that grants favors and entertainments to its citizens but expects little in obligation. Rather than expect people to become adults, he warns, a democratic state can be used to keep its members in "perpetual childhood" and "would degrade men rather than tormenting them." ..."
The new feudalism, like the original, is not based simply around the force of arms, or in
this case what Marx called "the cash nexus." Like the church in Medieval times, the Clerisy
sees itself as anointed to direct human society, a modern version of what historian Marc Bloch
called the "oligarchy of priests and monks whose task it was to propitiate heaven."
This
modern-day version of the old First Estate sets down the [neoliberal] ideological tone in the schools, the
mass media, culture and the arts. There's also a Clerisy of sorts on the right, and what's left
of the center, but this remains largely, except for Fox, an insignificant remnant.
Like their predecessors, today's Clerisy embraces a [neoliberal] orthodoxy, albeit secular, on a host of
issues from race and gender to the environment. Universities have become increasingly dogmatic
in their worldview.
One study of 51 top colleges found the proportion of [neo]liberals to conservatives as much
as 70:1, and usually at least 8:1.
At elite [neo]liberal arts schools like Wellesley,
Swarthmore and Williams, the proportion reaches 120:1.
The increasing concentration of media in ever
fewer centers -- London, New York, Washington, San Francisco -- and the decline of the
local press has accentuated the elite Clerisy's domination. With most reporters well on the
left, journalism, as a 2019 Rand report reveals, is
steadily moving from a fact-based model to one that is dominated by predictable [neoliberal]
opinion. This, Rand suggests has led to what they called "truth decay."
The new geography
of feudalism
The new feudalism increasingly defines geography not only in America but across much of the
world. The great bastion of both the financial Oligarchy and high reaches of the Clerisy lies
in the great cities, notably New York, London, Paris, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, San Francisco,
Los Angeles and Seattle. These are all among the most expensive places to live in the world and
play a dominant role in the global media.
Yet these cities are not the progressive, egalitarian places evoked by great urbanists like
the late Jane Jacobs, but more closely resemble the "gated" cities of the Middle Ages, and
their equivalents in places as diverse as China and Japan. American cities now have higher
levels of inequality, notes one recent study , than Mexico.
In fact, the
largest gaps( between the bottom and top quintiles of median incomes are in the
heartland of progressive opinion, such as in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, New York,
San Jose, and Los Angeles. (RELATED: Got Income
Inequality? Least Affordable Cities Are Also the Bluest)
... ... ...
... In his assessment in "Democracy in America ," Alexis de
Tocqueville suggests a new form of tyranny -- in many ways more insidious than that of the
monarchical state -- that grants favors and entertainments to its citizens but expects little
in obligation. Rather than expect people to become adults, he warns, a democratic state can be
used to keep its members in "perpetual childhood" and "would degrade men rather than tormenting
them."
With the erosion of the middle class, and with it dreams of upward mobility, we already see
more extreme, less liberally minded class politics. A nation of clerics, billionaires and serfs
is not conducive to the democratic experiment; only by mobilizing the Third Estate can we hope
that our republican institutions will survive intact even in the near future.
Mr. Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and the
executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His next book, "The Coming Of
Neo-Feudalism," will be out this spring.
This impostor definitely demonstrated programming abilities, although at the time there was
not such ter :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We wrote it down. ..."
"... The next phrase was: ..."
"... " ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' " ..."
"... " ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' " ..."
"... "Tong what ?" rasped the colonel. ..."
"... "Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked, "What's that gizmo on the end?" ..."
"... Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics, calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction. ..."
a fabulous tale of the South Pacific by William Manchester
The Man Who Could Speak Japanese
"We wrote it down.
The next phrase was:
" ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' "
Then:
" ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' "
"Tong what ?" rasped the colonel.
"Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched
his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked,
"What's that gizmo on the end?"
Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist
was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think
his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements
in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's
true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally
discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where
our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a
bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely
disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe
that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics,
calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his
seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering
every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction.
Amazing; I had no idea Betsy Voss – advocate of for-profit charter schools (privatizing
education) and The New Curriculum – and Eric Prince (advocate for privatizing war) are
brother and sister. Blood will tell.
Profiteering is naked and in the open now in the west, and public systems increasingly
favour the wealthy – if you want better, you should be ready to pay for it. I guess
that's what all those tax cuts were about – shifting a burden off of the wealthy, so
that now public services are pay-as-you-go because the government can't afford to provide
them for everyone. However, tax cuts also favoured the wealthy – gee, it almost makes
you think the class system is coming back, dunnit?
I recall Jeremy Scahill mentioning in his book on Blackwater (before it started changing its
name faster than you can change your socks) that Erik Prince was related to Betsy deVos. This
was long before Scahill turned his own name and reputation into mud when he walked out of a
London conference back in 2012 or 2013 because the Syrian nun Agnes Mariam de la Croix, who
was known to support President Assad at the time, was a guest speaker at the conference.
"... When the issues of poverty and inequality came up, a common neoliberal dodge was to invoke the Horatio Alger myth -- that in America, with hard work one can, or should be able to, raise oneself up by one' bootstraps. This switches the question from security ..."
"... As it happens, mobility has declined over the long term in the United States, but that aside, it's a two-way street. The escalator of life runs in both directions. Moreover, it's a separate issue from that of poverty or inequality. One can have more mobility and the same or worse poverty or inequality. The rising tide goes out as well as in. ..."
"... The neoliberal remedy for poverty and inequality is commonly held to be education, because workers lack the requisite skills to earn a living wage. It's kind of their fault. All that's needed is some reasonable public expenditure. No deeper structural factors are at issue. This mindset is contradicted now in two ways. ..."
When the issues of poverty and inequality came up, a common neoliberal dodge was to invoke
the Horatio Alger myth -- that in America, with hard work one can, or should be able to, raise
oneself up by one' bootstraps. This switches the question from security made possible by
the public sector to an individual responsibility for economic mobility.
As it happens, mobility has declined over the long term in the United States, but that
aside, it's a two-way street. The escalator of life runs in both directions. Moreover, it's a
separate issue from that of poverty or inequality. One can have more mobility and the same or
worse poverty or inequality. The rising tide goes out as well as in.
The neoliberal remedy for poverty and inequality is commonly held to be education, because
workers lack the requisite skills to earn a living wage. It's kind of their fault. All that's
needed is some reasonable public expenditure. No deeper structural factors are at issue. This
mindset is contradicted now in two ways.
First, the idea of education as an essential,
missing ingredient is being supplanted by the idea that what's at issue is power , both
political and economic . The wealthy control streams of income and institutions of
credentialization that could be rerouted, via taxation, to finance education ("free college") that has an equalizing effect on
wealth and enhances economic security..
.
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what
is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You
make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or
from the media outlets.
And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over
at http://www.thecollegefix.com
"Poll: 73 percent of Republican students have withheld political views in class for fear
their grades would suffer".
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase
from the London School of Economics. I couldn't fight the communists forever; not when they
held all the cards.
Reply: Medina-Merino
I left my PhD program in Anthropology when on a "field trip" , my advisor and his
idiotic tie-dyed moron of a wife (former student of his) crawled into my tent on the
first night of a 2 week research project in black leather bondage harnesses and informed
me it was time for me to join them in a "night of pure pleasure".
Fast forward I got up, got into my car, drove through the night back to campus, parked
outside of the Dean's office, stormed in with wide-blood-shot-eyes when he arrived in his
700-Series turbo-charged Special Edition BMW and told him I wanted to file a complaint
against Professor "Bondo" and when he (Dean Bozo) did not respond to my request in over a
week, I withdrew from my program (ABD also) before the "Drop Deadline" so I could get
full refund of my hard-earned TENS OF THOUSANDS of tuition dollars and used the money to
secure an attorney (who I later learned was on-the-take for the University's own legal
counsel office of "Equity & Fairness") until I ran out of money and then left town to
take a position in Scotland on a research team studying Celtic migrations to the Northern
Coast of the Iberian Peninsula, known for centuries unofficially as the "Celtic Coast". I
loved my work and worked with some amazing and HONEST and RESPECTFUL colleagues.
I learned a big lesson from this EFFIN nightmare be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful of
whose hands you find your career in there are a lot of filthy, abusive, corrupt "faculty"
and even more dishonest and disingenuous and despicable "administrators" in the
contemporary academy and many have brass name-plates on their doors and hold
do-nothing-but-damage-to-the-lives-of those who are often powerless against their callous
and deliberate abuses.
Even today, on my sleepless nights I can still hear Mr. Chips rustling in his
grave
I went on to hold positions of academic renown in Europe and Latin America and
eventually returned to the US when I knew I would be able to secure adjunct positions in
the US and Canada and Puerto Rico to support myself and my family, whose lives I was able
to maintain in a stable trajectory throughout this horror!
Revenge is sweet however today when I receive requests from my former "institution of
higher learning" I respond in the SASE
"NEVER WILL I EVER GIVE YOU ONE CENT FOR NOT HAVING PROTECTED ME FROM ABUSE AT THE HANDS
OF DR. "BONDO" YEARS AGO!" Even today, he is part of campus lore and is whispered about
in hushed tones.
What happened to the "prof" he died of very painful brain cancer (poetic justice) and
his idiot wife went full-tilt into drugs and is sitting in a pool of her own pee in a
very dismal geriatric ward. And the "Dean"? He is likewise awaiting his last days in his
luxury condo in Santa Barbara, CA surrounded by like-minded Lutheran do-gooders holding
prayer circles and burning incense and rubbing crystals for each of their pathetic
selves
Programming skills are somewhat similar to the skills of people who play violin or piano. As
soon a you stop playing violin or piano still start to evaporate. First slowly, then quicker. In
two yours you probably will lose 80%.
Notable quotes:
"... I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and put things into it. ..."
Dijkstra said he was proud to be a programmer. Unfortunately he changed his attitude
completely, and I think he wrote his last computer program in the 1980s. At this conference I
went to in 1967 about simulation language, Chris Strachey was going around asking everybody at
the conference what was the last computer program you wrote. This was 1967. Some of the people
said, "I've never written a computer program." Others would say, "Oh yeah, here's what I did
last week." I asked Edsger this question when I visited him in Texas in the 90s and he said,
"Don, I write programs now with pencil and paper, and I execute them in my head." He finds that
a good enough discipline.
I think he was mistaken on that. He taught me a lot of things, but I really think that if he
had continued... One of Dijkstra's greatest strengths was that he felt a strong sense of
aesthetics, and he didn't want to compromise his notions of beauty. They were so intense that
when he visited me in the 1960s, I had just come to Stanford. I remember the conversation we
had. It was in the first apartment, our little rented house, before we had electricity in the
house.
We were sitting there in the dark, and he was telling me how he had just learned about the
specifications of the IBM System/360, and it made him so ill that his heart was actually
starting to flutter.
He intensely disliked things that he didn't consider clean to work with. So I can see that
he would have distaste for the languages that he had to work with on real computers. My
reaction to that was to design my own language, and then make Pascal so that it would work well
for me in those days. But his response was to do everything only intellectually.
So, programming.
I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs
in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and
put things into it. I think of a question that I want to answer, or I have part of my book
where I want to present something. But I can't just present it by reading about it in a book.
As I code it, it all becomes clear in my head. It's just the discipline. The fact that I have
to translate my knowledge of this method into something that the machine is going to understand
just forces me to make that crystal-clear in my head. Then I can explain it to somebody else
infinitely better. The exposition is always better if I've implemented it, even though it's
going to take me more time.
So I had a programming hat when I was outside of Cal Tech, and at Cal Tech I am a
mathematician taking my grad studies. A startup company, called Green Tree Corporation because
green is the color of money, came to me and said, "Don, name your price. Write compilers for us
and we will take care of finding computers for you to debug them on, and assistance for you to
do your work. Name your price." I said, "Oh, okay. $100,000.", assuming that this was In that
era this was not quite at Bill Gate's level today, but it was sort of out there.
The guy didn't blink. He said, "Okay." I didn't really blink either. I said, "Well, I'm not
going to do it. I just thought this was an impossible number."
At that point I made the decision in my life that I wasn't going to optimize my income; I
was really going to do what I thought I could do for well, I don't know. If you ask me what
makes me most happy, number one would be somebody saying "I learned something from you". Number
two would be somebody saying "I used your software". But number infinity would be Well, no.
Number infinity minus one would be "I bought your book". It's not as good as "I read your
book", you know. Then there is "I bought your software"; that was not in my own personal value.
So that decision came up. I kept up with the literature about compilers. The Communications of
the ACM was where the action was. I also worked with people on trying to debug the ALGOL
language, which had problems with it. I published a few papers, like "The Remaining Trouble
Spots in ALGOL 60" was one of the papers that I worked on. I chaired a committee called
"Smallgol" which was to find a subset of ALGOL that would work on small computers. I was active
in programming languages.
Frana: You have made the comment several times that maybe 1 in 50 people have the
"computer scientist's mind." Knuth: Yes. Frana: I am wondering if a large number of those
people are trained professional librarians? [laughter] There is some strangeness there. But can
you pinpoint what it is about the mind of the computer scientist that is....
Knuth: That is different?
Frana: What are the characteristics?
Knuth: Two things: one is the ability to deal with non-uniform structure, where you
have case one, case two, case three, case four. Or that you have a model of something where the
first component is integer, the next component is a Boolean, and the next component is a real
number, or something like that, you know, non-uniform structure. To deal fluently with those
kinds of entities, which is not typical in other branches of mathematics, is critical. And the
other characteristic ability is to shift levels quickly, from looking at something in the large
to looking at something in the small, and many levels in between, jumping from one level of
abstraction to another. You know that, when you are adding one to some number, that you are
actually getting closer to some overarching goal. These skills, being able to deal with
nonuniform objects and to see through things from the top level to the bottom level, these are
very essential to computer programming, it seems to me. But maybe I am fooling myself because I
am too close to it.
Frana: It is the hardest thing to really understand that which you are existing
within.
Knuth: Well, certainly it seems the way things are going. You take any particular subject
that you are interested in and you try to see if somebody with an American high school
education has learned it, and you will be appalled. You know, Jesse Jackson thinks that
students know nothing about political science, and I am sure the chemists think that students
don't know chemistry, and so on. But somehow they get it when they have to later. But I would
say certainly the students now have been getting more of a superficial idea of mathematics than
they used to. We have to do remedial stuff at Stanford that we didn't have to do thirty years
ago.
Frana: Gio [Wiederhold] said much the same thing to me.
Knuth: The most scandalous thing was that Stanford's course in linear algebra could not get
to eigenvalues because the students didn't know about complex numbers. Now every course at
Stanford that takes linear algebra as a prerequisite does so because they want the students to
know about eigenvalues. But here at Stanford, with one of the highest admission standards of
any university, our students don't know complex numbers. So we have to teach them that when
they get to college. Yes, this is definitely a breakdown.
Frana: Was your mathematics training in high school particularly good, or was it that you
spent a lot of time actually doing problems?
Knuth: No, my mathematics training in high school was not good. My teachers could not answer
my questions and so I decided I'd go into physics. I mean, I had played with mathematics in
high school. I did a lot of work drawing graphs and plotting points and I used pi as the radix
of a number system, and explored what the world would be like if you wanted to do logarithms
and you had a number system based on pi. And I had played with stuff like that. But my teachers
couldn't answer questions that I had.
... ... ... Frana: Do you have an answer? Are American students different today? In one of
your interviews you discuss the problem of creativity versus gross absorption of knowledge.
Knuth: Well, that is part of it. Today we have mostly a sound byte culture, this lack of
attention span and trying to learn how to pass exams. Frana: Yes,
Knuth: I can be a writer, who tries to organize other people's ideas into some kind of a
more coherent structure so that it is easier to put things together. I can see that I could be
viewed as a scholar that does his best to check out sources of material, so that people get
credit where it is due. And to check facts over, not just to look at the abstract of something,
but to see what the methods were that did it and to fill in holes if necessary. I look at my
role as being able to understand the motivations and terminology of one group of specialists
and boil it down to a certain extent so that people in other parts of the field can use it. I
try to listen to the theoreticians and select what they have done that is important to the
programmer on the street; to remove technical jargon when possible.
But I have never been good at any kind of a role that would be making policy, or advising
people on strategies, or what to do. I have always been best at refining things that are there
and bringing order out of chaos. I sometimes raise new ideas that might stimulate people, but
not really in a way that would be in any way controlling the flow. The only time I have ever
advocated something strongly was with literate programming; but I do this always with the
caveat that it works for me, not knowing if it would work for anybody else.
When I work with a system that I have created myself, I can always change it if I don't like
it. But everybody who works with my system has to work with what I give them. So I am not able
to judge my own stuff impartially. So anyway, I have always felt bad about if anyone says,
'Don, please forecast the future,'...
Those measures are nothing special. They are typical for any war or any coup d'état to install totalitarian regime in the
country. Fritened people are easily manipulated. . The only question against whom the war was launched and what was real origin of
9/11. Here 1984 instantly comes to mind.
Next week will be the
18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Politicians and bureaucrats wasted no time after that
carnage to unleash the Surveillance State on average Americans, treating every person like a
terrorist suspect.
Since the government failed to protect the public, Americans somehow
forfeited their constitutional right to privacy. Despite heroic efforts by former NSA staffer
Edward Snowden and a host of activists and freedom fighters, the government continues ravaging
American privacy.
Two of the largest leaps towards "1984" began in 2002.
Though neither the
Justice Department's Operation TIPS nor the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program was
brought to completion, parcels and precedents from each program have profoundly influenced
subsequent federal policies.
In July 2002, the Justice Department unveiled plans for Operation TIPS -- the Terrorism
Information and Prevention System.
According to the Justice Department website, TIPS would
be "a nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors,
ship captains, utility employees, and others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity."
TIPSters would be people who, "in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to serve
as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement." The feds aimed to recruit people in jobs that "make
them uniquely well positioned to understand the ordinary course of business in the area they serve,
and to identify things that are out of the ordinary." Homeland Security director Tom Ridge said
that observers in certain occupations "might pick up a break in the certain rhythm or pattern of a
community." The feds planned to enlist as many as 10 million people to watch other people's
"rhythms."
The Justice Department provided no definition of "suspicious behavior" to guide
vigilantes.
As
the public began to focus on the program's sweep, opposition surfaced; even the U.S. Postal Service
briefly balked at participating in the program. Director Ridge insisted that TIPS "is not a
government intrusion." He declared, "The last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans.
That's just not what the president is all about, and not what the TIPS program is all about."
Apparently, as long as the Bush administration did not announce plans to compel people to testify
about the peccadilloes of their neighbors and customers, TIPS was a certified freedom-friendly
program.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft was cross-examined by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on TIPS at
a Judiciary Committee hearing on July 25, he insisted that
"the TIPS program is
something requested by industry to allow them to talk about anomalies that they encounter."
But, when George W. Bush first announced the program, he portrayed it as an administration
initiative. Did thousands of Teamsters Union members petition 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over
"anomalies"? Senator Leahy asked whether reports to the TIPS hotline would become part of a federal
database with millions of unsubstantiated allegations against American citizens.
Ashcroft told Leahy, "I have recommended that there would be none, and I've been given assurance
that the TIPS program would not maintain a database." But Ashcroft could not reveal which federal
official had given him the assurance.
The ACLU's Laura Murphy observed,
"This is a program where people's activities,
statements, posters in their windows or on their walls, nationality, and religious practices will
be reported by untrained individuals without any relationship to criminal activity."
San Diego law professor Marjorie Cohn observed, "Operation TIPS will encourage neighbors to
snitch on neighbors and won't distinguish between real and fabricated tips. Anyone with a grudge or
vendetta against another can provide false information to the government, which will then enter the
national database."
On August 9, the Justice Department announced it was fine-tuning TIPS, abandoning any "plan to
ask thousands of mail carriers, utility workers, and others with access to private homes to report
suspected terrorist activity," the
Washington Post
reported. People who had enlisted to be
TIPSters received an email notice from Uncle Sam that "only those who work in the trucking,
maritime, shipping, and mass transit industries will be eligible to participate in this information
referral service." But the Justice Department continued refusing to disclose to the Senate
Judiciary Committee who would have access to the TIPS reports.
After the proposal created a fierce backlash across the political board, Congress passed
an amendment blocking its creation.
House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.) attached
an amendment to homeland security legislation that declared, "Any and all activities of the federal
government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS
are hereby prohibited." But the Bush administration and later the Obama administration pursued the
same information roundup with federally funded fusion centers that encouraged people to file
"suspicious activity reports" for a wide array of innocuous behavior -- reports that are dumped into
secret federal databases that can vex innocent citizens in perpetuity.
Operation TIPS illustrated how the momentum of intrusion spurred government to propose
programs that it never would have attempted before 9/11.
If Bush had proposed in August
2001 to recruit 10 million Americans to report any of their neighbors they suspected of acting
unusual or being potential troublemakers, the public might have concluded the president had gone
berserk.
Total Information Awareness: 300 million dossiers
The USA PATRIOT Act created a new Information Office in the Pentagon's Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
In January 2002, the White House chose retired admiral
John Poindexter to head the new office. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, "Admiral
Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding
citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military."
Cynics kvetched about Poindexter's five felony convictions for false testimony to Congress
and destruction of evidence during the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages exchange.
Poindexter's convictions were overturned by a federal appeals court, which cited the immunity
Congress granted his testimony.
Poindexter committed the new Pentagon office to achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA).
TIA's mission is "to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans --
and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist
acts,"
according to DARPA. According to Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, TIA would
seek to discover "connections between transactions -- such as passports; visas; work permits;
driver's licenses; credit cards; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases --
and events -- such as arrests or suspicious activities and so forth." Aldridge agreed that every
phone call a person made or received could be entered into the database. With "voice recognition"
software, the actual text of the call could also go onto a permanent record.
TIA would also strive to achieve "Human Identification at a Distance" (HumanID),
including "Face Recognition," "Iris Recognition," and "Gait Recognition."
The Pentagon
issued a request for proposals to develop an "odor recognition" surveillance system that would help
the feds identify people by their sweat or urine -- potentially creating a wealth of new job
opportunities for deviants.
TIA's goal was to stockpile as much information as possible about everyone on Earth -- thereby
allowing government to protect everyone from everything.
New York Times
columnist William
Safire captured the sweep of the new surveillance system: "Every purchase you make with a credit
card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you
visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you
make, every trip you book, and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications
will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database.'"
Columnist Ted Rall noted that the feds would even scan "veterinary records. The TIA believes that
knowing if and when Fluffy got spayed -- and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put
him on Ritalin -- will help the military stop terrorists before they strike."
Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta-based public-interest law
firm, warned that TIA was "the most sweeping threat to civil liberties since the Japanese-American
internment." The ACLU's Jay Stanley labeled TIA "the mother of all privacy invasions. It would
amount to a picture of your life so complete, it's equivalent to somebody following you around all
day with a video camera." A coalition of civil-liberties groups protested to Senate leaders, "There
are no systems of oversight or accountability contemplated in the TIA project. DARPA itself has
resisted lawful requests for information about the Program pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act."
Bush administration officials were outraged by such criticisms.
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, "The hype and alarm approach is a disservice to the public . I
would recommend people take a nice deep breath. Nothing terrible is going to happen." Poindexter
promised that TIA would be designed so as to "preserve rights and protect people's privacy while
helping to make us all safer." (Poindexter was not under oath at the time of his statement.) The
TIA was defended on the basis that "nobody has been searched" until the feds decide to have him
arrested on the basis of data the feds snared. Undersecretary Aldridge declared, "It is absurd to
think that DARPA is somehow trying to become another police agency. DARPA's purpose is to
demonstrate the feasibility of this technology. If it proves useful, TIA will then be turned over
to the intelligence, counterintelligence, and law-enforcement communities as a tool to help them in
their battle against domestic terrorism." In January 2003, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) learned
that the FBI was working on a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon "for possible
experimentation" with TIA. Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Security Paul McHale confirmed,
in March 2003 testimony to Congress, that the Pentagon would turn TIA over to law-enforcement
agencies once the system was ready to roll.
DARPA responded to the surge of criticism by removing the Information Awareness Office
logo from the website.
The logo showed a giant green eye atop a pyramid, covering half the
globe with a peculiar yellow haze, accompanied by the motto "Scientia est Potentia" (Knowledge is
Power).
Shortly after DARPA completed a key research benchmark for TIA, Lt. Col. Doug Dyer, a DARPA
program manager, publicly announced in April 2003 that Americans are obliged to sacrifice some
privacy in the name of security:
"When you consider the potential effect of a terrorist
attack against the privacy of an entire population, there has to be some trade-off."
But nothing in the U.S. Constitution entitles the Defense Department to decide how much privacy or
liberty American citizens deserve.
In September 2003, Congress passed an amendment abolishing the Pentagon's Information Office and
ending TIA funding. But by that point, DARPA had already awarded 26 contracts for dozens of private
research projects to develop components for TIA. Salon.com reported,
"According to
people with knowledge of the program, TIA has now advanced to the point where it's much more than a
mere 'research project.' There is a working prototype of the system, and federal agencies outside
the Defense Department have expressed interest in it."
The U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol is already using facial recognition systems at 20 airports and the Transportation Security
Administration is expected to quickly follow suit.
Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sent a secret memo
to the White House declaring that the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches was null
and void:
"If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of
deadly force, then it also certainly would justify warrantless searches."
That memo
helped set federal policy until it was publicly revealed after Barack Obama took office in 2009.
Unfortunately, that anti-Constitution, anti-privacy mindset unleashed many federal intrusions that
continue to this day, from the TSA to the National Security Agency to the FBI and Department of
Homeland Security.
"... When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?" ..."
"... When you're faced with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this." ..."
...I showed the second version of this design to two of my graduate students, and I said,
"Okay, implement this, please, this summer. That's your summer job." I thought I had specified
a language. I had to go away. I spent several weeks in China during the summer of 1977, and I
had various other obligations. I assumed that when I got back from my summer trips, I would be
able to play around with TeX and refine it a little bit. To my amazement, the students, who
were outstanding students, had not competed [it]. They had a system that was able to do about
three lines of TeX. I thought, "My goodness, what's going on? I thought these were good
students." Well afterwards I changed my attitude to saying, "Boy, they accomplished a
miracle."
Because going from my specification, which I thought was complete, they really had an
impossible task, and they had succeeded wonderfully with it. These students, by the way, [were]
Michael Plass, who has gone on to be the brains behind almost all of Xerox's Docutech software
and all kind of things that are inside of typesetting devices now, and Frank Liang, one of the
key people for Microsoft Word.
He did important mathematical things as well as his hyphenation methods which are quite used
in all languages now. These guys were actually doing great work, but I was amazed that they
couldn't do what I thought was just sort of a routine task. Then I became a programmer in
earnest, where I had to do it. The reason is when you're doing programming, you have to explain
something to a computer, which is dumb.
When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will
look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of
ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then
all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that
wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?"
It just didn't occur to the person writing the design specification. When you're faced
with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would
have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this."
If I hadn't been in China they would've scheduled an appointment with me and stopped their
programming for a day. Then they would come in at the designated hour and we would talk. They
would take 15 minutes to present to me what the problem was, and then I would think about it
for a while, and then I'd say, "Oh yeah, do this. " Then they would go home and they would
write code for another five minutes and they'd have to schedule another appointment.
I'm probably exaggerating, but this is why I think Bob Floyd's Chiron compiler never got
going. Bob worked many years on a beautiful idea for a programming language, where he designed
a language called Chiron, but he never touched the programming himself. I think this was
actually the reason that he had trouble with that project, because it's so hard to do the
design unless you're faced with the low-level aspects of it, explaining it to a machine instead
of to another person.
Forsythe, I think it was, who said, "People have said traditionally that you don't
understand something until you've taught it in a class. The truth is you don't really
understand something until you've taught it to a computer, until you've been able to program
it." At this level, programming was absolutely important
Knuth: No, I stopped going to conferences. It was too discouraging. Computer programming
keeps getting harder because more stuff is discovered. I can cope with learning about one new
technique per day, but I can't take ten in a day all at once. So conferences are depressing; it
means I have so much more work to do. If I hide myself from the truth I am much happier.
"... Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill. ..."
"... But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly quickly. ..."
Knuth: This is, of course, really the story of my life, because I hope to live long enough
to finish it. But I may not, because it's turned out to be such a huge project. I got married
in the summer of 1961, after my first year of graduate school. My wife finished college, and I
could use the money I had made -- the $5000 on the compiler -- to finance a trip to Europe for
our honeymoon.
We had four months of wedded bliss in Southern California, and then a man from
Addison-Wesley came to visit me and said "Don, we would like you to write a book about how to
write compilers."
The more I thought about it, I decided "Oh yes, I've got this book inside of me."
I sketched out that day -- I still have the sheet of tablet paper on which I wrote -- I
sketched out 12 chapters that I thought ought to be in such a book. I told Jill, my wife, "I
think I'm going to write a book."
As I say, we had four months of bliss, because the rest of our marriage has all been devoted
to this book. Well, we still have had happiness. But really, I wake up every morning and I
still haven't finished the book. So I try to -- I have to -- organize the rest of my life
around this, as one main unifying theme. The book was supposed to be about how to write a
compiler. They had heard about me from one of their editorial advisors, that I knew something
about how to do this. The idea appealed to me for two main reasons. One is that I did enjoy
writing. In high school I had been editor of the weekly paper. In college I was editor of the
science magazine, and I worked on the campus paper as copy editor. And, as I told you, I wrote
the manual for that compiler that we wrote. I enjoyed writing, number one.
Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite
textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most
as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am
just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill.
Another very important reason at the time was that I knew that there was a great need for a
book about compilers, because there were a lot of people who even in 1962 -- this was January
of 1962 -- were starting to rediscover the wheel. The knowledge was out there, but it hadn't
been explained. The people who had discovered it, though, were scattered all over the world and
they didn't know of each other's work either, very much. I had been following it. Everybody I
could think of who could write a book about compilers, as far as I could see, they would only
give a piece of the fabric. They would slant it to their own view of it. There might be four
people who could write about it, but they would write four different books. I could present all
four of their viewpoints in what I would think was a balanced way, without any axe to grind,
without slanting it towards something that I thought would be misleading to the compiler writer
for the future. I considered myself as a journalist, essentially. I could be the expositor, the
tech writer, that could do the job that was needed in order to take the work of these brilliant
people and make it accessible to the world. That was my motivation. Now, I didn't have much
time to spend on it then, I just had this page of paper with 12 chapter headings on it. That's
all I could do while I'm a consultant at Burroughs and doing my graduate work. I signed a
contract, but they said "We know it'll take you a while." I didn't really begin to have much
time to work on it until 1963, my third year of graduate school, as I'm already finishing up on
my thesis. In the summer of '62, I guess I should mention, I wrote another compiler. This was
for Univac; it was a FORTRAN compiler. I spent the summer, I sold my soul to the devil, I guess
you say, for three months in the summer of 1962 to write a FORTRAN compiler. I believe that the
salary for that was $15,000, which was much more than an assistant professor. I think assistant
professors were getting eight or nine thousand in those days.
Feigenbaum: Well, when I started in 1960 at [University of California] Berkeley, I was
getting $7,600 for the nine-month year.
Knuth: Knuth: Yeah, so you see it. I got $15,000 for a summer job in 1962 writing a
FORTRAN compiler. One day during that summer I was writing the part of the compiler that looks
up identifiers in a hash table. The method that we used is called linear probing. Basically you
take the variable name that you want to look up, you scramble it, like you square it or
something like this, and that gives you a number between one and, well in those days it would
have been between 1 and 1000, and then you look there. If you find it, good; if you don't find
it, go to the next place and keep on going until you either get to an empty place, or you find
the number you're looking for. It's called linear probing. There was a rumor that one of
Professor Feller's students at Princeton had tried to figure out how fast linear probing works
and was unable to succeed. This was a new thing for me. It was a case where I was doing
programming, but I also had a mathematical problem that would go into my other [job]. My winter
job was being a math student, my summer job was writing compilers. There was no mix. These
worlds did not intersect at all in my life at that point. So I spent one day during the summer
while writing the compiler looking at the mathematics of how fast does linear probing work. I
got lucky, and I solved the problem. I figured out some math, and I kept two or three sheets of
paper with me and I typed it up. ["Notes on 'Open' Addressing', 7/22/63] I guess that's on the
internet now, because this became really the genesis of my main research work, which developed
not to be working on compilers, but to be working on what they call analysis of algorithms,
which is, have a computer method and find out how good is it quantitatively. I can say, if I
got so many things to look up in the table, how long is linear probing going to take. It dawned
on me that this was just one of many algorithms that would be important, and each one would
lead to a fascinating mathematical problem. This was easily a good lifetime source of rich
problems to work on. Here I am then, in the middle of 1962, writing this FORTRAN compiler, and
I had one day to do the research and mathematics that changed my life for my future research
trends. But now I've gotten off the topic of what your original question was.
Feigenbaum: We were talking about sort of the.. You talked about the embryo of The Art of
Computing. The compiler book morphed into The Art of Computer Programming, which became a
seven-volume plan.
Knuth: Exactly. Anyway, I'm working on a compiler and I'm thinking about this. But now I'm
starting, after I finish this summer job, then I began to do things that were going to be
relating to the book. One of the things I knew I had to have in the book was an artificial
machine, because I'm writing a compiler book but machines are changing faster than I can write
books. I have to have a machine that I'm totally in control of. I invented this machine called
MIX, which was typical of the computers of 1962.
In 1963 I wrote a simulator for MIX so that I could write sample programs for it, and I
taught a class at Caltech on how to write programs in assembly language for this hypothetical
computer. Then I started writing the parts that dealt with sorting problems and searching
problems, like the linear probing idea. I began to write those parts, which are part of a
compiler, of the book. I had several hundred pages of notes gathering for those chapters for
The Art of Computer Programming. Before I graduated, I've already done quite a bit of writing
on The Art of Computer Programming.
I met George Forsythe about this time. George was the man who inspired both of us [Knuth and
Feigenbaum] to come to Stanford during the '60s. George came down to Southern California for a
talk, and he said, "Come up to Stanford. How about joining our faculty?" I said "Oh no, I can't
do that. I just got married, and I've got to finish this book first." I said, "I think I'll
finish the book next year, and then I can come up [and] start thinking about the rest of my
life, but I want to get my book done before my son is born." Well, John is now 40-some years
old and I'm not done with the book. Part of my lack of expertise is any good estimation
procedure as to how long projects are going to take. I way underestimated how much needed to be
written about in this book. Anyway, I started writing the manuscript, and I went merrily along
writing pages of things that I thought really needed to be said. Of course, it didn't take long
before I had started to discover a few things of my own that weren't in any of the existing
literature. I did have an axe to grind. The message that I was presenting was in fact not going
to be unbiased at all. It was going to be based on my own particular slant on stuff, and that
original reason for why I should write the book became impossible to sustain. But the fact that
I had worked on linear probing and solved the problem gave me a new unifying theme for the
book. I was going to base it around this idea of analyzing algorithms, and have some
quantitative ideas about how good methods were. Not just that they worked, but that they worked
well: this method worked 3 times better than this method, or 3.1 times better than this method.
Also, at this time I was learning mathematical techniques that I had never been taught in
school. I found they were out there, but they just hadn't been emphasized openly, about how to
solve problems of this kind.
So my book would also present a different kind of mathematics than was common in the
curriculum at the time, that was very relevant to analysis of algorithm. I went to the
publishers, I went to Addison Wesley, and said "How about changing the title of the book from
'The Art of Computer Programming' to 'The Analysis of Algorithms'." They said that will never
sell; their focus group couldn't buy that one. I'm glad they stuck to the original title,
although I'm also glad to see that several books have now come out called "The Analysis of
Algorithms", 20 years down the line.
But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm
thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has
artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and
the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly
quickly.
I've got The Art of Computer Programming started out, and I'm working on my 12 chapters. I
finish a rough draft of all 12 chapters by, I think it was like 1965. I've got 3,000 pages of
notes, including a very good example of what you mentioned about seeing holes in the fabric.
One of the most important chapters in the book is parsing: going from somebody's algebraic
formula and figuring out the structure of the formula. Just the way I had done in seventh grade
finding the structure of English sentences, I had to do this with mathematical sentences.
Chapter ten is all about parsing of context-free language, [which] is what we called it at
the time. I covered what people had published about context-free languages and parsing. I got
to the end of the chapter and I said, well, you can combine these ideas and these ideas, and
all of a sudden you get a unifying thing which goes all the way to the limit. These other ideas
had sort of gone partway there. They would say "Oh, if a grammar satisfies this condition, I
can do it efficiently." "If a grammar satisfies this condition, I can do it efficiently." But
now, all of a sudden, I saw there was a way to say I can find the most general condition that
can be done efficiently without looking ahead to the end of the sentence. That you could make a
decision on the fly, reading from left to right, about the structure of the thing. That was
just a natural outgrowth of seeing the different pieces of the fabric that other people had put
together, and writing it into a chapter for the first time. But I felt that this general
concept, well, I didn't feel that I had surrounded the concept. I knew that I had it, and I
could prove it, and I could check it, but I couldn't really intuit it all in my head. I knew it
was right, but it was too hard for me, really, to explain it well.
So I didn't put in The Art of Computer Programming. I thought it was beyond the scope of my
book. Textbooks don't have to cover everything when you get to the harder things; then you have
to go to the literature. My idea at that time [is] I'm writing this book and I'm thinking it's
going to be published very soon, so any little things I discover and put in the book I didn't
bother to write a paper and publish in the journal because I figure it'll be in my book pretty
soon anyway. Computer science is changing so fast, my book is bound to be obsolete.
It takes a year for it to go through editing, and people drawing the illustrations, and then
they have to print it and bind it and so on. I have to be a little bit ahead of the
state-of-the-art if my book isn't going to be obsolete when it comes out. So I kept most of the
stuff to myself that I had, these little ideas I had been coming up with. But when I got to
this idea of left-to-right parsing, I said "Well here's something I don't really understand
very well. I'll publish this, let other people figure out what it is, and then they can tell me
what I should have said." I published that paper I believe in 1965, at the end of finishing my
draft of the chapter, which didn't get as far as that story, LR(k). Well now, textbooks of
computer science start with LR(k) and take off from there. But I want to give you an idea
of
Level 4/5 is the ability to read complex information and glean information from it, or in
numeracy, the ability to do algebra and above. You will note that only about 1 in 10 function at
this level. The vast majority function at about 6th to 8th grade competency.
In our time, we are endlessly brainwashed to love all the things that we can buy.
Meanwhile, people are being bombed, terrorized, sanctioned, etc. across the world ... We
can't complain since we got lots of toys to play with.
And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could
function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not
through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does.
Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things
by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think
is perfectly possible.
"Happiness" with our toys is being used to keep us quiet.
"The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of their freedom, but will give them in
exchange a happiness none the less real, as a subjective experience, for being chemically
induced. The pursuit of happiness is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately,
the achievement of happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights
-- namely, liberty."
...press has complete control to filter everything to look rosey for them, demonize any
dissidents, and the masses fall for it. Why? They do not allow any counter arguments...
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not
have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.
...bread and circus propaganda. They want to keep that way. Any one who dissents is a
"hater".
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people
contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the
past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with
bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and
propaganda.
...Pleasure trick keeps one from looking at what our rulers are doing.
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to
increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom it will help to reconcile
his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
...using their MSM to make massive herds of humans all over the earth to love their
servitude to Zion uber alles.
The question of the next generation will not be one of how to liberate the masses, but
rather, how to make them love their servitude
Its just from slow growth and the Boomer deleveraging era. Its a global phenom and its
impacts are global into the cultural realm. The college degree boom is a great example of
this phenom. It was really based on the surge in consumer debt boom after WWII boosting these
supply chains in the US to increased consumption to GDP and reduced manufacturing, which fell
in real terms during the 1950-2000 period.
This created traditionally required college degree jobs into a nexus that was originally
based around the Baby Boomer generation and strengthened afterwards. Once growth petered in
2007(and we developed a oversupply since 2000) we now have too many people with college
degrees.
Even the rich aren't as rich as they were in 2007. Real profits are struggling this cycle
and are showing up with weak job growth this year. The unemployment rates flaws are showing
up this cycle as well, as total numbers mean little compared historically than the potential
that is lowest unemployment can go.
Based on that, the current level of labor market saturation seems to be at a late 70's
cycle level. In otherwards, if you adjust the population growth and total size this cycle is
doing no better than the Carter era top in 1979 .then we see the whining.
Both the Reagan and Bush II era expansions were a bit better and probably onto a intro of
a "boom".
Obviously it is noticeably the Korean, Vietnam and Tech era booms which would require
unemployment to fall below 3% to reach, maybe down to 2.5%, which tells you something about
potential unemployment drop peaks.
Interesting. Sorry you had that experience. I'm not sure what you mean by a "multi-line
text widget". I can tell you that early versions of OpenMOTIF were very very buggy in my
experience. You probably know this, but after OpenMOTIF was completed and revved a few times
the original MOTIF code was released as open-source. Many of the bugs I'd been seeing (and
some just strange visual artifacts) disappeared. I know a lot of people love QT and it's
produced real apps and real results - I won't poo-poo it. How
Even if you don't like C++ much, The Design and
Evolution of C++ [amazon.com] is a great book for understanding why pretty much any
language ends up the way it does, seeing the tradeoffs and how a language comes to grow and
expand from simple roots. It's way more interesting to read than you might expect (not very
dry, and more about human interaction than you would expect).
Other than that reading through back posts in a lot of coding blogs that have been around
a long time is probably a really good idea.
You young whippersnappers don't 'preciate how good you have it!
Back in my day, the only book about programming was the 1401 assembly language manual!
But seriously, folks, it's pretty clear we still don't know shite about how to program
properly. We have some fairly clear success criteria for improving the hardware, but the
criteria for good software are clear as mud, and the criteria for ways to produce good
software are much muddier than that.
Having said that, I will now peruse the thread rather carefully
Couldn't find any mention of Guy Steele, so I'll throw in The New Hacker's
Dictionary , which I once owned in dead tree form. Not sure if Version 4.4.7 http://catb.org/jargon/html/ [catb.org] is
the latest online... Also remember a couple of his language manuals. Probably used the Common
Lisp one the most...
Didn't find any mention of a lot of books that I consider highly relevant, but that may
reflect my personal bias towards history. Not really relevant for most programmers.
I've been programming for the past ~40 years and I'll try to summarize what I believe are
the most important bits about programming (pardon the pun.) Think of this as a META: " HOWTO:
Be A Great Programmer " summary. (I'll get to the books section in a bit.)
1. All code can be summarized as a trinity of 3 fundamental concepts:
* Linear ; that is, sequence: A, B, C
* Cyclic ; that is, unconditional jumps: A-B-C-goto B
* Choice ; that is, conditional jumps: if A then B
2. ~80% of programming is NOT about code; it is about Effective Communication. Whether
that be:
* with your compiler / interpreter / REPL
* with other code (levels of abstraction, level of coupling, separation of concerns,
etc.)
* with your boss(es) / manager(s)
* with your colleagues
* with your legal team
* with your QA dept
* with your customer(s)
* with the general public
The other ~20% is effective time management and design. A good programmer knows how to
budget their time. Programming is about balancing the three conflicting goals of the
Program
Management Triangle [wikipedia.org]: You can have it on time, on budget, on quality.
Pick two.
3. Stages of a Programmer
There are two old jokes:
In Lisp all code is data. In Haskell all data is code.
And:
Progression of a (Lisp) Programmer:
* The newbie realizes that the difference between code and data is trivial.
* The expert realizes that all code is data.
* The true master realizes that all data is code.
(Attributed to Aristotle Pagaltzis)
The point of these jokes is that as you work with systems you start to realize that a
data-driven process can often greatly simplify things.
4. Know Thy Data
Fred Books once wrote
"Show me your flowcharts (source code), and conceal your tables (domain model), and I shall
continue to be mystified; show me your tables (domain model) and I won't usually need your
flowcharts (source code): they'll be obvious."
A more modern version would read like this:
Show me your code and I'll have to see your data,
Show me your data and I won't have to see your code.
The importance of data can't be understated:
* Optimization STARTS with understanding HOW the data is being generated and used, NOT the
code as has been traditionally taught.
* Post 2000 "Big Data" has been called the new oil. We are generating upwards to millions of
GB of data every second. Analyzing that data is import to spot trends and potential
problems.
5. There are three levels of optimizations. From slowest to fastest run-time:
a) Bit-twiddling hacks
[stanford.edu]
b) Algorithmic -- Algorithmic complexity or Analysis of algorithms
[wikipedia.org] (such as Big-O notation)
c) Data-Orientated
Design [dataorienteddesign.com] -- Understanding how hardware caches such as instruction
and data caches matter. Optimize for the common case, NOT the single case that OOP tends to
favor.
Optimizing is understanding Bang-for-the-Buck. 80% of code execution is spent in 20% of
the time. Speeding up hot-spots with bit twiddling won't be as effective as using a more
efficient algorithm which, in turn, won't be as efficient as understanding HOW the data is
manipulated in the first place.
6. Fundamental Reading
Since the OP specifically asked about books -- there are lots of great ones. The ones that
have impressed me that I would mark as "required" reading:
* The Mythical Man-Month
* Godel, Escher, Bach
* Knuth: The Art of Computer Programming
* The Pragmatic Programmer
* Zero Bugs and Program Faster
* Writing Solid Code / Code Complete by Steve McConnell
* Game Programming
Patterns [gameprogra...tterns.com] (*)
* Game Engine Design
* Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel
* Puzzles for Hackers by Ivan Sklyarov
(*) I did NOT list Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software
as that leads to typical, bloated, over-engineered crap. The main problem with "Design
Patterns" is that a programmer will often get locked into a mindset of seeing
everything as a pattern -- even when a simple few lines of code would solve th
eproblem. For example here is 1,100+ of Crap++ code such as Boost's over-engineered
CRC code
[boost.org] when a mere ~25 lines of SIMPLE C code would have done the trick. When was the
last time you ACTUALLY needed to _modify_ a CRC function? The BIG picture is that you are
probably looking for a BETTER HASHING function with less collisions. You probably would be
better off using a DIFFERENT algorithm such as SHA-2, etc.
7. Do NOT copy-pasta
Roughly 80% of bugs creep in because someone blindly copied-pasted without thinking. Type
out ALL code so you actually THINK about what you are writing.
8. K.I.S.S.
Over-engineering and aka technical debt, will be your Achilles' heel. Keep It Simple,
Silly.
9. Use DESCRIPTIVE variable names
You spend ~80% of your time READING code, and only ~20% writing it. Use good, descriptive
variable names. Far too programmers write usless comments and don't understand the difference
between code and comments:
Code says HOW, Comments say WHY
A crap comment will say something like: // increment i
No, Shit Sherlock! Don't comment the obvious!
A good comment will say something like: // BUGFIX: 1234:
Work-around issues caused by A, B, and C.
10. Ignoring Memory Management doesn't make it go away -- now you have two problems. (With
apologies to JWZ)
If you don't understand both the pros and cons of these programming paradigms
...
* Procedural
* Object-Orientated
* Functional, and
* Data-Orientated Design
... then you will never really understand programming, nor abstraction,
at a deep level, along with how and when it should and shouldn't be used.
12. Multi-disciplinary POV
ALL non-trivial code has bugs. If you aren't using static code analysis
[wikipedia.org] then you are not catching as many bugs as the people who are.
Also, a good programmer looks at his code from many different angles. As a programmer you
must put on many different hats to find them:
* Architect -- design the code
* Engineer / Construction Worker -- implement the code
* Tester -- test the code
* Consumer -- doesn't see the code, only sees the results. Does it even work?? Did you VERIFY
it did BEFORE you checked your code into version control?
13. Learn multiple Programming Languages
Each language was designed to solve certain problems. Learning different languages, even
ones you hate, will expose you to different concepts. e.g. If you don't how how to read
assembly language AND your high level language then you will never be as good as the
programmer who does both.
14. Respect your Colleagues' and Consumers Time, Space, and Money.
Mobile game are the WORST at respecting people's time, space and money turning "players
into payers." They treat customers as whales. Don't do this. A practical example: If you are
a slack channel with 50+ people do NOT use @here. YOUR fire is not their emergency!
15. Be Passionate
If you aren't passionate about programming, that is, you are only doing it for the money,
it will show. Take some pride in doing a GOOD job.
16. Perfect Practice Makes Perfect.
If you aren't programming every day you will never be as good as someone who is.
Programming is about solving interesting problems. Practice solving puzzles to develop your
intuition and lateral thinking. The more you practice the better you get.
"Sorry" for the book but I felt it was important to summarize the "essentials" of
programming.
--
Hey Slashdot. Fix your shitty filter so long lists can be posted.: "Your comment has too few
characters per line (currently 37.0)."
You crammed a lot of good ideas into a short post.
I'm sending my team at work a link to your post.
You mentioned code can data. Linus Torvalds had this to say:
"I'm a huge proponent of designing your code around the data, rather than the other way
around, and I think it's one of the reasons git has been fairly successful [â¦] I
will, in fact, claim that the difference between a bad programmer and a good one is whether
he considers his code or his data structures more important."
"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and
their relationships."
I'm inclined to agree. Once the data structure is right, the code oftem almost writes
itself. It'll be easy to write and easy to read because it's obvious how one would handle
data structured in that elegant way.
Writing the code necessary to transform the data from the input format into the right
structure can be non-obvious, but it's normally worth it.
i learnt to program at school from a Ph.D computer scientist. We never even had computers
in the class. We learnt to break the problem down into sections using flowcharts or
pseudo-code and then we would translate that program into whatever coding language we were
using. I still do this usually in my notebook where I figure out all the things I need to do
and then write the skeleton of the code using a series of comments for what each section of
my program and then I fill in the code for each section. It is a combination of top down and
bottom up programming, writing routines that can be independently tested and validated.
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. They're also defending the traitorous Western governments that first import
millions of Third-Worlders , then use the resultant crime, terrorism and racial conflict to
justify
mass surveillance and harsh laws
against free speech .
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.
"... Defensive programming is a method of prevention, rather than a form of cure. Compare this to debugging -- the act of removing bugs after they've bitten. Debugging is all about finding a cure. ..."
"... Defensive programming saves you literally hours of debugging and lets you do more fun stuff instead. Remember Murphy: If your code can be used incorrectly, it will be. ..."
"... Working code that runs properly, but ever-so-slightly slower, is far superior to code that works most of the time but occasionally collapses in a shower of brightly colored sparks ..."
"... Defensive programming avoids a large number of security problems -- a serious issue in modern software development. ..."
Okay, defensive programming won't remove program failures altogether. But problems will become less of a hassle and easier to fix.
Defensive programmers catch falling snowflakes rather than get buried under an avalanche of errors.
Defensive programming is a method of prevention, rather than a form of cure. Compare this to debugging -- the act of removing
bugs after they've bitten. Debugging is all about finding a cure.
WHAT DEFENSIVE PROGRAMMING ISN'T
There are a few common misconceptions about defensive programming . Defensive programming is not:
Error checking
If there are error conditions that might arise in your code, you should be checking for them anyway. This is not defensive
code. It's just plain good practice -- a part of writing correct code.
Testing
Testing your code is not defensive . It's another normal part of our development work. Test harnesses aren't defensive ; they
can prove the code is correct now, but won't prove that it will stand up to future modification. Even with the best test suite
in the world, anyone can make a change and slip it past untested.
Debugging
You might add some defensive code during a spell of debugging, but debugging is something you do after your program has failed.
Defensive programming is something you do to prevent your program from failing in the first place (or to detect failures
early before they manifest in incomprehensible ways, demanding all-night debugging sessions).
Is defensive programming really worth the hassle? There are arguments for and against:
The case against
Defensive programming consumes resources, both yours and the computer's.
It eats into the efficiency of your code; even a little extra code requires a little extra execution. For a single function
or class, this might not matter, but when you have a system made up of 100,000 functions, you may have more of a problem.
Each defensive practice requires some extra work. Why should you follow any of them? You have enough to do already, right?
Just make sure people use your code correctly. If they don't, then any problems are their own fault.
The case for
The counterargument is compelling.
Defensive programming saves you literally hours of debugging and lets you do more fun stuff instead. Remember Murphy: If
your code can be used incorrectly, it will be.
Working code that runs properly, but ever-so-slightly slower, is far superior to code that works most of the time
but occasionally collapses in a shower of brightly colored sparks.
We can design some defensive code to be physically removed in release builds, circumventing the performance issue. The
majority of the items we'll consider here don't have any significant overhead, anyway.
Defensive programming avoids a large number of security problems -- a serious issue in modern software development. More
on this follows.
As the market demands software that's built faster and cheaper, we need to focus on techniques that deliver results. Don't skip
the bit of extra work up front that will prevent a whole world of pain and delay later.
There is one danger to defensive coding: It can bury errors. Consider the following
code:
def drawLine(m, b, image, start = 0, stop = WIDTH):
step = 1
start = int(start)
stop = int(stop)
if stop-start < 0:
step = -1
print('WARNING: drawLine parameters were reversed.')
for x in range(start, stop, step):
index = int(m*x + b) * WIDTH + x
if 0 <= index < len(image):
image[index] = 255 # Poke in a white (= 255) pixel.
This function runs from start to stop . If stop is less than start , it just steps backward
and no error is reported .
Maybe we want this kind of error to be "fixed " during the
run -- buried -- but I think we should at least print a warning that the range is coming in
backwards. Maybe we should abort the program .
"... Code installed for defensive programming is not immune to defects, and you're just as likely to find a defect in defensive-programming code as in any other code -- more likely, if you write the code casually. Think about where you need to be defensive , and set your defensive-programming priorities accordingly. ..."
Originally from: Code Complete, Second Edition II. Creating High-Quality Code
8.3. Error-Handling Techniques
Too much of anything is bad, but too much whiskey is just enough. -- Mark Twain
Too much defensive programming creates problems of its own. If you check data passed as parameters in every conceivable way in
every conceivable place, your program will be fat and slow.
What's worse, the additional code needed for defensive programming adds
complexity to the software.
Code installed for defensive programming is not immune to defects, and you're just as likely to find
a defect in defensive-programming code as in any other code -- more likely, if you write the code casually. Think about where you
need to be defensive , and set your defensive-programming priorities accordingly.
Defensive Programming
General
Does the routine protect itself from bad input data?
Have you used assertions to document assumptions, including preconditions and postconditions?
Have assertions been used only to document conditions that should never occur?
Does the architecture or high-level design specify a specific set of error-handling techniques?
Does the architecture or high-level design specify whether error handling should favor robustness or correctness?
Have barricades been created to contain the damaging effect of errors and reduce the amount of code that has to be concerned
about error processing?
Have debugging aids been used in the code?
Have debugging aids been installed in such a way that they can be activated or deactivated without a great deal of fuss?
Is the amount of defensive programming code appropriate -- neither too much nor too little?
Have you used offensive- programming techniques to make errors difficult to overlook during development?
Exceptions
Has your project defined a standardized approach to exception handling?
Have you considered alternatives to using an exception?
Is the error handled locally rather than throwing a nonlocal exception, if possible?
Does the code avoid throwing exceptions in constructors and destructors?
Are all exceptions at the appropriate levels of abstraction for the routines that throw them?
Does each exception include all relevant exception background information?
Is the code free of empty catch blocks? (Or if an empty catch block truly is appropriate, is it documented?)
Security Issues
Does the code that checks for bad input data check for attempted buffer overflows, SQL injection, HTML injection, integer
overflows, and other malicious inputs?
Are all error-return codes checked?
Are all exceptions caught?
Do error messages avoid providing information that would help an attacker break into the system?
Assertions as special statement is questionable approach unless there is a switch to exclude them from the code. Other
then that BASH exit with condition or Perl die can serve equally well.
The main question here is which assertions should be in code only for debugging and which should be in production.
Notable quotes:
"... That an input parameter's value falls within its expected range (or an output parameter's value does) ..."
"... Many languages have built-in support for assertions, including C++, Java, and Microsoft Visual Basic. If your language doesn't directly support assertion routines, they are easy to write. The standard C++ assert macro doesn't provide for text messages. Here's an example of an improved ASSERT implemented as a C++ macro: ..."
"... Use assertions to document and verify preconditions and postconditions. Preconditions and postconditions are part of an approach to program design and development known as "design by contract" (Meyer 1997). When preconditions and postconditions are used, each routine or class forms a contract with the rest of the program . ..."
An assertion is code that's used during development -- usually a routine or macro -- that allows a program to check itself as
it runs. When an assertion is true, that means everything is operating as expected. When it's false, that means it has detected an
unexpected error in the code. For example, if the system assumes that a customerinformation file will never have more than 50,000
records, the program might contain an assertion that the number of records is less than or equal to 50,000. As long as the number
of records is less than or equal to 50,000, the assertion will be silent. If it encounters more than 50,000 records, however, it
will loudly "assert" that an error is in the program .
Assertions are especially useful in large, complicated programs and in high-reliability programs . They enable programmers to
more quickly flush out mismatched interface assumptions, errors that creep in when code is modified, and so on.
An assertion usually takes two arguments: a boolean expression that describes the assumption that's supposed to be true, and a
message to display if it isn't. Here's what a Java assertion would look like if the variable denominator were expected to
be nonzero:
Example 8-1. Java Example of an Assertion
assert denominator != 0 : "denominator is unexpectedly equal to 0.";
This assertion asserts that denominator is not equal to 0 . The first argument, denominator != 0 , is a boolean
expression that evaluates to true or false . The second argument is a message to print if the first argument is
false -- that is, if the assertion is false.
Use assertions to document assumptions made in the code and to flush out unexpected conditions. Assertions can be used to check
assumptions like these:
That an input parameter's value falls within its expected range (or an output parameter's value does)
That a file or stream is open (or closed) when a routine begins executing (or when it ends executing)
That a file or stream is at the beginning (or end) when a routine begins executing (or when it ends executing)
That a file or stream is open for read-only, write-only, or both read and write
That the value of an input-only variable is not changed by a routine
That a pointer is non-null
That an array or other container passed into a routine can contain at least X number of data elements
That a table has been initialized to contain real values
That a container is empty (or full) when a routine begins executing (or when it finishes)
That the results from a highly optimized, complicated routine match the results from a slower but clearly written routine
Of course, these are just the basics, and your own routines will contain many more specific assumptions that you can document
using assertions.
Normally, you don't want users to see assertion messages in production code; assertions are primarily for use during development
and maintenance. Assertions are normally compiled into the code at development time and compiled out of the code for production.
During development, assertions flush out contradictory assumptions, unexpected conditions, bad values passed to routines, and so
on. During production, they can be compiled out of the code so that the assertions don't degrade system performance.
Building Your Own Assertion Mechanism
Many languages have built-in support for assertions, including C++, Java, and Microsoft Visual Basic. If your language doesn't
directly support assertion routines, they are easy to write. The standard C++ assert macro doesn't provide for text messages.
Here's an example of an improved ASSERT implemented as a C++ macro:
Cross-Reference
Building your own assertion routine is a good example of programming "into" a language rather than just programming "in" a language.
For more details on this distinction, see
Program into Your
Language, Not in It .
Use error-handling code for conditions you expect to occur; use assertions for conditions that should. never occur Assertions
check for conditions that should never occur. Error-handling code checks for off-nominal circumstances that might not occur
very often, but that have been anticipated by the programmer who wrote the code and that need to be handled by the production code.
Error handling typically checks for bad input data; assertions check for bugs in the code.
If error-handling code is used to address an anomalous condition, the error handling will enable the program to respond to the
error gracefully. If an assertion is fired for an anomalous condition, the corrective action is not merely to handle an error gracefully
-- the corrective action is to change the program's source code, recompile, and release a new version of the software.
A good way to think of assertions is as executable documentation -- you can't rely on them to make the code work, but they can
document assumptions more actively than program -language comments can.
Avoid putting executable code into assertions. Putting code into an assertion raises the possibility that the compiler will eliminate
the code when you turn off the assertions. Suppose you have an assertion like this:
Example 8-3. Visual Basic Example of a Dangerous Use of an Assertion
The problem with this code is that, if you don't compile the assertions, you don't compile the code that performs the action.
Put executable statements on their own lines, assign the results to status variables, and test the status variables instead. Here's
an example of a safe use of an assertion:
Example 8-4. Visual Basic Example of a Safe Use of an Assertion
Use assertions to document and verify preconditions and postconditions. Preconditions and postconditions are part of an approach
to program design and development known as "design by contract" (Meyer 1997). When preconditions and postconditions are used, each
routine or class forms a contract with the rest of the program .
Further Reading
For much more on preconditions and postconditions, see Object-Oriented Software Construction (Meyer 1997).
Preconditions are the properties that the client code of a routine or class promises will be true before it calls the routine
or instantiates the object. Preconditions are the client code's obligations to the code it calls.
Postconditions are the properties that the routine or class promises will be true when it concludes executing. Postconditions
are the routine's or class's obligations to the code that uses it.
Assertions are a useful tool for documenting preconditions and postconditions. Comments could be used to document preconditions
and postconditions, but, unlike comments, assertions can check dynamically whether the preconditions and postconditions are true.
In the following example, assertions are used to document the preconditions and postcondition of the Velocity routine.
Example 8-5. Visual Basic Example of Using Assertions to Document Preconditions and Postconditions
Private Function Velocity ( _
ByVal latitude As Single, _
ByVal longitude As Single, _
ByVal elevation As Single _
) As Single
' Preconditions
Debug.Assert ( -90 <= latitude And latitude <= 90 )
Debug.Assert ( 0 <= longitude And longitude < 360 )
Debug.Assert ( -500 <= elevation And elevation <= 75000 )
...
' Postconditions Debug.Assert ( 0 <= returnVelocity And returnVelocity <= 600 )
' return value
Velocity = returnVelocity
End Function
If the variables latitude , longitude , and elevation were coming from an external source, invalid values
should be checked and handled by error-handling code rather than by assertions. If the variables are coming from a trusted, internal
source, however, and the routine's design is based on the assumption that these values will be within their valid ranges, then assertions
are appropriate.
For highly robust code, assert and then handle the error anyway. For any given error condition, a routine will generally use either
an assertion or error-handling code, but not both. Some experts argue that only one kind is needed (Meyer 1997).
But real-world programs and projects tend to be too messy to rely solely on assertions. On a large, long-lasting system, different
parts might be designed by different designers over a period of 5–10 years or more. The designers will be separated in time, across
numerous versions. Their designs will focus on different technologies at different points in the system's development. The designers
will be separated geographically, especially if parts of the system are acquired from external sources. Programmers will have worked
to different coding standards at different points in the system's lifetime. On a large development team, some programmers will inevitably
be more conscientious than others and some parts of the code will be reviewed more rigorously than other parts of the code. Some
programmers will unit test their code more thoroughly than others. With test teams working across different geographic regions and
subject to business pressures that result in test coverage that varies with each release, you can't count on comprehensive, system-level
regression testing, either.
In such circumstances, both assertions and error-handling code might be used to address the same error. In the source code for
Microsoft Word, for example, conditions that should always be true are asserted, but such errors are also handled by error-handling
code in case the assertion fails. For extremely large, complex, long-lived applications like Word, assertions are valuable because
they help to flush out as many development-time errors as possible. But the application is so complex (millions of lines of code)
and has gone through so many generations of modification that it isn't realistic to assume that every conceivable error will be detected
and corrected before the software ships, and so errors must be handled in the production version of the system as well.
Here's an example of how that might work in the Velocity example:
Example 8-6. Visual Basic Example of Using Assertions to Document Preconditions and Postconditions
Private Function Velocity ( _
ByRef latitude As Single, _
ByRef longitude As Single, _
ByRef elevation As Single _
) As Single
' Preconditions
Debug.Assert ( -90 <= latitude And latitude <= 90 ) <-- 1
Debug.Assert ( 0 <= longitude And longitude < 360 ) |
Debug.Assert ( -500 <= elevation And elevation <= 75000 ) <-- 1
...
' Sanitize input data. Values should be within the ranges asserted above,
' but if a value is not within its valid range, it will be changed to the
' closest legal value
If ( latitude < -90 ) Then <-- 2
latitude = -90 |
ElseIf ( latitude > 90 ) Then |
latitude = 90 |
End If |
If ( longitude < 0 ) Then |
longitude = 0 |
ElseIf ( longitude > 360 ) Then <-- 2
...
(1) Here is assertion code.
(2) Here is the code that handles bad input data at run time.
"... Defensive programming means always checking whether an operation succeeded. ..."
"... Exceptional usually means out of the ordinary and unusually good, but when it comes to errors, the word has a more negative meaning. The system throws an exception when some error condition happens, and if you don't catch that exception, it will give you a dialog box that says something like "your program has caused an error -- –goodbye." ..."
There are five desirable properties of good programs : They should be robust, correct,
maintainable, friendly, and efficient. Obviously, these properties can be prioritized in
different orders, but generally, efficiency is less important than correctness; it is nearly
always possible to optimize a well-designed program , whereas badly written "lean and mean"
code is often a disaster. (Donald Knuth, the algorithms guru, says that "premature optimization
is the root of all evil.")
Here I am mostly talking about programs that have to be used by non-expert users. (You can
forgive programs you write for your own purposes when they behave badly: For example, many
scientific number-crunching programs are like bad-tempered sports cars.) Being unbreakable is
important for programs to be acceptable to users, and you, therefore, need to be a little
paranoid and not assume that everything is going to work according to plan. ' Defensive
programming ' means writing programs that cope with all common errors. It means things like not
assuming that a file exists, or not assuming that you can write to any file (think of a
CD-ROM), or always checking for divide by zero.
In the next few sections I want to show you how to 'bullet-proof' programs . First, there is
a silly example to illustrate the traditional approach (check everything), and then I will
introduce exception handling.
Bullet-Proofing Programs
Say you have to teach a computer to wash its hair. The problem, of course, is that computers
have no common sense about these matters: "Lather, rinse, repeat" would certainly lead to a
house flooded with bubbles. So you divide the operation into simpler tasks, which return true
or false, and check the result of each task before going on to the next one. For example, you
can't begin to wash your hair if you can't get the top off the shampoo bottle.
Defensive programming means always checking whether an operation succeeded. So the following
code is full of if-else statements, and if you were trying to do something more
complicated than wash hair, the code would rapidly become very ugly indeed (and the code would
soon scroll off the page):
void wash_hair()
{
string msg = "";
if (! find_shampoo() || ! open_shampoo()) msg = "no shampoo";
else {
if (! wet_hair()) msg = "no water!";
else {
if (! apply_shampoo()) msg = "shampoo application error";
else {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) // repeat twice
if (! lather() || ! rinse()) {
msg = "no hands!";
break; // break out of the loop
}
if (! dry_hair()) msg = "no towel!";
}
}
}
if (msg != "") cerr << "Hair error: " << msg << endl;
// clean up after washing hair
put_away_towel();
put_away_shampoo();
}
Part of the hair-washing process is to clean up afterward (as anybody who has a roommate
soon learns). This would be a problem for the following code, now assuming that
wash_hair() returns a string:
string wash_hair()
{
...
if (! wet_hair()) return "no water!"
if (! Apply_shampoo()) return "application error!";
...
}
You would need another function to call this wash_hair() , write out the message
(if the operation failed), and do the cleanup. This would still be an improvement over the
first wash_hair() because the code doesn't have all those nested blocks.
NOTE
Some people disapprove of returning from a function from more than one place, but this is
left over from the days when cleanup had to be done manually. C++ guarantees that any object is
properly cleaned up, no matter from where you return (for instance, any open file objects are
automatically closed). Besides, C++ exception handling works much like a return ,
except that it can occur from many functions deep. The following section describes this and
explains why it makes error checking easier. Catching Exceptions
An alternative to constantly checking for errors is to let the problem (for example,
division by zero, access violation) occur and then use the C++ exception-handling mechanism to
gracefully recover from the problem.
Exceptional usually means out of the ordinary and
unusually good, but when it comes to errors, the word has a more negative meaning. The system
throws an exception when some error condition happens, and if you don't catch that exception,
it will give you a dialog box that says something like "your program has caused an error --
–goodbye."
You should avoid doing that to your users -- at the very least you should give
them a more reassuring and polite message.
If an exception occurs in a try block, the system tries to match the exception with
one (or more) catch blocks.
try { // your code goes inside this block
... problem happens - system throws exception
}
catch(Exception) { // exception caught here
... handle the problem
}
It is an error to have a try without a catch and vice versa. The ON
ERROR clause in Visual Basic achieves a similar goal, as do signals in C; they allow you
to jump out of trouble to a place where you can deal with the problem. The example is a
function div() , which does integer division. Instead of checking whether the divisor
is zero, this code lets the division by zero happen but catches the exception. Any code within
the try block can safely do integer division, without having to worry about the
problem. I've also defined a function bad_div() that does not catch the exception,
which will give a system error message when called:
int div(int i, int j)
{
int k = 0;
try {
k = i/j;
cout << "successful value " << k << endl;
}
catch(IntDivideByZero) {
cout << "divide by zero\n";
}
return k;
}
;> int bad_div(int i,int j) { return i/j; }
;> bad_div(10,0);
integer division by zero <main> (2)
;> div(2,1);
successful value 1
(int) 1
;> div(1,0);
divide by zero
(int) 0
This example is not how you would normally organize things. A lowly function like
div() should not have to decide how an error should be handled; its job is to do a
straightforward calculation. Generally, it is not a good idea to directly output error
information to cout or cerr because Windows graphical user interface programs
typically don't do that kind of output. Fortunately, any function call, made from within a
try block, that throws an exception will have that exception caught by the
catch block. The following is a little program that calls the (trivial) div()
function repeatedly but catches any divide-by-zero errors:
// div.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <uc_except.h>
using namespace std;
int div(int i, int j)
{ return i/j; }
int main() {
int i,j,k;
cout << "Enter 0 0 to exit\n";
for(;;) { // loop forever
try {
cout << "Give two numbers: ";
cin >> i >> j;
if (i == 0 && j == 0) return 0; // exit program!
int k = div(i,j);
cout << "i/j = " << k << endl;
} catch(IntDivideByZero) {
cout << "divide by zero\n";
}
}
return 0;
}
Notice two crucial things about this example: First, the error-handling code appears as a
separate exceptional case, and second, the program does not crash due to divide-by-zero errors
(instead, it politely tells the user about the problem and keeps going).
Note the inclusion of <uc_except.h> , which is a nonstandard extension
specific to UnderC. The ISO standard does not specify any hardware error exceptions, mostly
because not all platforms support them, and a standard has to work everywhere. So
IntDivideByZero is not available on all systems. (I have included some library code
that implements these hardware exceptions for GCC and BCC32; please see the Appendix for more
details.)
How do you catch more than one kind of error? There may be more than one catch
block after the try block, and the runtime system looks for the best match. In some
ways, a catch block is like a function definition; you supply an argument, and you can
name a parameter that should be passed as a reference. For example, in the following code,
whatever do_something() does, catch_all_errors() catches it -- specifically a
divide-by-zero error -- and it catches any other exceptions as well:
The standard exceptions have a what() method, which gives more information about
them. Order is important here. Exception includes HardwareException , so
putting Exception first would catch just about everything. When an exception is
thrown, the system picks the first catch block that would match that exception. The
rule is to put the catch blocks in order of increasing generality.
Throwing
Exceptions
You can throw your own exceptions, which can be of any type, including C++ strings. (In
Chapter 8 ,
"Inheritance and Virtual Methods," you will see how you can create a hierarchy of errors, but
for now, strings and integers will do fine.) It is a good idea to write an error-generating
function fail() , which allows you to add extra error-tracking features later. The
following example returns to the hair-washing algorithm and is even more paranoid about
possible problems:
void fail(string msg)
{
throw msg;
}
void wash_hair()
{
try {
if (! find_shampoo()) fail("no shampoo");
if (! open_shampoo()) fail("can't open shampoo");
if (! wet_hair()) fail("no water!");
if (! apply_shampoo())fail("shampoo application error");
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) // repeat twice
if (! lather() || ! rinse()) fail("no hands!");
if (! dry_hair()) fail("no towel!");
}
catch(string err) {
cerr << "Known Hair washing failure: " << err << endl;
}
catch(...) {
cerr << "Catastropic failure\n";
}
// clean up after washing hair
put_away_towel();
put_away_shampoo();
}
In this example, the general logic is clear, and the cleanup code is always run, whatever
disaster happens. This example includes a catch-all catch block at the end. It is a
good idea to put one of these in your program's main() function so that it can deliver
a more polite message than "illegal instruction." But because you will then have no information
about what caused the problem, it's a good idea to cover a number of known cases first. Such a
catch-all must be the last catch block; otherwise, it will mask more specific
errors.
It is also possible to use a trick that Perl programmers use: If the fail()
function returns a bool , then the following expression is valid C++ and does exactly
what you want:
If dry_hair() returns true, the or expression must be true, and there's no
need to evaluate the second term. Conversely, if dry_hair() returns false, the
fail() function would be evaluated and the side effect would be to throw an exception.
This short-circuiting of Boolean expressions applies also to && and is
guaranteed by the C++ standard.
Once you've adopted this mind-set, you can then rewrite your prototype and follow a set of
eight strategies to make your code as solid as possible.
While I work on the real version, I
ruthlessly follow these strategies and try to remove as many errors as I can, thinking like
someone who wants to break the software.
Never Trust Input. Never trust the data you're given and always validate it.
Prevent Errors. If an error is possible, no matter how probable, try to prevent it.
Fail Early and Openly Fail early, cleanly, and openly, stating what happened, where, and how
to fix it.
Document Assumptions Clearly state the pre-conditions, post-conditions, and invariants.
Prevention over Documentation. Don't do with documentation that which can be done with code
or avoided completely.
Automate Everything Automate everything, especially testing.
Simplify and Clarify Always simplify the code to the smallest, cleanest form that works
without sacrificing safety.
Question Authority Don't blindly follow or reject rules.
These aren't the only strategies, but they're the core things I feel programmers have to
focus on when trying to make good, solid code. Notice that I don't really say exactly how to do
these. I'll go into each of these in more detail, and some of the exercises will actually cover
them extensively.
"... Different responsibilities should go into different components, layers, or modules of the application. Each part of the program should only be responsible for a part of the functionality (what we call its concerns) and should know nothing about the rest. ..."
"... The goal of separating concerns in software is to enhance maintainability by minimizing ripple effects. A ripple effect means the propagation of a change in the software from a starting point. This could be the case of an error or exception triggering a chain of other exceptions, causing failures that will result in a defect on a remote part of the application. It can also be that we have to change a lot of code scattered through multiple parts of the code base, as a result of a simple change in a function definition. ..."
"... Rule of thumb: Well-defined software will achieve high cohesion and low coupling. ..."
This is a design principle that is applied at multiple levels. It is not just about the
low-level design (code), but it is also relevant at a higher level of abstraction, so it will
come up later when we talk about architecture.
Different responsibilities should go into different components, layers, or modules of the
application. Each part of the program should only be responsible for a part of the
functionality (what we call its concerns) and should know nothing about the rest.
The goal of separating concerns in software is to enhance maintainability by minimizing
ripple effects. A ripple effect means the propagation of a change in the software from a
starting point. This could be the case of an error or exception triggering a chain of other
exceptions, causing failures that will result in a defect on a remote part of the application.
It can also be that we have to change a lot of code scattered through multiple parts of the
code base, as a result of a simple change in a function definition.
Clearly, we do not want these scenarios to happen. The software has to be easy to change. If
we have to modify or refactor some part of the code that has to have a minimal impact on the
rest of the application, the way to achieve this is through proper encapsulation.
In a similar way, we want any potential errors to be contained so that they don't cause
major damage.
This concept is related to the DbC principle in the sense that each concern can be enforced
by a contract. When a contract is violated, and an exception is raised as a result of such a
violation, we know what part of the program has the failure, and what responsibilities failed
to be met.
Despite this similarity, separation of concerns goes further. We normally think of contracts
between functions, methods, or classes, and while this also applies to responsibilities that
have to be separated, the idea of separation of concerns also applies to Python modules,
packages, and basically any software component. Cohesion and coupling
These are important concepts for good software design.
On the one hand, cohesion means that objects should have a small and well-defined purpose,
and they should do as little as possible. It follows a similar philosophy as Unix commands that
do only one thing and do it well. The more cohesive our objects are, the more useful and
reusable they become, making our design better.
On the other hand, coupling refers to the idea of how two or more objects depend on each
other. This dependency poses a limitation. If two parts of the code (objects or methods) are
too dependent on each other, they bring with them some undesired consequences:
No code reuse : If one function depends too much on a particular object, or takes too
many parameters, it's coupled with this object, which means that it will be really difficult
to use that function in a different context (in order to do so, we will have to find a
suitable parameter that complies with a very restrictive interface)
Ripple effects : Changes in one of the two parts will certainly impact the other, as they
are too close
Low level of abstraction : When two functions are so closely related, it is hard to see
them as different concerns resolving problems at different levels of abstraction
Rule of thumb: Well-defined software will achieve high cohesion and low coupling.
"... Check all values in function/method parameter lists. ..."
"... Are they all the correct type and size? ..."
"... You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the initialization for you. ..."
"... taking the time to make your code readable and have the code layout match the logical structure of your design is essential to writing code that is understandable by humans and that works. Adhering to coding standards and conventions, keeping to a consistent style, and including good, accurate comments will help you immensely during debugging and testing. And it will help you six months from now when you come back and try to figure out what the heck you were thinking here. ..."
By defensive programming we mean that your code should protect itself from bad data. The bad
data can come from user input via the command line, a graphical text box or form, or a file.
Bad data can also come from other routines in your program via input parameters like in the
first example above.
How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should
always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you
should check the following
Check the number and type of command line arguments.
Check file operations.
Did the file open?
Did the read operation return anything?
Did the write operation write anything?
Did we reach EOF yet?
Check all values in function/method parameter lists.
Are they all the correct type and size?
You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the
initialization for you.
What else should you check for? Well, here's a short list:
Null pointers (references in Java)
Zeros in denominators
Wrong type
Out of range values
As an example, here's a C program that takes in a list of house prices from a file and
computes the average house price from the list. The file is provided to the program from the
command line.
/* * program to compute the average selling price of a set of homes. * Input comes from a file that is passed via the command line.
* Output is the Total and Average sale prices for * all the homes and the number of prices in the file. * * jfdooley */ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) { FILE *fp; double totalPrice, avgPrice; double price; int numPrices;
/* check that the user entered the correct number of args */ if (argc < 2) { fprintf(stderr,"Usage: %s <filename>\n", argv[0]); exit(1); }
/* try to open the input file */ fp = fopen(argv[1], "r"); if (fp == NULL) { fprintf(stderr, "File Not Found: %s\n", argv[1]); exit(1); } totalPrice = 0.0; numPrices = 0;
avgPrice = totalPrice / numPrices; printf("Number of houses is %d\n", numPrices); printf("Total Price of all houses is $%10.2f\n", totalPrice); printf("Average Price per house is $%10.2f\n", avgPrice);
return 0; }
Assertions Can Be Your Friend
Defensive programming means that using assertions is a great idea if your language supports
them. Java, C99, and C++ all support assertions. Assertions will test an expression that you
give them and if the expression is false, it will throw an error and normally abort the program
. You should use error handling code for errors you think might happen – erroneous user
input, for example – and use assertions for errors that should never happen
– off by one errors in loops, for example. Assertions are great for testing
your program , but because you should remove them before giving programs to customers (you
don't want the program to abort on the user, right?) they aren't good to use to validate input
data.
Exceptions and Error Handling
We've talked about using assertions to handle truly bad errors, ones that should never occur
in production. But what about handling "normal" errors? Part of defensive programming is to
handle errors in such a way that no damage is done to any data in the program or the files it
uses, and so that the program stays running for as long as possible (making your program
robust).
Let's look at exceptions first. You should take advantage of built-in exception handling in
whatever programming language you're using. The exception handling mechanism will give you
information about what bad thing has just happened. It's then up to you to decide what to do.
Normally in an exception handling mechanism you have two choices, handle the exception
yourself, or pass it along to whoever called you and let them handle it. What you do and how
you do it depends on the language you're using and the capabilities it gives you. We'll talk
about exception handling in Java later.
Error Handling
Just like with validation, you're most likely to encounter errors in input data, whether
it's command line input, file handling, or input from a graphical user interface form. Here
we're talking about errors that occur at run time. Compile time and testing errors are covered
in the next chapter on debugging and testing. Other types of errors can be data that your
program computes incorrectly, errors in other programs that interact with your program , the
operating system for instance, race conditions, and interaction errors where your program is
communicating with another and your program is at fault.
The main purpose of error handling is to have your program survive and run correctly for as
long as possible. When it gets to a point where your program cannot continue, it needs to
report what is wrong as best as it can and then exit gracefully. Exiting is the last resort for
error handling. So what should you do? Well, once again we come to the "it depends" answer.
What you should do depends on what your program's context is when the error occurs and what its
purpose is. You won't handle an error in a video game the same way you handle one in a cardiac
pacemaker. In every case, your first goal should be – try to recover.
Trying to recover from an error will have different meanings in different programs .
Recovery means that your program needs to try to either ignore the bad data, fix it, or
substitute something else that is valid for the bad data. See McConnell 8
for a further discussion of error handling. Here are a few examples of how to recover from
errors,
You might just ignore the bad data and keep going , using the next valid piece of
data. Say your program is a piece of embedded software in a digital pressure gauge. You
sample the sensor that returns the pressure 60 times a second. If the sensor fails to deliver
a pressure reading once, should you shut down the gauge? Probably not; a reasonable thing to
do is just skip that reading and set up to read the next piece of data when it arrives. Now
if the pressure sensor skips several readings in a row, then something might be wrong with
the sensor and you should do something different (like yell for help).
__________
8 McConnell, 2004.
You might substitute the last valid piece of data for a missing or wrong piece.
Taking the digital pressure gauge again, if the sensor misses a reading, since each time
interval is only a sixtieth of a second, it's likely that the missing reading is very close
to the previous reading. In that case you can substitute the last valid piece of data for
the missing value.
There may be instances where you don't have any previously recorded valid data. Your
application uses an asynchronous event handler, so you don't have any history of data, but
your program knows that the data should be in a particular range. Say you've prompted the
user for a salary amount and the value that you get back is a negative number. Clearly no one
gets paid a salary of negative dollars, so the value is wrong. One way (probably not the
best) to handle this error is to substitute the closest valid value in the range , in
this case a zero. Although not ideal, at least your program can continue running with a valid
data value in that field.
In C programs , nearly all system calls and most of the standard library functions return
a value. You should test these values! Most functions will return values that indicate
success (a non-negative integer) or failure (a negative integer, usually -1). Some functions
return a value that indicates how successful they were. For example, the
printf() family of functions returns the number of characters printed, and the
scanf() family returns the number of input elements read. Most C functions also
set a global variable named errno that contains an integer value that is the
number of the error that occurred. The list of error numbers is in a header file called
errno.h . A zero on the errno variable indicates success. Any other
positive integer value is the number of the error that occurred. Because the system tells you
two things, (1) an error occurred, and (2) what it thinks is the cause of the error, you can
do lots of different things to handle it, including just reporting the error and
bailing out. For example, if we try to open a file that doesn't exist, the program
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
if ((fd = fopen(fname, "r")) == NULL) {
perror("File not opened");
exit(1);
}
printf("File exists\n");
return 0;
}
will return the error message File not opened: No such file or
directory
if the file really doesn't exist. The function perror() reads the
errno variable and using the string provided plus a standard string
corresponding to the error number, writes an error message to the console's standard
error output. This program could also prompt the user for a different file name or it
could substitute a default file name. Either of these would allow the program to
continue rather than exiting on the error.
There are other techniques to use in error handling and recovery. These examples should
give you a flavor of what you can do within your program . The important idea to remember
here is to attempt recovery if possible, but most of all, don't fail silently!
Exceptions in Java
Some programming languages have built-in error reporting systems that will tell you when an
error occurs, and leave it up to you to handle it one way or another. These errors that would
normally cause your program to die a horrible death are called exceptions . Exceptions
get thrown by the code that encounters the error. Once something is thrown, it's usually
a good idea if someone catches it. This is the same with exceptions. So there are two
sides to exceptions that you need to be aware of when you're writing code:
When you have a piece of code that can encounter an error you throw an exception.
Systems like Java will throw some exceptions for you. These exceptions are listed in the
Exception class in the Java API documentation (see http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api
). You can also write your own code to throw exceptions. We'll have an example later in the
chapter.
Once an exception is thrown, somebody has to catch it. If you don't do anything in
your program , this uncaught exception will percolate through to the Java Virtual
Machine (the JVM) and be caught there. The JVM will kill your program and provide you with a
stack backtrace that should lead you back to the place that originally threw the exception
and show you how you got there. On the other hand, you can also write code to encapsulate the
calls that might generate exceptions and catch them yourself using Java's S
try...catch mechanism. Java requires that some exceptions must be caught.
We'll see an example later.
Java has three different types of exceptions – checked exceptions, errors, and
unchecked exceptions. Checked exceptions are those that you should catch and handle
yourself using an exception handler; they are exceptions that you should anticipate and handle
as you design and write your code. For example, if your code asks a user for a file name, you
should anticipate that they will type it wrong and be prepared to catch the resulting
FileNotFoundException . Checked exceptions must be caught.
Errors on the other hand are exceptions that usually are related to things happening
outside your program and are things you can't do anything about except fail gracefully. You
might try to catch the error exception and provide some output for the user, but you will still
usually have to exit.
The third type of exception is the runtime exception . Runtime exceptions all result
from problems within your program that occur as it runs and almost always indicate errors in
your code. For example, a NullPointerException nearly always indicates a
bug in your code and shows up as a runtime exception. Errors and runtime exceptions are
collectively called unchecked exceptions (that would be because you usually don't try to
catch them, so they're unchecked). In the program below we deliberately cause a runtime
exception:
public class TestNull {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = null;
int len = str.length();
}
}
This program will compile just fine, but when you run it you'll get this as output:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at TestNull.main(TestNull.java:4)
This is a classic runtime exception. There's no need to catch this exception because the
only thing we can do is exit. If we do catch it, the program might look like:
public
class TestNullCatch {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = null;
try {
int len = str.length();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
System.out.println("Oops: " + e.getMessage());
System.exit(1);
}
}
}
which gives us the output
Oops: null
Note that the getMessage() method will return a String containing
whatever error message Java deems appropriate – if there is one. Otherwise it returns a
null . This is somewhat less helpful than the default stack trace above.
Let's rewrite the short C program above in Java and illustrate how to catch a checked
exception .
import java.io.*; import java.util.*;
public class FileTest
public static void main(String [] args) { File fd = new File("NotAFile.txt"); System.out.println("File exists " + fd.exists());
By the way, if we don't use the try-catch block in the above program ,
then it won't compile. We get the compiler error message
FileTestWrong.java:11: unreported exception java.io.FileNotFoundException; must be caught
or declared to be thrown
FileReader fr = new FileReader(fd);
^1 error
Remember, checked exceptions must be caught. This type of error doesn't show up for
unchecked exceptions. This is far from everything you should know about exceptions and
exception handling in Java; start digging through the Java tutorials and the Java API!
The Last Word on Coding
Coding is the heart of software development. Code is what you produce. But coding is hard;
translating even a good, detailed design into code takes a lot of thought, experience, and
knowledge, even for small programs . Depending on the programming language you are using and
the target system, programming can be a very time-consuming and difficult task.
That's why
taking the time to make your code readable and have the code layout match the logical structure
of your design is essential to writing code that is understandable by humans and that works.
Adhering to coding standards and conventions, keeping to a consistent style, and including
good, accurate comments will help you immensely during debugging and testing. And it will help
you six months from now when you come back and try to figure out what the heck you were
thinking here.
And finally,
I am rarely happier than when spending an entire day programming my computer to perform
automatically a task that it would otherwise take me a good ten seconds to do by
hand.
"... How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you should check the following ..."
"... Check the number and type of command line arguments. ..."
By defensive programming we mean that your code should protect itself from bad data. The bad
data can come from user input via the command line, a graphical text box or form, or a file.
Bad data can also come from other routines in your program via input parameters like in the
first example above.
How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should
always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you
should check the following
Check the number and type of command line arguments.
Check file operations.
Did the file open?
Did the read operation return anything?
Did the write operation write anything?
Did we reach EOF yet?
Check all values in function/method parameter lists.
Are they all the correct type and size?
You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the
initialization for you.
What else should you check for? Well, here's a short list:
Null pointers (references in Java)
Zeros in denominators
Wrong type
Out of range values
As an example, here's a C program that takes in a list of house prices from a file and
computes the average house price from the list. The file is provided to the program from the
command line.
/* * program to compute the average selling price of a set of homes. * Input comes from a file that is passed via the command line.
* Output is the Total and Average sale prices for * all the homes and the number of prices in the file. * * jfdooley */ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) { FILE *fp; double totalPrice, avgPrice; double price; int numPrices;
/* check that the user entered the correct number of args */ if (argc < 2) { fprintf(stderr,"Usage: %s <filename>\n", argv[0]); exit(1); }
/* try to open the input file */ fp = fopen(argv[1], "r"); if (fp == NULL) { fprintf(stderr, "File Not Found: %s\n", argv[1]); exit(1); } totalPrice = 0.0; numPrices = 0;
avgPrice = totalPrice / numPrices; printf("Number of houses is %d\n", numPrices); printf("Total Price of all houses is $%10.2f\n", totalPrice); printf("Average Price per house is $%10.2f\n", avgPrice);
return 0; }
Assertions Can Be Your Friend
Defensive programming means that using assertions is a great idea if your language supports
them. Java, C99, and C++ all support assertions. Assertions will test an expression that you
give them and if the expression is false, it will throw an error and normally abort the program
. You should use error handling code for errors you think might happen – erroneous user
input, for example – and use assertions for errors that should never happen
– off by one errors in loops, for example. Assertions are great for testing
your program , but because you should remove them before giving programs to customers (you
don't want the program to abort on the user, right?) they aren't good to use to validate input
data.
Exceptions and Error Handling
We've talked about using assertions to handle truly bad errors, ones that should never occur
in production. But what about handling "normal" errors? Part of defensive programming is to
handle errors in such a way that no damage is done to any data in the program or the files it
uses, and so that the program stays running for as long as possible (making your program
robust).
Let's look at exceptions first. You should take advantage of built-in exception handling in
whatever programming language you're using. The exception handling mechanism will give you
information about what bad thing has just happened. It's then up to you to decide what to do.
Normally in an exception handling mechanism you have two choices, handle the exception
yourself, or pass it along to whoever called you and let them handle it. What you do and how
you do it depends on the language you're using and the capabilities it gives you. We'll talk
about exception handling in Java later.
Error Handling
Just like with validation, you're most likely to encounter errors in input data, whether
it's command line input, file handling, or input from a graphical user interface form. Here
we're talking about errors that occur at run time. Compile time and testing errors are covered
in the next chapter on debugging and testing. Other types of errors can be data that your
program computes incorrectly, errors in other programs that interact with your program , the
operating system for instance, race conditions, and interaction errors where your program is
communicating with another and your program is at fault.
The main purpose of error handling is to have your program survive and run correctly for as
long as possible. When it gets to a point where your program cannot continue, it needs to
report what is wrong as best as it can and then exit gracefully. Exiting is the last resort for
error handling. So what should you do? Well, once again we come to the "it depends" answer.
What you should do depends on what your program's context is when the error occurs and what its
purpose is. You won't handle an error in a video game the same way you handle one in a cardiac
pacemaker. In every case, your first goal should be – try to recover.
Trying to recover from an error will have different meanings in different programs .
Recovery means that your program needs to try to either ignore the bad data, fix it, or
substitute something else that is valid for the bad data. See McConnell 8
for a further discussion of error handling. Here are a few examples of how to recover from
errors,
You might just ignore the bad data and keep going , using the next valid piece of
data. Say your program is a piece of embedded software in a digital pressure gauge. You
sample the sensor that returns the pressure 60 times a second. If the sensor fails to deliver
a pressure reading once, should you shut down the gauge? Probably not; a reasonable thing to
do is just skip that reading and set up to read the next piece of data when it arrives. Now
if the pressure sensor skips several readings in a row, then something might be wrong with
the sensor and you should do something different (like yell for help).
__________
8 McConnell, 2004.
You might substitute the last valid piece of data for a missing or wrong piece.
Taking the digital pressure gauge again, if the sensor misses a reading, since each time
interval is only a sixtieth of a second, it's likely that the missing reading is very close
to the previous reading. In that case you can substitute the last valid piece of data for
the missing value.
There may be instances where you don't have any previously recorded valid data. Your
application uses an asynchronous event handler, so you don't have any history of data, but
your program knows that the data should be in a particular range. Say you've prompted the
user for a salary amount and the value that you get back is a negative number. Clearly no one
gets paid a salary of negative dollars, so the value is wrong. One way (probably not the
best) to handle this error is to substitute the closest valid value in the range , in
this case a zero. Although not ideal, at least your program can continue running with a valid
data value in that field.
In C programs , nearly all system calls and most of the standard library functions return
a value. You should test these values! Most functions will return values that indicate
success (a non-negative integer) or failure (a negative integer, usually -1). Some functions
return a value that indicates how successful they were. For example, the
printf() family of functions returns the number of characters printed, and the
scanf() family returns the number of input elements read. Most C functions also
set a global variable named errno that contains an integer value that is the
number of the error that occurred. The list of error numbers is in a header file called
errno.h . A zero on the errno variable indicates success. Any other
positive integer value is the number of the error that occurred. Because the system tells you
two things, (1) an error occurred, and (2) what it thinks is the cause of the error, you can
do lots of different things to handle it, including just reporting the error and
bailing out. For example, if we try to open a file that doesn't exist, the program
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
if ((fd = fopen(fname, "r")) == NULL) {
perror("File not opened");
exit(1);
}
printf("File exists\n");
return 0;
}
will return the error message File not opened: No such file or
directory
if the file really doesn't exist. The function perror() reads the
errno variable and using the string provided plus a standard string
corresponding to the error number, writes an error message to the console's standard
error output. This program could also prompt the user for a different file name or it
could substitute a default file name. Either of these would allow the program to
continue rather than exiting on the error.
There are other techniques to use in error handling and recovery. These examples should
give you a flavor of what you can do within your program . The important idea to remember
here is to attempt recovery if possible, but most of all, don't fail silently!
At TruePublica we have written endlessly about the continued slow strangulation of civil liberties and human rights in Britain.
We have warned about the rise of a
techno-Stasi-state
where technology is harnessed and used against civilians without any debate or indeed any real legal framework. We have alerted the
public on the illegal mass data collections by the government and
subsequent loss of much it by MI5 who should not have had it all in the first place. We warned against '
digital strip
searches ' – an activity of the police of the victims in rape cases, and the fact that Britain is becoming a
database state . At TruePublica
we have tried to press home the story that surveillance by the state on such a scale, described as the most intrusive in the Western
world – is not just illegal, it's immoral and dangerous. (see our surveillance database
HERE ).
Here is more evidence of just how dangerous and out of hand this creeping surveillance architecture is becoming. An investigation
by Big Brother Watch has uncovered a facial recognition 'epidemic'
across privately owned sites in the UK. The civil liberties campaign group has found major property developers, shopping centres,
museums, conference centres and casinos using the technology in the UK.
Millions of shoppers scanned
Their investigation uncovered the use of live facial recognition in Sheffield's Meadowhall , one of the biggest shopping
centres in the North of England, in secret police trials that took place last year. The trial could have scanned the faces of
over 2 million visitors.
The shopping centre is owned by British Land, which owns large areas within London including parts of Paddington, Broadgate,
Canada Water and Ealing Broadway. Each site's privacy policy says facial recognition may be in use, although British Land insists
only Meadowhall has used the surveillance so far.
Last week, the Financial Times revealed that the privately owned Kings Cross estate in London was using facial recognition,
whilst Canary Wharf is considering following suit. The expose prompted widespread concerns and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,
to write to the estate to express his concerns. The Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has launched an investigation.
Last year, the Trafford Centre in Manchester was pressured to stop using live facial recognition surveillance following an
intervention by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. It was estimated that up to 15 million people were scanned during the operation.
" Dark irony" of China exhibition visitors scanned
Big Brother Watch's investigation has also revealed that Liverpool's World Museum scanned visitors with facial recognition
surveillance during its exhibition, "China's First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors" in 2018. Director of Big Brother Watch
Silkie Carlo described it as "dark irony" noting that "this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China" and
warning that "many of those scanned will have been school children".
The museum is part of the National Museums Liverpool group, which also includes the International Slavery Museum, the
Museum of Liverpool and other museums and art galleries. The museum group said it is "currently testing the feasibility of using
similar technology in the future".
" Eroding freedom of association"
Big Brother Watch's investigation also found that the Millennium Point conference centre in Birmingham uses facial recognition
surveillance "at the request of law enforcement", according to its privacy policy. In recent years, the area surrounding the conference
centre has been used for demonstrations by trade unionists, football fans and anti-racism campaigners. The centre refused to give
further information about its past or present uses of facial recognition surveillance. Millennium Point is soon to host a 'hackathon'.
A number of casinos and betting shops also have policies that refer to their use of facial recognition technology including
Ladbrokes, Coral and Hippodrome Casino London.
Director of Big Brother Watch, Silkie Carlo, said:
There is an epidemic of facial recognition in the UK.
The collusion between police and private companies in building these surveillance nets around popular spaces is deeply
disturbing. Facial recognition is the perfect tool of oppression and the widespread use we've found indicates we're facing
a privacy emergency.
We now know that many millions of innocent people will have had their faces scanned with this surveillance without knowing
about it, whether by police or by private companies.
The idea of a British museum secretly scanning the faces of children visiting an exhibition on the first emperor of China
is chilling. There is a dark irony that this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China.
Facial recognition surveillance risks making privacy in Britain extinct.
Parliament must follow in the footsteps of legislators in the US and urgently ban this authoritarian surveillance from
public spaces.
"... Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity. ..."
"... In some strange fashion, he and his administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the Obama legacy and the president's own discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian "Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother. ..."
"... In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. ..."
"... In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the course of history" for "thousands of years." ..."
"... In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to 2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to 1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but over. ..."
I, Winston Smith I mean, Tom Engelhardt have not just been reading a dystopian novel, but,
it seems, living one -- and I suspect I've been living one all my life.
Yes, I recently reread George Orwell's classic 1949 novel, 1984 . In it, Winston Smith, a secret opponent of the totalitarian world of Oceania,
one of three great imperial superpowers left on planet Earth, goes down for the count at the
hands of Big Brother. It was perhaps my third time reading it in my 75 years on this
planet.
Since I was a kid, I've always had a certain fascination for dystopian fiction. It started,
I think, with War of the
Worlds , that ur-alien-invasion-from-outer-space novel in which Martians land in
southern England and begin tearing London apart. Its author, H.G. Wells, wrote it at the end of
the nineteenth century, evidently to give his English readers a sense of what it might have
felt like to be living in Tasmania, the island off the coast of Australia, and have the
equivalent of Martians -- the British, as it happened -- appear in your world and begin to
destroy it (and your culture with it).
I can remember, at perhaps age 13, reading that book under the covers by flashlight when I
was supposed to be asleep; I can remember, that is, being all alone, chilled (and thrilled) to
the bone by Wells' grim vision of civilizational destruction. To put this in context: in 1957,
I would already have known that I was living in a world of potential civilizational destruction
and that the Martians were here. They were then called the Russians, the Ruskies, the Commies,
the Reds. I would only later grasp that we (or we, too) were Martians on this planet.
The world I inhabited was, of course, a post- Hiroshima , post-
Nagasaki one. I was born on July 20, 1944, just a year and a few days before my country
dropped atomic bombs on those two Japanese cities, devastating them in blasts of a kind never
before experienced and killing more
than 200,000 people. Thirteen years later, I had already become inured to scenarios of the
most dystopian kinds of global destruction -- of a sort that would have turned those Martians
into pikers -- as the U.S. and the Soviet Union (in a distant second place) built up their
nuclear arsenals at a staggering pace.
Nuclear obliteration had, by then, become part of our everyday way of life. After all, what
American of a certain age who lived in a major city can't remember, on some otherwise perfectly
normal day, air-raid sirens suddenly beginning to howl outside your classroom window as the
streets emptied? They instantly called up a vision of a world in ashes. Of course, we children
had only a vague idea of what had happened under those mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. As we huddled under our desks, hands over heads, " ducking
and covering " like Bert the Turtle while a radio on the
teacher's desk blared Conelrad
warnings , we knew enough, however, to realize that those desks and hands were unlikely to
save us from the world's most powerful weaponry. The message being delivered wasn't one of
safety but of ultimate vulnerability to Russian nukes. After such tests, as historian Stephen
Weart recalled in his book Nuclear Fear ,
"The press reported with ghoulish precision how many millions of Americans 'died' in each mock
attack."
If those drills didn't add up to living an everyday vision of the apocalypse as a child,
what would? I grew up, in other words, with a new reality: for the first time in history,
humanity had in its hands Armageddon-like possibilities of a sort
previously left to the gods. Consider
, for instance, the U.S. military's Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) of 1960 for a
massive nuclear
strike on the Communist world. It was, we now know, meant to deliver more than 3,200
nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets, including at least 130 cities. Official, if then secret,
estimates of casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and probably
underestimated the longer term effects of radiation).
In the early 1960s, a commonplace on the streets of New York where I lived was the
symbol for "fallout
shelters" (as they were then called), the places you would head for during just such an
impending global conflagration. I still remember how visions of nuclear destruction populated
my dreams (or rather nightmares) and those of my friends, as some would later admit to me. To
this day, I can recall the feeling of sudden heat on one side of my body as a nuclear bomb went
off on the distant horizon of one of those dreams. Similarly, I recall sneaking into a Broadway
movie theater to see On the
Beach with two friends -- kids of our age weren't allowed into such films without
parents -- and so getting a glimpse, popcorn in hand, of what a devastated, nuclearized San
Francisco might look like. That afternoon at that film, I also lived through a
post-nuclear-holocaust world's end in Australia with no less than Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, and
Fred Astaire for company.
An All-American Hate Week
So my life -- and undoubtedly yours, too -- has been lived, at least in part, as if in a
dystopian novel. And certainly since November 2016 -- since, that is, the election of Donald
Trump -- the feeling (for me, at least) of being in just such a world, has only grown stronger.
Worse yet, there's nothing under the covers by flashlight about The Donald or his invasive
vision of our American future. And this time around, as a non-member of his "base," it's been
anything but thrilling to the bone.
It was with such a feeling growing in me that, all these years later, I once again picked up
Orwell's classic novel and soon began wondering whether Donald Trump wasn't our very own
idiosyncratic version of Big Brother. If you remember, when Orwell finished the book in 1948
(he seems to have flipped that year for the title), he imagined an England, which was part of
Oceania, one of the three superpowers left on the planet. The other two were Eurasia
(essentially the old Soviet Union) and Eastasia (think: a much-expanded China). In the book,
the three of them are constantly at war with each other on their borderlands (mostly in South
Asia and Africa), a war that is never meant to be either decisive or to end.
In Oceania's Airstrip One (the former England), where Winston Smith is a minor functionary
in the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of lies, of course), the Party rules eternally in a world
in which -- a classic Orwellian formulation -- "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH." It's a world of "inner" Party members (with great privilege), an outer circle like
Smith who get by, and below them a vast population of impoverished "proles."
It's also a world in which the present is always both the future and the past, while every
document, every newspaper, every bit of history is constantly being rewritten -- Smith's job --
to make it so. At the same time, documentation of the actual past is tossed down "the memory
hole" and incinerated. It's a world in which a "telescreen" is in every room, invariably
announcing splendid news (that might have been terrible news in another time). That screen can
also spy on you at just about any moment of your life. In that, Orwell, who lived at a time
when TV was just arriving, caught something essential about the future worlds of surveillance
and social media.
In his dystopian world, English itself is being reformulated into something called Newspeak,
so that, in a distant future, it will be impossible for anyone to express a non-Party-approved
thought. Meanwhile, whichever of those other two superpowers Oceania is at war with at a given
moment, as well as a possibly mythical local opposition to the Party, are regularly subjected
to a mass daily "two minutes hate" session and periodic "hate weeks." Above all, it's a world
in which, on those telescreens and posters everywhere, the mustachioed face of Big Brother, the
official leader of the Party -- "Big Brother is watching you!" -- hovers over everything,
backed up by a Ministry of Love (of, that is, imprisonment, reeducation, torture, pain, and
death).
That was Orwell's image of a kind of Stalinist Soviet Union perfected for a future of
everlasting horror. Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre
version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own
person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity.
In some strange fashion, he and his
administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of
eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the
Obama legacy and the president's own
discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that
are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her
back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of
Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian
"Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother.
In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's
version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who
are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. In what I've called the
White Ford Bronco presidency , nothing faintly like the media's 24/7 focus on him has ever
been matched. No human being has ever been attended to, watched, or discussed this way -- his
every gesture, tweet, passing comment, half-verbalized thought, slogan, plan, angry outburst,
you name it. In the past, such coverage only went with, say, a presidential assassination, not
everyday life in the White House (or at
Bedminster , Mar-a-Lago, his rallies, on Air Force One, wherever).
Room 101 (in 2019)
Think of Donald Trump's America as, in some sense, a satirical version of 1984 in
crazed formation. Not surprisingly, however, Orwell, remarkable as he was, fell short, as we
all do, in imagining the future. What he didn't see as he rushed to finish that
novel before his own life ended makes the Trumpian present far more potentially dystopian than
even he might have imagined. In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the
Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly
regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an
accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze
history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the
course of history" for "thousands of years."
Yes, in 1948, Orwell obviously knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the weaponry that went
with them. (In 1984 , he even mentions the use of such weaponry in the then-future
1950s.) What he didn't imagine in his book was a dystopian world not of the grimmest kind of
ongoingness but of endings, of ultimate destruction. He didn't conjure up a nuclear apocalypse
set off by one of his three superpowers and, of course, he had no way of imagining another kind
of potential apocalypse that has become increasingly familiar to us all: climate change.
Unfortunately, on both counts Donald Trump is proving dystopian indeed. He is, after all,
the president who threatened
to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea (before
falling in love with its dictator). He only recently claimed he could
achieve victory in the almost 18-year-old Afghan War "in a week" by wiping that country "off
the face of the Earth" and killing "10 million people." For the first time, his generals
used
the "Mother of all Bombs," the most powerful weapon in the U.S. conventional arsenal (with a
mushroom cloud that, in a test at least, could be seen for 20 miles), in that same country,
clearly to impress him.
More recently,
beginning with its withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, his
administration has started trashing the Cold War-era nuclear architecture of restraint that
kept the great-power arsenals under some control. In the process, it's clearly helping to
launch a
wildly expensive new nuclear arms race on Planet Earth. And keep in mind that this is happening
at a time when we know that a relatively localized nuclear war between regional powers like
India
and Pakistan (whose politicians are once again at each other's throats
over Kashmir ) could create a global nuclear winter and
starve to death up to a
billion people.
... ... ...
And keep in mind as well that our own twisted version of Big Brother, that guy with the
orange hair instead of the mustache, could be around to be watched for significantly longer,
should he win the election of 2020. (His polling numbers have, on the whole, been slowly rising ,
not falling in these years.)
In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to
2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to
1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident
anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to
have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally
tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind
to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but
over.
He still has to visit Room 101. As his interrogator tells him, "You asked me once what was
in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is
in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." And that "worst thing" is always adjusted to the
specific terrors of the specific prisoner.
So here's one way to think of where we are at this moment on Planet Earth: Americans -- all
of humanity, in fact -- may already be in Room 101, whether we know it or not, and the truth
is, by this steaming summer, that most of us should know it.
It's obviously time to act on a global scale. Tell that to Big Brother.
tomdispatch.com The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of
the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Big BrotherOrwell
Well duh. Your college has been suctioning money out of the pockets of kids for the
last couple decades or so at a rate that is multiples of the general growth rate. Which means
most (probably all) of the wealth you see around you is a shift from elsewhere, not a
creation of such.
At best it is maybe repatriating some of the money going to Asia.
Neoliberalism and Education
(To borrow a term often seen here at NC term – more evidence of "crapification")
In the new issue of the American Affairs Journal, the following article may be of interest
to those who tune into scholastic matters. Two quotes are posted here in case the paywall
obstructs.
1. "But the technology pushed into schools today is a threat to child development and an
unredeemable waste. In the first place, technology exacerbates the greatest problem of all in
schools: confusion about their purpose. Education is the cultivation of a person, not the
manufacture of a worker. But in many public school districts we have already traded our
collective birthright, the promise of human flourishing, for a mess of utilitarian pottage
called 'job skills.' The more recent, panicked, money-lobbing fetish for STEM is a late
realization that even those dim promises will go unmet [E]ducational technology is a
regressive political weapon, never just a neutral tool: it increases economic inequality,
decreases school accountability, takes control away from teachers, and makes poorer students
more vulnerable to threats from automation and globalization."
2. "Dumping gadgets on children is a win-win proposition in poor school districts. It's a
win for tech billionaires looking to buy progressive indulgences (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg
in Newark), and it's a win for local mayors wanting to gesture toward needy schools
without changing the underlying economic reality (e.g., Cory Booker in Newark, Pete
Buttigieg in South Bend) The meanest trick of all is when funds allocated to bring struggling
students "into the future" are used instead to banish them into the realm of for-profit
programs called "online charter schools," which consist mostly of children watching lecture
videos all day instead of being taught by a teacher. Online charter schools are a worsening
catastrophe. Compared to the performance of peers in traditional public schools with similar
income, race, gender, and first-language characteristics, the impact of online charter
attendance on student reading is so bad, it's like missing 72 days of school each year.
In math, being afflicted by an online charter school is like being absent for 180 days!"
This is a clear lack of up mobility. In other words American Dream is now a fake for all but
extremely talented or extremely lucky. .
Class Warfare
"6 findings that show the dire state of America's middle class" [
Business Insider ] (From May, still germane). "Nearly 60% of those who said they grew up
affluent now consider themselves to be in a lower class -- about half of this group said
they're middle-class or upper-middle-class, while the other half said they're poor or
working-class. Nearly 60% of those who said they had an upper-middle-class upbringing
identified with a lower class -- half of this group said they're middle-class, while the
remaining half said they're poor or working-class. And while half of those who said they grew
up in the middle class said they're still in it today, more than one-third identified with a
lower class. Only about 12% said they're now part of a higher class." • Lover
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> By
Natalia Abrams, the Executive Director of Student Debt Crisis, and Cody Hounanian, the Program
Director of Student Debt Crisis. Originally published at
openDemocracy
Student debt has been solely responsible for the majority of my decision-making as an
adult
(Erin – Portland, Maine)
The student debt crisis is not the burden of a single generation. It impacts Baby Boomers in
their 60s and 70s; Gen Xers in their 40s and 50s; Millennials in their 20s and 30s – as
well as Gen Z high school students still planning for college. Thus it's a grave mistake to
frame student loan debt as exclusively or even primarily a "Millennial problem." At the same
time, Millennials have borne the brunt of the astounding rise in college costs. They are the
first generation to experience a life shaped by the near-certainty of student debt.
Weighted for inflation, college costs (including tuition and fees) rose 81% between 2001 and
2009 – the decade when well over half of Millennials graduated high school.
Traditionally, when the price of a commodity rises rapidly, demand for that commodity drops.
Necessities like food and shelter are usually exempt from that general rule. However, college
has become one of those essentials, with the perceived cost of not attending growing at
least as fast as the actual costs themselves. As a result, student loans make the essential,
attainable.
Not everyone saddled with a tremendous debt burden ends up with a degree. Whether a borrower
receives a degree or not, few are in a position to rapidly repay their student loans. While a
college degree may or may not expand opportunities; as we're finding, student loan debt
absolutely shuts doors that might have otherwise remained open.
Lower Homeownership rates
Growing up I was told by my parents, teachers, and guidance counselors to go to college
because it would give me a better life. I graduated in 2013 with a Master's Degree in English
with the hopes of being a teacher myself. There are no teaching jobs in high schools or
colleges and I owe over $100,000 in student debt. I now work a job that doesn't even require
a degree, and was turned down for a mortgage because my debt to income ratio was too high.
Not a day goes by where I don't think about my debt
(Danielle – Roseville, California)
If homeownership is fundamental to the 'American dream', then student loan debt puts that
dream out of reach for millions of Americans. After years of growth, homeownership rates
noticeably declined in 2017. While partly due to factors unrelated to student debt (such as
rising housing prices , particularly in urban areas), the rate of Millennial homeownership
has fallen faster than that of the general population.
In a January 2019 study, the
Federal Reserve revealed the connection between lower homeownership rates and the
Millennial generation most burdened by student debt: "our estimates suggest that increases in
student loan debt are an important factor in explaining (young people's) lowered homeownership
rates." The study went on to conclude that "a little over 20 percent of the overall decline in
homeownership among the young can be attributed to the rise in student loan debt. This
represents over 400,000 young individuals who would have owned a home in 2014 had it not been
for the rise in debt."
While the Federal Reserve study focused on the decade between 2005-2014, a 2019 survey by
Bankrate
of nearly 4,000 American borrowers found that 31% of Millennial respondents postponed buying a
home because of student loan debt. By comparison, when the Baby Boomers were entering the
housing market 40 years ago, only 15% delayed a purchase because of student loan debt.
It's also worth noting that the real number of Millennials unable to purchase a home because
of student debt is likely much higher. While 31% of Millennial respondents reported that
student debt directly delayed homeownership, this figure only accounts for potential buyers who
still consider future homeownership a real possibility. Thus it does not reflect the unknown
number of those whose debt to income ratio is so high that they don't expect to ever afford a
home. As Forbes
noted in 2019, "no matter how many possible solutions are tossed around Washington and
beyond on reducing the crushing burden of student loan debt, it remains one of the top reasons
millennials are putting off buying a home."
Historically, home mortgages defined middle-class debt. Yet due to pre-existing debt,
student loan borrowers face difficulty qualifying for a mortgage. In tandem with rising housing
prices, and stringent mortgage qualification requirements adopted in the wake of the 2008
economic crisis, those with already exorbitant levels of student debt face a near-perfect storm
for obtaining a mortgage: placing a key component of the 'American dream' out of reach for
millions of young Americans.
A
2018 study by Summer and Student Debt Crisis found that 56% of respondents reported that
student loan debt made it more difficult to buy a home. That figure excludes those who consider
homeownership so unattainable that they have preemptively "given up." The same study notes that
58% of those surveyed experienced a decline in their credit score as a direct result of their
student debt. Credit scores, based on past payment habits as well as debt-to-income ratios, are
pivotal to mortgage qualification. Even borrowers who haven't yet considered buying a home are
keenly aware that their student-debt-burdened credit scores have put a mortgage out of
reach.
Fewer Marriages
I have put off having children, marrying, or purchasing a home due to the high costs of
student debt repayment. Regularly, I contemplate selling everything and living in my car to
help free up money to pay off the debt sooner.
(Melissa – Granbury, Texas)
Homeownership is not the only dream deferred, or abandoned altogether, because of crushing
student loan debt.
One theme in the stories we've collected – and in our studies – is that student
debt is an overwhelming factor in declining marriage and birth rates. Millennial borrowers like
Melissa, regularly told us that there were three central dreams that debt had put out of reach:
buying a home, getting married, and having children.
In 1990, 26% of adults under 65 were never married – by 2018, that number rose to 36%.
Today, only one in five adults are married before the age of 30 – and the average age of
first marriage has risen by more than six years since 1960. There are a host of factors that
have driven the marriage rate to record lows – and we do not suggest that student debt is
the sole (or even primary) driver of delayed marriage. Evolving and elevated expectations for
romantic partnership, economic shifts, greater equality for women and increased acceptance of
premarital sex all play critical roles in changing marriage habits. One cause of social
transformation however, doesn't negate the impact of another.
Student loan debt delays marriage in several ways. One way is through a sheer
misunderstanding of the law regarding debt. Several borrowers told us they were reluctant to
marry and "make my spouse responsible for my debt." Though the laws concerning spousal
responsibility vary by state, the fears of saddling a partner with one's debts are not
unfounded. Similarly, if a spouse with pre-existing debt returns to school after marriage, both
the debt incurred before and during marriage gets lumped together as a shared liability.
Practically, the legal responsibility for the liability is a nominal matter. Most couples
cannot simply isolate one partner's debt. The money spent each month on student loans could be
collectively used for other essentials, like rent, car repairs, or childcare.
A study
released in June 2019 by the think-tank Demos showed that those who start college after age
twenty (or go back to college following a break) have a particularly hard time paying off
loans. Twelve years after leaving school, the average borrower (who started college after the
age of twenty) will have paid off only 5% of their student debt. If a borrower is
determined not to bring their student debt into a marriage, research suggest that they will
have to wait a very long before they wed.
Media coverage tends to ignore that finances, rather than changing social mores, are the
primary driver of diminishing marriage rates. For every young person who "never wants to
marry", statistics suggest there are far more who would like to wed someday but can't imagine
ever being able to afford to do so. A
Pew Organization study in 2017 found that nearly six out of ten unmarried American adults
hope to marry someday. That same report noted that unmarried Millennials cited "not being
financially stable" as one of the chief reasons why they haven't yet wed. 41% of those
unmarried cited financial instability as a primary reason for remaining single, while 28%
described it as a "secondary" reason. (By comparison, only 24% of young adults named "not being
ready to settle down" as the primary explanation for not being married.)
The research is clear: the primary reason why Americans delay wedlock, or forego it
altogether, is financial insecurity. Debt is reshaping our most intimate relationships, putting
a profound source of happiness further and further out of reach.
Falling Birthrates
My wife and I have been married 3 years and she desperately wants kids. But paying out
$350 a month to pay off my 45k in loans has shattered our dreams of family. We both work but
it's not enough. I've paid my loans since 2004 and I'm not getting ahead.
(James – Kansas City, Missouri)
With less homeownership, along with fewer marriages – it's hardly surprising that the
most debt-laden generation in history is also having far fewer babies than their parents and
grandparents. Millennials are on track to have a lower birth rate than any generation in
American history. In 2018, the overall birth rate in the United States fell to 59 births per
1000 women, the lowest on record and a 2% drop from the previous year.
The birth rate has fallen steadily since the start of the Great Recession in 2008. Yet even
after the recovery, the birth-rate continued to decline.
There's a disagreement as to whether the birthrate decline can be attributed to women
wanting fewer babies (or wanting them later), versus women being unable to afford children. Yet
the survey data is fairly compelling: most young people have had (or expect to have) fewer
children than they consider ideal. In a
2018 New York Times/Morning Consult survey , four of the top five reasons respondents cited
for not having as many children as they wanted focused on financial concerns:
Child care
is too expensive (64% of respondents)Want more time for the children I have (54%)Worried about the economy (49%)Can't afford more children (44%)Waited
because of financial instability (43%)
Furthermore, a 2015 study by the National Institutes of
Health examined the impact of debt on the decision to have children. The results were
stunning. While mortgage holders were more likely than renters to have children, and
credit-card debt had no impact among debtors, the study found that "holding student loans more
significantly affects fertility at higher levels of indebtedness." Low levels of student loan
debt reduced fertility only slightly; high levels of student debt sharply reduced the chances
of having a baby.
Every generation reassesses priorities. Some pundits look at the lives of Millennials and
conclude that they're simply less interested in homeownership, simply more suspicious of
enduring monogamy, simply less interested in having children. The evidence shows that's a false
narrative.
The research in fact reveals that a high percentage of Millennials want homeownership,
marriage, and children. The chief obstacle is not the timeless problem of finding the right
person, but financial insecurity. Student loan debt is a central driver behind this precarity
– affecting the fundamental milestones of our lives.
I hear the phrase "student loan forgiveness " quite often these days. "Forgiveness" for
being a victim of financial predators and a failed leadership class? No, that's not
forgiveness. That's justice. Forgiveness comes from the victims, not the perpetrators.
Personally, I'm not forgiving anybody involved. Politicians, schools, the "financial
industry", etc. These are the folks that should be begging for forgiveness from the
borrowers, not the other way around. These policies have destroyed lives. They then try to
frame any corrective action as doing the victims a favor, "forgiveness", rescuing the
borrowers from their own failures and poor choices. Right. This is basically a war on the
poor. I wonder if it isn't a way to curb greenhouse emissions without inconveniencing the
wealthy.
Excellent comment -- thank you! Let us never let our fellow Americans forget Joe Biden's
central role in killing bankruptcy protection for student debtors.
I also think your final point is very important, as I am increasingly convinced that
"environmental footprint reduction" is likely to be used as a pretext for further austerity
for the working class. Environmentalism has always been a mostly elite and middle class
phenomena, and working class interests are often unmindfully ignored or disregarded. In fact,
I don't think it's unduly paranoid to anticipate ostensibly radical environmentalists
(Extinction Rebellion and the like) being used as cat's paws to extend Overclass policies of
extraction and control.
It's already happened in France – the Gilets Jaunes movement was a direct result of
the radical neoliberal Macron government putting higher taxes on diesel – a regressive
tax on the poor and rural working class.
No, penury and exploitation as a result of educational debt is not a way to cut greenhouse
gas emissions without inconveniencing the wealthy. It's just another example of Americans
being suckered by their own delusions and ignorance, just another example of wealthy
Americans, many of whom are rich without being educated, ripping off poorer Americans, many
of whom ernestly believe that going into long-term crippling debt in order to pay for a
college degree is a good way to get up and out of living from week to week with maxed out
credit cards.
The typical American university/college student has drunk the kool-aid. She believes that
higher education is a personal choice, freely made, to invest in earning potential. The
possibility that this is not necessarily the case apparently does not occur to her. She
genuinely believes, or sometimes she is compelled to believe, that it makes sense to take on
for example 100k in educational debt because the degree that should follow will allow her to
earn a hopefully large multiple of that number. Such students and their parents are
apparently blind to the fact that a country that struggles to defend a primitive form of
democracy is doomed to dystopic horrors without an educated population. Education, including
higher education, is not a personal choice alone – much more it is a national mission
that compels the government to provide instruction to qualified candidates at a minimal cost
to candidates. This is a not a utopian vision – this is reality in democracies that are
not as primitive as the American.
The attempt to associate the diesel tax with French educational policy needs
clarification: The French have free public higher education. Their free public higher
education consists of institutions that are selective, some highly selective, as well as
institutions that are not selective. The selective institutions are intended to provide a
nominally meritocratic elite-building function at the service of both public and private
beneficieries. Public transport infrasturcture is weak in the country, and the Gilets Jaunes
(GJ) argue that that's becasue administrators and mangers, many of whom are graduates of
tuition-free elite universities, have not only failed to improve it: they threw salt in GJ
wounds by attempting to impose a diesel tax. Though for many the tax is a tax-deductable
expense, there are enough economically non-rural residents of rural areas in France to make
the salt really sting. The GJ should more aggressively criticize the meritocratic fallacy of
(highly) selective public institutions and bring attention to the phenomenon of economically
non-rural residents of rural areas. They are relatively heavy polluters (lots of driving,
single-family homes). I wonder if public transport infrastructure in rural areas could be
expanded or if economically non-rural residents of rural areas could be compelled to live in
less isolation.
The most repressive and draconian indebtedness has been thrust upon the youth of America
by its government. I say 'youth' because many of those suffering under this burden were young
once but have struggled long enough to be middle aged and even beyond in the search for a
quality education, not only so they could have a good job but also in order to develop their
minds. This was not a foolish pursuit – – until it was.
Something has to be done about this. And if it has to be done, it will be done, to
paraphrase what Professor Hudson has said: if a debt can't be paid it won't be paid. And also
lest we forget, these neoliberal shenanigans came about as financiers figured they could
layer everything into juicy offerings for the players on Wall Street. Tranches or trenches as
with mortgages – you know, like layers of filo dough with yummy stuff sandwiched in
between. (Hah, my spellcheck doesn't like the word 'neoliberal'. Phooey on you, spellcheck;
it's a word!)
Hasn't been thrust upon the youth of America by its government – the student debt
crisis is a result of predatory financial interests consorting with ignorant, anti-government
ideologues to corrupt the wise support of state and federal governments for public education.
Private non-profit as well as private for-profit "educators" have lobbied lobbied lobbied for
example to expand government lending facilities for students while doing little to regulate
the "institutions" that were convincing candidates to use the facilities to borrow funds to
pay for the questionable degrees that the "institutions" were awarding. There should have
been a major cultural effort to convince Americans that we need public education including
virtually free higher education and to contradict the delusion that an investment in higher
education was essentially an investment in earning potential. Free public education including
effectively free public higher education is essential for the success of democracy. Sadly
many Americans have forgotten a fundamental aspect of the American Way of Life.
Brother in law couldn't make the payments, went underground and worked for cash, then
ultimately committed suicide in his 50's. Not saying he wasn't unstable to begin with, but
will say that having a mountain of debt he was never going to be able to get out from under
certainly was a major factor.
With an 81% increase adjusted for inflation in under a decade, why aren't schools being
penalized? Why not stop writing any and all loans for those schools?
That's an excellent point. I had burdensome student loans and eventually paid them off,
but I support student loan forgiveness. However, from a political standpoint, I understand
why some people are angry about the concept. They think they were smart and chose not to go
to college because of the financial danger, and if loans are forgiven, they're being
"punished" in the housing and job market for being "responsible."
Your "justice" framing could address both of these interest groups. Instead of just
looking at the student loans alone, we'd consider all the ways in which the loans and the
degrees have influenced people's lives. Maybe everyone could have access to "educational
credit," which could be used to directly pay off existing loans, allow people to enroll in a
degree program now, or be credited towards a new or existing mortgage. The program becomes a
universal benefit, and depending upon one's situation, the money could be used in different,
socially beneficial ways.
The main point is I like the "justice" framing, and it should be used to create a program
that benefits everyone. Then the messaging is more about rectifying a dysfunctional system,
then bailing out irresponsible spendthrifts (I don't believe this is true, but that is how
loan forgiveness is framed).
How about the government takes over all consumer debt and charges only the Fed rate in
interest? And writes down any amount considered unpayable? Would anyone not connected to the
financial industry be opposed?
The arguments against student loan forgiveness on the basis of "I paid mine off, why can't
you?" are short-sighted and ultimately injure the person making them.
Everyone is harmed by the toxic environment of debt that we're living in -- even those of
us who never had student loans and those of you who paid them off. We are all suffering under
a regime that has paralyzed people economically. The act of debt cancellation, as those whose
incomes were locked up now get a little piece of it back to spend on other things, would have
a stimulative effect on the economy.
I work with a lady who's only child entered college last year, and was exposed at work to
her discussions with her daughter over the phone and with co workers what is on the list she
choose for her student loans. Things like room and board/rent, etc. This lady has a killer
personality that works smashingly well in corporate offices – only positive things may
be talked about and she juggles her aging, ailing mom, her daughter off to college, and work
quite well.
It wasn't my place to offer advice, but I got a bad feeling listening to the load up of
student loan debt. Then I overhead her advice to her mother regarding what package from
Comcast to get. She recommended the package for seniors with insurance that protects seniors
from phishing and that sort of thing. I don't recall the fee, but she also has insurance for
her smart phone screen.
The $$$ signs of how I could manager their budget and save them some money where dancing
in my head.
I guess they call that being a Financial Advisor today. It used to be called common
sense.
When I was with my former, much younger partner, I told him he would live free with me on
condition he cut back his 60+hrs/week working at multiple Dunkin Donuts and go to school,
take NO school debt and pay everything with his paycheck. He did, and got tax credits on top
of that. He choose medical billing and coding at a school that has since gone bankrupt. But
it got him in the door. He is now supervisor in the billing department at Boston Children's
Hospital and they told him they are sending him to management training at their expense.
He too has a killer personality. Perfect for Facebook where only positive things are said.
He will do well but I worry he will later be not so well off because he doesn't save, he
spends everything he has.
My first year at University of Chicago undergrad was $4,000. Second year $5,000. Then I
moved to Boston and my employer paid most of my school expense while I finished up at
Northeastern University. Peanuts compared to today.
I would never pay for College education at todays prices. I'd take that same money and buy
a house.
And I say that as someone who just dropped a smartphone face-down on a hardwood floor.
I'm here to say that my screen protector, which cost something like 30 bucks, did its job.
It took one for the Arizona Slim team and cracked in several places. The screen was intact.
Hooray!
However, the replacement protector doesn't stick, so back to the phone repair shop I go.
While I'm there, I think I'll strike up a conversation about the right to repair. Hey, I
might just be able to turn another person on to Naked Capitalism.
I'd say that a robust course in home economics would be valuable in public schools. But
I'm guessing our owners would heavily attack that effort.
Fact is, if you want to have any professional career, an education is mandatory. I don't
want my nurse practitioner or doctor to be the likes of the Trump children simply because
they're the only ones who will be able to afford the education, same as all economics,
political science, law etc. workers to only be the ones who can afford it. Sort of insures
that our future leaders won't have any clue whatsoever about the lives of the 90% they'll be
claiming to support. A crappy situation made even worse.
The author claims that college costs (that term is not defined) rose 80% from 2001 to
2009. That is far higher than any figure I have seen. According to National Center for Education
Satistics, the figure for tuition+fees is closer to 30% which is still outrageous. If the
descrepancy means that aid is being cut back more or non-tuition/fee costs are increasing
faster, that would be good to know. Defenders of high prices claim that aid is increasing (I
doubt that but do not have figures).
Good discussion topic. Permit me to share a little tale from the Arizona Slim file:
As mentioned here before, I am learning the Russian language. After completing all 30
lessons in Mark Thompson's "Russian Made Easy" video series on YouTube, I decided that it was
time for some classroom training.
So, off to look at the University of Arizona website. I couldn't easily find any
information about enrolling as a non-degree student, so I sent an email to the department
where I'd be taking an intro Russian class.
Reply: In order to become a UA non-degree student, I would have to complete an online
application. And pay a $45 application fee.
Nyet.
Instead of paying the UA 45 bucks just to apply, I could spend that same money on a
vocabulary builder course, which is taught by a native Russian speaker. From her home in
Moscow, she has built a global business as a language teacher. So, look out, Real Russian
Club, here I come. Link:
Arizona Slim, take a look at the free Russian language courses on Coursera.org. I've taken
excellent Italian courses on EdX, but Coursera looks better now for conversational Russian.
(EdX has a couple of classes on Russian for scientific work.) With foreign languages, the
more practice and exposure, the better, so maybe Coursera could be useful in addition to your
vocabulary builder course.
I was wondering about the kids and parents who pay full freight for college. Can that cost
ever be recouped? Even for top colleges? For instance, financial aid at Harvard maxes out at
$110K in household income. So a high income family will have to pay full sticker price every
year. Tuition and living expenses could be $70K per year or more. So a four year education
could cost $280K to $350K. It's like buying a house in many parts of the country without
buying a house. Yet the median salary for a Harvard graduate is $90K ten years after entering
school (six years after graduation). If college costs are paid back in ten years, the college
graduate will have to pay back $30K every year, on top of everything else. Not much left for
savings, retirement, or a house. Even for Harvard College graduates.
I love these articles. At no point is it ever questioned or addressed why cost of college
has gone exponential relative to the real economy (taking out real estate and healthcare)
since the late 1970s,
It is because "financial aid", especially loans, spends the same as cash. The colleges
will charge what the market will bear, Econ 101,taking account the new money those loans
bring into the picture, driving up the price. Colleges have no skin in the game for repayment
/ default of loans.
Sorry, but I am cool with the whole system collapsing into itself and my bank account
sitting this one out.
Please spare me the club med, lazy river, climbing wall stories. FULL DISCLOSURE: I went
to Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, a garden spot of the city between 31st and
35th and State Street off the Dan Ryan Expressway in the late 70s. The place is a bigger dump
now when I went there, full salute to the Mies Van Der Rohe flat roof glass shoe boxes and
the post WWII housing project-like dorms.
A friend invited me to lunch at the cafeteria in the university dorm building. Lunch was
$11 50, but all-you-can-eat with a gourmet style, nice China tableware. I had pizza,
hamburger , pasta al fredo, pudding, cookies, salad, soft drinks. Great opportunity to gain
weight & spend $$$!
well also probably due to both the decimation of the non-college job market, and
credential inflation (a degree now being required for jobs it didn't use to be). of course
college grads are now overproduced relative to demand as well.
Here's an educational experiance one can endeavor : Enter your local thrift/antique
establishment/yard sale/dump, etc. and pick an item – any item .. and figure out how to
rebuild/repair/make serviceable said item. Presto ! THERE'S your future, waiting in the wings
of regression !
Not a bad place to be actually .. beats high penury, no ?
My paleo-conservative dad likes to point out that student loans existed before the
government started backing them. He took out a very large loan in 1950 to attend MIT in got
his Masters there, PhD at SUNY Buffalo in 1970. He paid it off in 1985. Back then lending
standards were based on reality and job market projections. When I went to school, all you
had to do was fog a mirror Then in the 1990s prices started doubling and tripling, etcetc .
Answer is to ban the government from backing loans, full stop.
I have a bunch of hoops to jump through for that!
Here's what my hoops look like:
One of them cancels $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with household income under
$100,000.
Another hoop provides substantial debt cancellation for every person with household income
between $100,000 and $250,000. The $50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3
in income above $100,000, so, for example, a person with household income of $130,000 gets
$40,000 in cancellation, while a person with household income of $160,000 gets $30,000 in
cancellation. Pick you hoop!
I also have a non-hoop, hoop that offers no debt cancellation to people with household income
above $250,000 (the top 5%).
For most Americans, cancellation will take place automatically using data already available
to the federal government about income and outstanding student loan debt.
We also have a moving hoop private student loan debt is also eligible for cancellation, and
the federal government will work with borrowers and the holders of this debt to provide
relief.
And our final hoop. Canceled debt will not be taxed as income.
E. Warren (the Hoop Queen)
Well unless full room and board is paid for, that's how it ends up being though? I mean
free tuition is simply not going to solve this, because how to pay for a roof over one's head
while going to school?
1) live at the parents home and go to a nearby school, sure a bit infantalizing 2) get the
bank of mom and dad to foot the dorm costs again mom and dad paying 3) take out debt for
living expenses.
Haha, no you usually can't afford housing on or off campus (renting a room) with some low
wage job!!! And if you had the capacity to get a well paying job without a degree (or other
training) you might not be pursuing one anyway. Since a large number of students are homeless
(actually true here, shocking numbers), I guess that's also an option.
I'm surprised, this being NC, that no one has mentioned this yet – student debt is a
modern form of indentured servitude.
While it does not directly tie the indebted (former) student to a single employer, it
provides potential employers with leverage in regard to wages & working conditions. Quite
simply, someone with a large debt hanging over their head is more likely to accept a job with
lower pay, fewer raises and/or benefits than some someone who is debt-free and therefore can
afford to be more picky, more demanding to be paid & treated decently.
Get 'em in more debt at an earlier age so they will be more docile and accepting of
neoliberal crapification.
At the same time it has become vastly more expensive a college degree has also become
watered down and of less value. That is the true injustice. Many jobs that once required only
a high school education now require a college degree. This is not because the job
requirements have changed. This is due to the simple fact that many more people possess
college diplomas, so employers now demand them for a greater number of occupations. However,
the pay for these occupations has not risen to be commensurate with the additional costs
incurred to gain the newly required credentials. Now these holders of costly credentials find
themselves in a real bind. The author of this article offered no solutions.
"... Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name. ..."
"... In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets, also funded by the FO. ..."
"... "The Guardian is struggling for money" Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets. ..."
OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article
Hypocrisy Taints UK's
Media Freedom Conference , was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in
the writing, I started to see more than that. This event is actually creepy. Let's just look back at one of the four "main themes"
of this conference:
Building trust in media and countering disinformation
"Countering disinformation"? Well, that's just another word for censorship. This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT
accreditation. They claim RT "spreads disinformation" and they "countered" that by barring them from attending. "Building trust"?
In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, "building trust" is just another way of saying "making people believe us" (the word usage
is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust). The whole conference is shot through with this language
that just feels off. Here is CNN's
Christiane Amanpour :
Our job is to be truthful, not neutral we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence."
Being "truthful not neutral" is one of Amanpour's
personal sayings
, she obviously thinks it's clever. Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for "bias". Refusing to cover evidence of The White
Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally
claim to only publish "the truth", to get around impartiality and then set about making up whatever "truth" is convenient. Oh, and
if you don't know what "creating a false moral quivalence is", here I'll demonstrate: MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical
media. OffG: But you're supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down. BBC: No. That's not the same. OffG: It seems the
same. BBC: It's not. You're creating a false moral equivalence . Understand now? You "create a false moral equivalence" by
pointing out mainstream media's double standards. Other ways you could mistakenly create a "false moral equivalence": Bringing up
Gaza when the media talk about racism. Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights. Referencing the US coup in
Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia's "interference in our democracy" Talking about the invasion of
Iraq. Ever. OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT. These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media's
double standards, and if you say they are , you're "creating a false moral equivalence" and the media won't have to allow
you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. Because they don't have a duty to be neutral or show both
sides, they only have a duty to tell "the truth" as soon as the government has told them what that is. Prepare to see both those
phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along
with people bemoaning how "fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality" by "being even handed between liars the truth tellers".
(I've been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).
Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. "Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support
system for journalists facing hostile environments" , this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our
"enemies" in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course),
Russia. That is ALL it means. I said in my earlier article I don't know what "media sustainability" even means, but I feel I can
take a guess. It means "save the government mouthpieces". The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news
is getting lower viewing figures all the time. "Building media sustainability" is code for "pumping public money into traditional
media that props up the government" or maybe "getting people to like our propaganda". But the worst offender on the list is, without
a doubt "Navigating Disinformation"
"Navigating Disinformation" was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really
feel the need. I already did, so you don't have to. The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The
members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian
Deputy Minister of Information
Have you guessed what "disinformation" they're going to be talking about? I'll give you a clue: It begins with R. Freeland, chairing
the panel, kicks it off by claiming that "disinformation isn't for any particular aim" . This is a very common thing for establishment
voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought. The reason
they have to claim that "disinformation" doesn't have a "specific aim" is very simple: They don't know what they're going to call
"disinformation" yet. They can't afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves
the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as "disinformation." Left or right. Foreign or domestic.
"Disinformation" is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague. So, we're one minute in, and all "navigating disinformation"
has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start. Interestingly,
no one has actually said the word "Russia" at this point. They have talked about "malign actors" and "threats to democracy", but
not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that "propaganda"= " Russian propaganda" that they don't need
to say it.
The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use "disinformation" has not just been dismissed
it was literally never even contemplated. Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always
meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know "more than most" about disinformation, she says. Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing
new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing then immediately calls for regulation of social media. Nobody disagrees. Then
he talks about the "illegal annexation of Crimea", and claims the West should outlaw "paid propaganda" like RT and Sputnik. Nobody
disagrees. Then he says that Latvia "protected" their elections from "interference" by "close cooperation between government agencies
and social media companies". Everyone nods along. If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention. They don't say
it, they probably don't even realise they mean it, but when they talk about "close cooperation with social media networks", they
mean government censorship of social media. When they say "protecting" their elections they're talking about rigging them. It only
gets worse. The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster "traditional media".
The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren't paid enough, and don't keep up to date with all the
"new tricks". His solution is to "promote financing" for traditional media, and to open more schools like the "Baltic Centre of Media
Excellence", which is apparently a totally real thing .
It's a training centre which teaches young journalists about "media literacy" and "critical thinking". You can read their depressingly
predictable list of "donors" here . I truly wish I was joking. Next
up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally "protect journalists", but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda.
(Their token effort to "defend"
RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible).
She talks for a long time without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone
told the truth. Inspiring. Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting
politicians should not endorse "propaganda" platforms. She shares an anecdote about "a prominent Slovakian politician" who gave exclusive
interviews to a site that is "dubiously financed, we assume from Russia". They assume from Russia. Everyone nods.
It's like they don't even hear themselves.
Then she moves on to Hungary. Apparently, Orban has "created a propaganda machine" and produced "antisemitic George Soros posters".
No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to "fake
news sites". She calls for "international pressure", but never explains exactly what that means. The stand-out maniac on this panel
is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed
the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to "counter lies about Ukraine". Even
The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)
She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through "disinformation" and becomes
"incoherent rambling". She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you'll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian
"cognitive influence" is "toxic like radiation." Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists
nod and chuckle. On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again. She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars
"just for being muslims", nobody questions her. She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn't mention that her
side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.
She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were "forced". A fact not supported by
any polls done by either side in the last
four years, and any referenda held
on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It's simply a lie. Nobody asks her about the journalists
killed in Ukraine since their
glorious Maidan Revolution . Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the "Ministry of Information". Nobody
does anything but nod and smile as the "countering disinformation" panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.
When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this "threat"
– here's the list:
Work to distinguish "free speech" from "propaganda", when you find propaganda there must be a "strong reaction".
Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
Regulate social media.
Educate journalists at special schools.
Start up a "Ministry of Information" and have state run media that isn't controlled, like in Ukraine.
This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said,
and who can say it. They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia .and Russia takes
up easily 90% of that. They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik. This wasn't a panel on disinformation, it was
a public attack forum – a month's worth of 2 minutes of hate. These aren't just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots,
brainwashed to the point of total delusion.
They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it
wants, to anyone it wants whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality. They don't know, they don't care.
They're true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says
"Freedom". And that's just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of
authority. Truly, perfectly Orwellian.
Read and be appalled at what America is up to .keep for further reference. We are in danger.
Tim Jenkins
It would serve Ms. Amanpour well, to relax, rewind & review her own interview with Sergei Lavrov:-
Then she might see why Larry King could stomach the appalling corporate dictatorship, even to the core of False & Fake recording
of 'our' "History of the National Security State" , No More
Amanpour was forced to laugh uncontrollably, when confronted with Lavrov's humorous interpretations of various legal aspects
of decency & his Judgement of others' politicians and 'Pussy Riots' >>> if you haven't seen it, it is to be recommended, the whole
interview, if nothing else but to study the body language and micro-facial expressions, coz' a belly up laugh is not something
anybody can easily control or even feign that first spark of cognition in her mind, as she digests Lavrov's response :- hilarious
Einstein
A GE won't solve matters since we have a Government of Occupation behind a parliament of puppets.
Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which
is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name.
In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business
of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign
countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets,
also funded by the FO.
Pryce's ventriloquist's dummy in parliament, the pompous Alan Duncan, announced another £10 million of public money for this
odious brainwashing programme.
Tim Jenkins
That panel should be nailed & plastered over, permanently:-
and as wall paper, 'Abstracts of New Law' should be pasted onto a collage of historic extracts from the Guardian, in
offices that issue journalistic licenses, comprised of 'Untouchables' :-
A professional habitat, to damp any further 'Freeland' amplification & resonance,
of negative energy from professional incompetence.
Francis Lee
Apropos of the redoubtable Ms Freeland, Canada's Foreign Secretary.
The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland's maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)
Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by
the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor
in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper
publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army's winning phase of the war, Chomiak
celebrated in print the Wehrmacht's "success" at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat
by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda,
at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against
Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.
Those Ukrainian 'Refugees' admitted to Canada in 1945 were almost certainly members of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizia 1.
These Ukie collaboraters – not to be confused with the other Ukie Nazi outfit – Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army -were
held responsible for the massacre of many Poles in the Lviv area the most infamous being carried out in the Polish village of
Huta Pienacka. In the massacre, the village was destroyed and between 500] and 1,000 of the inhabitants were killed. According
to Polish accounts, civilians were locked in barns that were set on fire while those attempting to flee were killed. That's about
par for the course.
Canada's response was as follows:
The Canadian Deschênes Commission was set up to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the collaborators
Memorial to SS-Galizien division in Chervone, Lviv Oblast, western Ukraine
The Canadian "Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes" of October 1986, by the Honourable Justice Jules Deschênesconcluded that in
relation to membership in the Galicia Division:
''The Galicia Division (14. Waffen grenadier division der SS [gal.1]) should not be indicted as a group. The members of Galicia
Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division
have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this
Commission. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia
Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.''
However, the Commission's conclusion failed to acknowledge or heed the International Military Tribunal's verdict at the Nuremberg
Trials, in which the entire Waffen-SSorganisation was declared a "criminal organization" guilty of war crimes. Also, the Deschênes
Commission in its conclusion only referenced the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), thus in legal
terms, only acknowledging the formation's activity after its name change in August 1944, while the massacre of Poles in Huta Pieniacka,
Pidkamin and Palikrowy occurred when the division was called SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien". Nevertheless, a subsequent review
by Canada's Minister of Justice again confirmed that members of the Division were not implicated in war crimes.
Yes, the west looks after its Nazis and even makes them and their descendants political figureheads.
mark
Most of these people are so smugly and complacently convinced of their own moral superiority that they just can't see the hypocrisy
and doublethink involved in the event.
Meanwhile Owen Jones has taken to Twitter to rubbish allegations that a reign of terror exists at Guardian Towers – the socialist
firebrand is quoted as saying 'journalists are free to say whatever they like, so long as it doesn't stray too far from Guardian-groupthink'.
Good analysis Kit, of the cognitive dissonant ping pong being played out by Nazi sympathisers such as Hunt and Freeland.
The echo chamber of deceit is amplified again by the selective use of information and the ignoring of relevant facts, such
as the miss reporting yesterday by Reuters of the Italian Neo-Nazi haul of weapons by the police, having not Russian but Ukrainian
links.
Not a word in the WMSM about this devious miss-reporting as the creation of fake news in action. But what would you expect?
Living as I do in Russia I can assure anyone reading this that the media freedom here is on a par with the West and somewhat
better as there is no paranoia about a fictitious enemy – Russians understand that the West is going through an existential crisis
(Brexit in the UK, Trump and the Clinton war of sameness in the US and Macron and Merkel in the EU). A crisis of Liberalism as
the failed life-support of capitalism. But hey, why worry about the politics when there is bigger fish to fry. Such as who will
pay me to dance?
The answer is clear from what Kit has writ. The government will pay the piper. How sweet.
I'd like to thank Kit for sitting through such a turgid masquerade and as I'm rather long in the tooth I do remember the old
BBC schools of journalism in Yelsin's Russia. What I remember is that old devious Auntie Beeb was busy training would be hopefuls
in the art of discretion regarding how the news is formed, or formulated.
In other words your audience. And it ain't the public
The British government's "Online Harms" White Paper has a whole section devoted to "disinformation" (ie, any facts, opinions,
analyses, evaluations, critiques that are critical of the elite's actual disinformation). If these proposals become law, the government
will have effective control over the Internet and we will be allowed access to their disinformation, shop and watch cute cat videos.
Question This
The liberal news media & hypocrisy, who would have ever thought you'd see those words in the same sentence.
But what do you expect from professional liars, politicians & 'their' free press?
Can this shit show get any worse? Yes, The other day I wrote to my MP regards the SNP legislating against the truth, effectively
making it compulsory to lie! Mr Blackford as much as called me a transphobic & seemed to go to great length publishing his neo-liberal
ideological views in some scottish rag, on how right is wrong & fact is turned into fiction & asked only those that agreed with
him contact him.
Tim Jenkins
"The science or logical consistency of true premise, cannot take place or bear fruit, when all communication and information is
'marketised and weaponised' to a mindset of possession and control."
B.Steere
Mikalina
I saw, somewhere (but can't find it now) a law or a prospective law which goes under the guise of harassment of MPs to include
action against constituents who 'pester' them.
I only emailed him once! That's hardly harassment. Anyway I sent it with proton-mail via vpn & used a false postcode using only
my first name so unlikely my civil & sincere correspondence will see me locked up for insisting my inalienable rights of freedom
of speech & beliefs are protected. But there again the state we live in, i may well be incarcerated for life, for such an outrageous
expectation.
Where to?
"The Guardian is struggling for money"
Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets.
Harry Stotle
Its the brazen nature of the conference that is especially galling, but what do you expect when crooks and liars no longer feel
they even have to pretend?
Nothing will change so long as politicians (or their shady backers) are never held to account for public assets diverted toward
a rapacious off-shore economic system, or the fact millions of lives have been shattered by the 'war on terror' and its evil twin,
'humanatarian regime change' (while disingenuous Labour MPs wail about the 'horrors' of antisemitism rather than the fact their
former leader is a key architect of the killings).
Kit remains a go-to voice when deconstructing claims made by political figures who clearly regard the MSM as a propaganda vehicle
for promoting western imperialism – the self-satisfied smugness of cunts like Jeremy Cunt stand in stark contrast to a real journalist
being tortured by the British authorities just a few short miles away.
It's a sligtly depressing thought but somebody has the unenviable task of monitoring just how far our politicians have drifted
from the everyday concerns of the 'just about managing' and as I say Mr Knightly does a fine job in informing readers what the
real of agenda of these media love-ins are actually about – it goes without saying a very lengthy barge pole is required when
the Saudis are invited but not Russia.
Where to?
This Media Freedom Conference is surely a creepy theatre of the absurd.
It is a test of what they can get away with.
Mikalina
Yep. Any soviet TV watcher would recognise this immediately. Message? THIS is the reality – and you are powerless.
mark
When are they going to give us the Ministry of Truth we so desperately need?
"... We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.' ..."
"... Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of the public. ..."
"... All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria, blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included bankers, financiers, industrialists, and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the ill-fated beer-hall putsch. (See here , and here .) ..."
"... The purpose of this propaganda barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering business interests.' ..."
Here was, of course, another surreal spectacle, this time courtesy of one of the Deep State's most dangerous, reviled, and divisive
figures, a notable protagonist in the Russia-Gate conspiracy, and America's most senior diplomat no less.
Not only is it difficult to accept that the former CIA Director actually believes what he is saying, well might we ask, "Who can
believe Mike Pompeo?"
And here's also someone whose manifest cynicism, hypocrisy, and chutzpah would embarrass the much-derided
scribes and Pharisees of Biblical days.
We have Pompeo on record recently in a rare moment of
honesty admitting – whilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a
bunch of his mates down at the local pub – that under his watch as CIA Director:
We lied, cheated, we stole we had entire training courses.'
It may have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that Pompeo didn't speak with a forked tongue.
At all events, his candour aside, we can assume safely that this reactionary, monomaniacal, Christian Zionist 'end-timer' passed
all the Company's "training courses" with flying colours.
According to Matthew Rosenberg
of the New York Times, all this did not stop Pompeo however from name-checking Wikileaks when it served his own interests. Back
in 2016 at the height of the election campaign, he had ' no compunction about pointing people toward emails stolen* by Russian hackers
from the Democratic National Committee and then posted by WikiLeaks."
[NOTE: Rosenberg's omission of the word "allegedly" -- as in "emails allegedly stolen" -- is a dead giveaway of bias on his part
(a journalistic Freudian slip perhaps?), with his employer
being one of those MSM marques leading the charge with the "Russian Collusion" 'story'. For a more insightful view of the source
of these emails and the skullduggery and thuggery that attended Russia-Gate, readers are encouraged to
check this out.]
And this is of course The Company we're talking about, whose past and present relationship with the media might be summed up in
two words:
Operation Mockingbird (OpMock). Anyone vaguely familiar with the well-documented Grand Deception that was OpMock, arguably the
CIA's most enduring, insidious, and successful
psy-ops gambit, will know what
we're talking about. (See
here ,
here ,
here , and
here .) At its most basic, this operation was all about propaganda and censorship, usually operating in tandem to ensure all
the bases are covered.
After opining that the MSM is 'totally infiltrated' by the CIA and various other agencies, for his part former NSA whistleblower
William Binney recently added , ' When it
comes to national security, the media only talk about what the administration wants you to hear, and basically suppress any other
statements about what's going on that the administration does not want get public. The media is basically the lapdogs for the government.'
We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.'
In order to provide a broader and deeper perspective, we should now consider the views of a few others on the subjects at hand,
along with some history. In a 2013 piece musing on the modern significance of the practice, my compatriot John Pilger
ecalled a time when he met
Leni Riefenstahl
back in 70s and asked her about her films that 'glorified the Nazis'.
Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger
noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's
spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the
"submissive void" of the public.
All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria,
blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also
impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included
bankers, financiers, industrialists,
and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the
ill-fated
beer-hall
putsch. (See
here , and here .)
" Triumph " apparently still resonates today. To the surprise of few one imagines, such was the impact of the film -- as casually
revealed in the excellent 2018 Alexis Bloom documentary Divide and
Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes -- it elicited no small amount of admiration from arguably the single most influential propagandist
of recent times.
[Readers might wish to check out Russell Crowe's recent portrayal of Ailes in Stan's mini-series
The Loudest Voice , in my view one the best performances of the man's career.]
In a recent piece unambiguously titled "Propaganda Is The Root Of All Our Problems", my other compatriot Caitlin Johnstone also
had a few things to
say about the subject, echoing Orwell when she observed it was all about "controlling the narrative".
Though I'd suggest the greater "root" problem is our easy propensity to ignore this reality, pretend it doesn't or won't affect
us, or reject it as conspiratorial nonsense, in this, of course, she's correct. As she cogently observes,
I write about this stuff for a living, and even I don't have the time or energy to write about every single narrative control
tool that the US-centralised empire has been implementing into its arsenal. There are too damn many of them emerging too damn
fast, because they're just that damn crucial for maintaining existing power structures.'
Fittingly, in a discussion encompassing amongst other things history, language, power, and dissent, he opined, ' Determining how
individuals communicate is' an objective which represents for the power elites 'the best chance' [they] have to control what people
think. This translates as: The more control 'we' have over what the proles think, the more 'we' can reduce the inherent risk for
elites in democracy.
' Clumsy men', Saul went on to say, 'try to do this through power and fear. Heavy-handed men running heavy-handed systems attempt
the same thing through police-enforced censorship. The more sophisticated the elites, the more they concentrate on creating intellectual
systems which control expression through the communications structures. These systems require only the discreet use of censorship
and uniformed men.'
In other words, along with assuming it is their right to take it in the first place, ' those who take power will always try to
change the established language ', presumably to better facilitate their hold on it and/or legitimise their claim to it.
For Oliver Boyd-Barrett, democratic theory presupposes a public communications infrastructure that facilitates the free and open
exchange of ideas.' Yet for the author of the recently published
RussiaGate and Propaganda: Disinformation in the Age of Social Media , 'No such infrastructure exists.'
The mainstream media he says, is 'owned and controlled by a small number of large, multi-media and multi-industrial conglomerates'
that lie at the very heart of US oligopoly capitalism and much of whose advertising revenue and content is furnished from other conglomerates:
The inability of mainstream media to sustain an information environment that can encompass histories, perspectives and vocabularies
that are free of the shackles of US plutocratic self-regard is also well documented.'
Of course the word "inability" suggests the MSM view themselves as having some responsibility for maintaining such an egalitarian
news and information environment. They don't of course, and in truth, probably never really have! A better word would be "unwilling",
or even "refusal". The corporate media all but epitomise the " plutocratic self-regard" that is characteristic of "oligopoly capitalism".
Indeed, the MSM collectively functions as advertising, public relations/lobbying entities for Big Corp, in addition to acting
as its Praetorian bodyguard , protecting their secrets,
crimes, and lies from exposure. Like all other companies they are beholden to their shareholders (profits before truth and people),
most of whom it can safely be assumed are no strangers to "self-regard", and could care less about " histories, perspectives and
vocabularies" that run counter to their own interests.
It was Aussie social scientist Alex Carey who
pioneered the study of nationalism ,
corporatism , and moreso for our purposes herein, the
management (read: manipulation) of public opinion, though all three have important links (a story for another time). For Carey, the
following conclusion was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that
we are free from propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' This former farmer
from Western Australia became one of the world's acknowledged experts on propaganda and the manipulation of the truth.
Prior to embarking on his academic career, Carey was a successful sheep
grazier . By all accounts, he was a first-class judge of the
animal from which he made his early living, leaving one to ponder if this expertise gave him a unique insight into his main area
of research!
In any event, Carey in time sold the farm and travelled to the U.K. to study psychology, apparently a long-time ambition. From
the late fifties until his death in 1988, he was a senior lecturer in psychology and industrial relations at the Sydney-based University
of New South Wales, with his research being lauded by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, both of whom have had a thing
or three to say over the years about The Big Shill. In fact such was his admiration, Pilger
described him as "a second Orwell", which in anyone's lingo
is a big call.
In fact, for anyone with an interest in how public opinion is moulded and our perceptions are managed and manipulated, in whose
interests they are done so and to what end, it is as essential reading as any of the work of other more famous names. This tome came
complete with a foreword by Chomsky, so enamoured was the latter of Carey's work.
For Carey, the three "most significant developments" in the political economy of the twentieth century were:
the growth of democracy the growth of corporate power; and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy.
For Carey, it is an axiom of conventional wisdom that the use of propaganda as a means of social and ideological control is 'distinctive'
of totalitarian regimes. Yet as he stresses: the most minimal exercise of common sense would suggest a different view: that propaganda
is likely to play at least as important a part in democratic societies (where the existing distribution of power and privilege is
vulnerable to quite limited changes in popular opinion) as in authoritarian societies (where it is not).' In this context, 'conventional
wisdom" becomes conventional ignorance; as for "common sense", maybe not so much.
The purpose of this propaganda
barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as
possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic
right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering
business interests.'
An extreme example of this view playing itself right under our noses and over decades was the cruel fiction of the "
trickle down effect " (TDE) -- aka the 'rising tide that would lift all yachts' -- of
Reaganomics . One of several mantras that defined Reagan's
overarching political shtick, the TDE was by any measure, decidedly more a torrent than a trickle, and said "torrent" was going up
not down. This reality as we now know was not in Reagan's glossy economic brochure to be sure, and it may have been because the Gipper
confused his prepositions and verbs.
Yet as the GFC of 2008 amply demonstrated, it culminated in a free-for all, dog eat dog, anything goes, everyman for himself form
of cannibal (or anarcho) capitalism -- an updated, much
improved version of the no-holds-barred mercenary mercantilism much reminiscent of the
Gilded Age and the
Robber Barons who 'infested' it, only one
that doesn't just eat its young, it eats itself!
Making the World Safe for Plutocracy
In the increasingly dysfunctional, one-sided political economy we inhabit then, whether it's widgets or wars or anything in between,
few people realise the degree to which our opinions, perceptions, emotions, and views are shaped and manipulated by propaganda (and
its similarly 'evil twin' censorship ,) its most adept practitioners, and those elite, institutional, political, and corporate entities
that seek out their expertise.
It is now just over a hundred years since the practice of propaganda took a giant leap forward, then in the service of persuading
palpably reluctant Americans that the war raging in Europe at the time was their war as well.
This was at a time when Americans had just voted their then-president
Woodrow Wilson back into office for a second term, a victory
largely achieved on the back of the promise he'd
"keep us out of the War." Americans were
very much in what was one of their most
isolationist
phases , and so Wilson's promise resonated with them.
But over time they were convinced of the need to become involved by a distinctly different appeal to their political sensibilities.
This "appeal" also dampened the isolationist mood, one which it has to be said was not embraced by most of the political, banking,
and business elites of the time, most of whom stood to lose big-time if the Germans won, and/or who were already profiting or benefitting
from the business of war.
For a president who "kept us out of the war", this wasn't going to be an easy 'pitch'. In order to sell the war the president
established the Committee on Public Information
(aka the Creel Committee) for the purposes of publicising the rationale for the war and from there, garnering support for it
from the general public.
Either way, Bernays 'combined their perspectives and synthesised them into an applied science', which he then 'branded' "public
relations".
For its part the Creel committee struggled with its brief from the off; but Bernays worked with them to persuade Americans their
involvement in the war was justified -- indeed necessary -- and to that end he devised the brilliantly inane slogan,
"making the world safe for democracy"
.
Thus was born arguably the first
great propaganda catch-phrases of the modern era, and certainly one of the most portentous. The following sums up Bernays's unabashed
mindset:
The conscious, intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country.'
The rest is history (sort of), with Americans becoming more willing to not just support the war effort but encouraged to view
the Germans and their allies as evil brutes threatening democracy and freedom and the 'American way of life', however that might've
been viewed then. From a geopolitical and historical perspective, it was an asinine premise of course, but nonetheless an extraordinary
example of how a few well chosen words tapped into the collective psyche of a country that was decidedly opposed to any U.S involvement
in the war and turned that mindset completely on its head.
' [S]aving the world for democracy' (or some 'cover version' thereof) has since become America's positioning statement, 'patriotic'
rallying cry, and the "Get-out-of-Jail Free" card for its war and its white collar criminal clique.
At all events it was by any measure, a stroke of genius on Bernays's part; by appealing to people's basic fears and desires, he
could engineer consent on a mass scale. It goes without saying it changed the course of history in more ways than one. That the U.S.
is to this day still using a not dissimilar meme to justify its
"foreign entanglements" is testament to both its utility and durability.
The reality as we now know was markedly different of course. They have almost always been about power, empire, control, hegemony,
resources, wealth, opportunity, profit, dispossession, keeping existing capitalist structures intact and well-defended, and crushing
dissent and opposition.
The Bewildered Herd
It is instructive to note that the template for 'manufacturing consent' for war had already been forged by the British. And the
Europeans did not 'sleepwalk'
like some " bewildered herd ' into this conflagration.
For twenty years prior to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the then stewards of the British Empire had been diligently preparing
the ground for what they viewed as a preordained clash with their rivals for empire the Germans.
To begin with, contrary to the opinion of the general populace over one hundred years later, it was not the much touted German
aggression and militarism, nor their undoubted imperial ambitions, which precipitated its outbreak. The stewards of the British Empire
were not about to let the Teutonic upstarts chow down on their imperial lunch as it were, and set about unilaterally and preemptively
crushing Germany and with it any ambitions it had for creating its own imperial domain in competition with the Empire upon which
Ol' Sol never set.
The "Great War" is worth noting here for other reasons. As documented so by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in their two books
covering the period from 1890-1920, we learn much about propaganda, which attest to its extraordinary power, in particular its
power to distort
reality en masse in enduring and subversive ways.
In reality, the only thing "great" about World War One was the degree to which the masses fighting for Britain were conned via
propaganda and censorship into believing this war was necessary, and the way the official narrative of the war was sustained for
posterity via the very same means. "Great" maybe, but not in a good way!
The horrendous carnage and destruction that resulted from it was of course unprecedented, the global effects of which linger on
now well over one hundred years later.
Such was the
enduring power
of the propaganda that today most folks would have great difficulty in accepting the following; this is a short summary of historical
realities revealed by Macgregor and Docherty that are at complete odds with the official narrative, the political discourse, and
the school textbooks:
It was Great Britain (supported by France and Russia) and not Germany who was the principal aggressor in the events and actions that
let to the outbreak of war; The British had for twenty years prior to 1914 viewed Germany as its most dangerous economic and imperial
rival, and fully anticipated that a war was inevitable; In the U.K. and the U.S., various factions worked feverishly to ensure the
war went on for as long as possible, and scuttled peacemaking efforts from the off; key truths about this most consequential of geopolitical
conflicts have been concealed for well over one hundred years, with no sign the official record will change; very powerful forces
(incl. a future US president) amongst U.S. political, media, and economic elites conspired to eventually convince an otherwise unwilling
populace in America that U.S. entry onto the war was necessary; those same forces and many similar groups in the U.K. and Europe
engaged in everything from war profiteering, destruction/forging of war records, false-flag ops, treason, conspiracy to wage aggressive
war, and direct efforts to prolong the war by any means necessary, many of which will rock folks to their very core.
But peace was not on the agenda. When, by 1916, the military failures were so embarrassing and costly, some key players in the
British government were willing to talk about peace. This could not be tolerated. The potential peacemakers had to be thrown under
the bus. The unelected European leaders had one common bond: They would fight Germany until she was crushed.
Prolonging the Agony details how this secret cabal organised to this end the change of government without a single vote being
cast. David Lloyd George was promoted to prime minister
in Britain and Georges Clemenceau made prime minister
in France. A new government, an inner-elite war cabinet thrust the Secret Elite leader, Lord
Alfred Milner into power at the very inner-core of the
decision-makers in British politics.
Democracy? They had no truck with democracy. The voting public had no say. The men entrusted with the task would keep going till
the end and their place-men were backed by the media and the money-power, in Britain, France and America.
Propaganda Always Wins
But just as the pioneering adherents of propaganda back in the day might never have dreamt how sophisticated and all-encompassing
the practice would become, nor would the citizenry at large have anticipated the extent to which the industry has facilitated an
entrenched, rapacious plutocracy at the expense of our economic opportunity, our financial and material security, our physical, social
and cultural environment, our values and attitudes, and increasingly, our basic democratic rights and freedoms.
We now live in the Age of the Big Shill -- cocooned in a submissive void no less -- an era where nothing can be taken on face
value yet where time and attention constraints (to name just a few) force us to do so; [where] few people in public life can be taken
at their word; where unchallenged perceptions become accepted reality; where 'open-book' history is now incontrovertible not-negotiable,
upon pain of imprisonment fact; where education is about uniformity, function, form and conformity, all in the service of imposed
neo-liberal ideologies embracing then prioritising individual -- albeit dubious -- freedoms.
More broadly, it's the "Roger Ailes" of this world -- acting on behalf of the power elites who after all are their paymasters
-- who create the intellectual systems which control expression through the communications structures, whilst ensuring these systems
require only 'the discreet use of censorship and uniformed men.'
They are the shapers and moulders of the discourse that passes for the accepted lingua franca of the increasingly globalised,
interconnected, corporatised political economy of the planet. Throughout this process they 'will always try to change the established
language.'
And we can no longer rely on our elected representatives to honestly represent us and our interests. Whether this decision making
is taking place inside or outside the legislative process, these processes are well and truly in the grip of the banks and financial
institutions and transnational organisations. In whose interests are they going to be more concerned with?
We saw this all just after the
Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) when the very people who brought the system to the brink, made billions off the dodge for their banks and millions for
themselves, bankrupted hundreds of thousands of American families, were called upon by the U.S. government to fix up the mess, and
to all intents given a blank cheque to so do.
That the U.S. is at even greater risk now of economic
implosion is something few serious pundits would dispute, and a testament to the effectiveness of the snow-job perpetrated upon Americans
regarding the causes, the impact, and the implications of the 2008 meltdown going forward.
In most cases, one accepts almost by definition such disconnects (read: hidden agendas) are the rule rather than the exception,
hence the multi-billion foundation -- and global reach and impact -- of the propaganda business. This in itself is a key indicator
as to why organisations place so much importance on this aspect of managing their affairs.
At the very least, once corporations saw how the psychology of persuasion could be leveraged to manipulate consumers and politicians
saw the same with the citizenry and even its own workers, the growth of the industry was assured.
As Riefenstahl noted during her chinwag with Pilger after he asked if those embracing the "submissive void" included the liberal,
educated bourgeoisie? " Everyone ," she said.
By way of underscoring her point, she added enigmatically: 'Propaganda always wins if you allow it'.
Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Australia. His main areas of interest are American history and politics
in general, with a special focus on economic, national security, military, and geopolitical affairs. For 5 years he has regularly
contributed to a diverse range of news and opinion sites, including OpEd News, The Greanville Post, Consortium News, Dandelion Salad,
Global Research, Dissident Voice, OffGuardian, Contra Corner, International Policy Digest, the Hampton Institute, and others.
nottheonly1
This brilliant essay is proof of the reflective nature of the Universe. The worse the propaganda and oppression becomes, the greater
the likelihood such an essay will be written.
Such is the sophistication and ubiquity of the narrative control techniques used today -- afforded increasingly by 'computational
propaganda' via automated scripts, hacking, botnets, troll farms, and algorithms and the like, along with the barely veiled
censorship and information gatekeeping practised by Google and Facebook and other tech behemoths -- it's become one of the
most troubling aspects of the technological/social media revolution.
Very rarely can one experience such a degree of vindication. My moniker 'nottheonly1' has received more meaning with this precise
depiction of the long history of the manipulation of the masses. Recent events have destroyed but all of my confidence that there
might be a peaceful way out of this massive dilemma. Due to this sophistication in controlling the narrative, it has now become
apparent that we have arrived at a moment in time where total lawlessness reigns. 'Lawlessness' in this case means the loss of
common law and the use of code law to create ever new restrictions for free speech and liberty at large.
Over the last weeks, comments written on other discussion boards have unleashed a degree of character defamation and ridicule
for the most obvious crimes perpetrated on the masses through propaganda. In this unholy union of constant propaganda via main
stream 'media' with the character defamation by so called 'trolls' – which are actually virtual assassins of those who write the
truth – the ability of the population, or parts thereof to connect with, or search for like minded people is utterly destroyed.
This assault on the online community has devastating consequences. Those who have come into the cross hairs of the unintelligence
agencies will but turn away from the internet. Leaving behind an ocean of online propaganda and fake information. Few are now
the web sites on which it is possible to voice one's personal take on the status quo.
There is one word that describes these kind of activities precisely: traitor. Those who engage in the character defamation
of commenters, or authors per se, are traitors to humanity. They betray the collective consciousness with their poisonous attacks
of those who work for a sea change of the status quo. The owner class has all game pieces positioned. The fact that Julian Assange
is not only a free man, but still without a Nobel price for peace, while war criminals are recipients, shows just how much the
march into absolute totalitarianism has progressed. Bernays hated the masses and offered his 'services' to manipulate them often
for free.
Even though there are more solutions than problems, the time has come where meaningful participation in the search for such
solution has been made unbearable. It is therefore that a certain fatalism has developed – from resignation to the acceptance
of the status quo as being inevitable. Ancient wisdom has created a proverb that states 'This too, will pass'. While that is a
given, there are still enough Human Beings around that are determined to make a difference. To this group I count the author of
this marvelous, albeit depressing essay. Thank you more that words can express. And thank you, OffGuardian for being one of the
last remaining places where discourse is possible.
Really great post! Thanks. I'm part of the way through reading Alex Carey's book: "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate
Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty," referenced in this article. I've learned more about the obviously verifiable history of
U.S. corporate propaganda in the first four chapters than I learned gaining a "minor" in history in 1974 (not surprisingly I can
now clearly see). I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in just how pervasive, entrenched and long-standing are the
propaganda systems shaping public perception, thought and behavior in America and the West.
Norcal
Wow Greg Maybury great essay, congratulations. This quote is brilliant, I've never see it before, "For Carey, the following conclusion
was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that we are free from
propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' "
Too, Rodger Ailes was the man credited with educating Nixon up as how to "use" the TV media, and Ailes never looked back as
he manipulated media at will. Thank you!
nondimenticare
That is also one of the basic theses of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize speech.
vexarb
I read in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' about Homo Sapiens and his domesticated animals. Apparently we got on best in places where we
could find animals that are very like us: sheep, cattle, horses and other herd animals which instinctively follow their Leader.
I think our cousins the chimpanzee are much the same; both species must have inherited this common trait from some pre-chimpanzee
ancestor who had found great survival value in passing on the sheeple trait to their progeny. As have the sheep themselves.
By the way, has anybody observed sheeple behaviour in ants and bees? For instance, quietly following a Leader ant to their
doom, or noisily ganging up to mob a worker bee that the Queen does not like?
I'd say the elites are both for and against. Competing factions.
It's clear that many are interested in overturning democracy, whilst others want to exploit it.
The average grunt on the street is in the fire, regardless of the pan chosen by the elites.
This is a great device for shortcuts. I like the part where the driver only runs once on a computer then the setting will remember
even unplug and use it on another computer. The key setting is very easy straightforward. The keys: control alt and shift can
be set as combo key with other keys. The window key is standalone can't do a combo (too bad). The two side extra slot USB2 are
ready, not usb3. The key plate can be lifted up for label custom key. Most other devices do the same and cost more than tripple.
As a developer, I type the same statements repeatedly. I wanted a programmable keypad so the most common operations could be
incorporated into a single key press. The Elsra PK-2068 is perfect for that task.
This is a sturdy, well-made keypad and the keys feel of excellent quality when pressed. The Windows software provided is easy
to understand and use. I did have an issue with the software on one PC which I suspect was a USB HID conflict, but switching to
another PC solved that problem. The programmes are saved onto the keypad itself, which means I can pick up the PK-2068 and plug
it into my Linux desktop and the programmed keys just work.
Whilst troubleshooting the programming issue, I was in contact with Elsre Customer Support, who responded very quickly, and
offered exceptional service.
Overall I am extremely happy with this purchase and recommend the keypad over the many others I looked at when purchasing.
>
Hardware: Excellently built. USB hub works well. Would be better if it were ergonomically angled like a keyboard instead of
being flat, but the size and convenience make up for it. Customizable key covers are sturdy and remain in place even with extended
use. Sturdy, appears to be quality materials. I already have plans to buy a second one.
The software to program it is pretty terrible. No help or instructions, so you just have to figure it out on your own. It doesn't
let you save different configurations as files, so if you want multiple configurations, you'd pretty much have to have the entire
application stored on different machines. Also, you can not type the characters you want to program; you have to manually click
each one from an on-screen keyboard, which is very tedious. You can't easily edit the text, either: If you want to change a character,
you need to click on the "delete" button over and over 'til you reach the character, then you have to re-do everything using the
onscreen keyboard. Presumably, they figure that you'll only have to program it once, so they don't expend much effort on making
the software user friendly.
It's really hard to know how to rate such a good product that comes with such terrible software. Once it's programmed the way
you want it, it's great- but getting there is a real hassle.
This sturdy little keyboard is easy to program with up to 30 characters for each key. And 3-stroke combos like Ctrl+Shift+-(Ctru
plus Shift plus -) appear only to count as one Character toward this limit - at least according to the character counter in the
program. You will see from the included photo that I have set up mine for use with a specialty computer program (for Indexing
Genealogical Records). The two AHK-labeled keys in the lower left trigger AutoHotkey actions I have separately programmed that
assign more complex actions to certain key combos, so yes, it will work with AutoHotkey. The keypress is very quiet and satisfying.
Regarding Support, I had trouble triggering the modifier keys (Ctrl, Shift, etc.) with the specified double-click, possibly
due to a problem with my mouse, but a third click worked for me. I reached out to Support, and they were very responsive and helpful.
I have ordered a second PK-2068 for use with another program we use regularly in our household. For the price and considering
both its capabilities and restrictions, I am very pleased with the value and effectiveness of this product for my purposes, and
highly recommend it for use in similar situations.
For your information, I made the little paper labels in the photo by creating a Table in MS Word with cell size .56" x .56"
(after experimenting) and used AlternateGothic2 BT font in font size 11 for most of the cells. Transparent keycaps and a keycap
puller come with the device and it is easy to pull a keycap, place your label, and replace the transparent keycap over it.
--EDIT 6/17/2019--
The company contacted me and sent me a newer revised keypad with software capable of adding delays between keystrokes, I'm going
to try it asap but my needs changed so it's low on my priority list. Seems like good customer support though!
--EDIT 7/12/2018---
The company that manufactures this keypad contacted me after I asked about adding a delay function, and they're considering adding
it! I'm excited they care about customer service. This keypad works as intended so I upped my rating to 4 stars. It's inability
to have pauses is a bummer but it's still a good keypad and should work for most modern programs. Older programs written to only
accept human-speed inputs may struggle with instant keystrokes. Hopefully the timing feature will make it to a hardware/software
revision.
---EDIT 5/29/2018---
We've been running into either driver issues, or timing issues. Windows 7 installs four drivers for this keypad, and we're not
sure what the problem is but whenever we're using it, our data entry program crashes. It COULD be that the keypad doesn't allow
pauses, so it types so fast the program we use crashes.
We also had a "driver power state failure" while trying to reboot a computer that was affected. Besides the issues above, it's
a good keypad and definitely worth a try, if you have a good modern program to use it with. Personally, our business uses an older
system (auto star) that may not be liking the fast keystrokes.
---original review:
Awesome keypad, immense help at work, and the PRICE is appropriate!!! Unlike some keys that cost over $80 for a simple pad,
this one is $34.90 at time of writing.
We use tons of hotkeys for everyday work at my job, and an entire programmable keyboard was unnecessary and expensive, and
a good number pad can come in handy. This has both, and it has a delete key! Not that you couldn't program one in, but this has
it already, along with "00" for you number crunchers, and still has 4 programmable keys in number pad mode.
The rubber dome keyswitches feel fine, and they bounce well. They aren't rough, slidey, or goopy like some keyboards. These
feel fine and have a tactile pop at the bottom as you'd expect from a decent rubber dome.
The programming is easy, you download the program or install from the disk, run the .exe, and click the keys on the graphic
GUI that you want programmed to the selected button. You can do key combinations or strings of text like you'd expect from other
macro setups. There's a good LED button up top to show what mode you're in; programmable 24 button keypad, or a number pad with
just four open programmable buttons up top.
The macros are stored on the keypad, so if you have several computers, you don't have to worry about loosing your macro programs.
The only two gripes I have so far, which I consider slight; the 5 key doesn't have a bump, so finding the "home row" of the
keypad with your middle finger on the 5 isn't easy. I stuck a rubber pad on it, problem fixed. A drop of hot glue, keycap sticker,
whatever. fixed.
The other thing some may like is a "pause" feature in macros for slower programs or scripts that require a pause in keystrokes.
I don't need it, but some may.
I used a basic template for the caps.
I'm tempted to buy the whole programmable board, but then I'd have two number pads. Still tempting though, as I could use this
for just hotkeys.
If I need hotkeys at home for photoshop or something I may very well buy another one of these. The only improvement I could see
would be hotkeys that are program specific, or a third layer of macros.
Pros:
All keys (except Enter) are programmable
See-through keycaps pop out and label can be inserted
Programming accepts all combinations of Shift, Alt and Ctrl
Key travel with positive feedback, yet quiet
Unit provides two USB 2.0 ports
Solid construction.
Cons:
Keypad must be manually programmed, i.e., cannot save and retrieve macros from configuration files
Wish the Enter key can be programmed as well
Keys do not auto-repeat.
"... For example, as a Stanford graduate he nonetheless argues that "The skills required for getting into Stanford at 17 (extracurriculars, SAT prep etc) do not correlate to job success as a software developer ..."
"... How good a student you were at 17, is not very relevant to who you are at 25." References are flawed because "People will only ever list references who will say good things about them," and they ultimately punish people who've had bad managers. But asking for source code from past sides projects penalizes people with other interests or family, while "most work product is confidential." ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 28, 2019 @06:34AM from the if-it-is-broke-fix-it dept.
DevNull127 writes: Hiring is
broken and yours is too," argues a New York-based software developer whose LinkedIn profile
says he's worked at both Amazon and Google, as well as doing architecture verification work for
both Oracle and Intel. Summarizing what he's read about hiring just this year in numerous
online articles, he lists out the
arguments against virtually every popular hiring metric , ultimately concluding that "Until
and unless someone does a rigorous scientific study evaluating different interviewing
techniques, preferably using a double-blind randomized trial, there's no point in beating this
dead horse further. Everyone's hiring practices are broken, and yours aren't any
better."
For example, as a Stanford graduate he nonetheless argues that "The skills required for
getting into Stanford at 17 (extracurriculars, SAT prep etc) do not correlate to job success as
a software developer.
How good a student you were at 17, is not very relevant to who you are at
25." References are flawed because "People will only ever list references who will say good
things about them," and they ultimately punish people who've had bad managers. But asking for
source code from past sides projects penalizes people with other interests or family, while
"most work product is confidential."
Brain teasers "rely on you being lucky enough to get a flash of inspiration, or you
having heard it before," and are "not directly related to programming.
Even Google says it is useless ." And live-coding exercises are "artificial and contrived,"
and "not reflective of practical coding," while pair programming is unrealistic, with the
difficulty of the tasks varying from day to day.
He ultimately criticizes the ongoing discussion
for publicizing the problems but not the solutions. "How exactly should we weigh the various
pros and cons against each other and actually pick a solution? Maybe we could maybe try
something novel like data crunch the effectiveness of each technique, or do some randomized
experiments to measure the efficacy of each approach? Lol, j/k. Ain't nobody got time for
that!"
"... I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example. ..."
Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. It was noticed by some folks even
here at CN that tendencies had come ito play that were reminiscent of Orwell's dystopian yet
fictional accounts in the novel 1984. This entire Russiagate episode could just as easily
have come from 1984's Ministry of Information as our own Intelligence Services and might have
been just as boring if it had . Meanwhile us , prols, just go with the flow and don't really
care. Are things that much different than they have ever been? I rem,ember the Waterdate
hearings and the Iran-Contra Hearings, Ken Starr's Investigation. I'm a little to young to
remember the Warren Commission or Senator Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare but I do remember
the 9/11 Commission and WMGs in Iraq.. I remember wrote a paper on Propaganda films in WW II.
Is this episode really all that different?
@ "Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. "
You address a topic I've pondered long and hard. Although I can cite scant evidence, I
can't help but wonder: Are we instead only noticing -- because of the far wider availability
of information via the Internet -- a disinformation phenomenon that is perhaps centuries old
if not still older?
Huxley's Brave New World was published in 1931, Orwell's 1984 in 1949. Dickens' Bleakhouse
was serialized in 1852-53. All can be fairly said to deal with a perception that those who
control government are dishonest and corrupt, based on then-current norms. E.g., Dickens
noted in the preface of his first edition that his fictional Jarndyce and Jarndyce largely
paralleled the sadly real Thellusson v Woodford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thellusson_v_Woodford
Such precedents argue against the "disinformational mode" being of recent origin.
I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and
greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that
continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example.
"... And ultimately, this is why I can't blame graduate students for figuring out that they need to be technocrats in order to survive. The job market is tough, there are very few tenure-track jobs available, and the people who make it are the people who don't do History for the love of it but who do it like...a career. ..."
Right now, for a creative or artistic or even just a curious person, I think over-exposure to academia is intellectual and spiritual
poison.
But I should qualify that disillusionment by saying that academia also saved me. If I hadn't read Franz Kafka in community college
and discovered (to my utter shock) that I had a gift for writing poetry in my first creative writing class, I have no idea what kind
of bad roads I would've wandered down. So my disillusionment with academia was gradual and fairly late.
I can maybe explain if you'll indulge a mini-narrative of my academic career. After community college, I went to a very conservative
Christian college in the Missouri Ozarks. It was a school for working class kids where you worked on campus to pay for your tuition
and room and board. So for most students it was our one realistic chance at a full college education without crushing debt.
So, no matter how crazy the school's politics got in our eyes, we felt like we were stuck there. But when I was a student, the
college also had a great English faculty who turned us on to William Butler Yeats, Flannery O'Connor, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Emily
Dickinson, Faulkner, Hemingway. There was also a healthy theater department.
Little by little, my handful of weirdo artsy friends and I learned how to creatively thrive without institutional sanction or
ideological kinship with our hyper-conservative college.
After my undergrad education, I went to the University of Arkansas's MFA program in creative writing to study poetry. And that
was pretty amazing in its own feral way. I connected with this great generation of old school Southern writers in Arkansas, though
that generation began phasing out during my four years in the program. They started getting replaced by writers who were more slick,
more credentialed, more politically astute, less problematic but also infinitely less interesting than the generation that preceded
them. [Emphasis mine -- RD]
... So I think my issues are less with Duke or that particular English department and more with this emerging academic generation,
which to me seems to double-down on the older generation's worst trait (ideological certainty) while skimping out on its greatest
strengths (genuine erudition and intellectual curiosity). As an academic, I generally felt like as soon as the older professors retired,
I was going to be surrounded by people who all read the same ten theorists and who uniformly had pretty banal tastes in literature
and who were all frothing to cancel and leap-frog each other into eternity and/or tenure. [Emphasis mine -- RD]
If Cambridge decolonizes its curriculum then our heritage will be preserved at places like the College of the Ozarks.
I had a very similar experience in my PhD program, mine was in History. I did an MA in London and loved every minute of it.
It was designed as a very international program, and I have so many fond memories of sitting in pubs after our seminars arguing
in a good natured way about the topic of the day, and I thought "this is what I want to do with my life!" But graduate work for
a career in academia is nothing like that. People have to specialize, and so you find quickly that in a room full of PhD candidate
historians there is actually not that much to talk about because everyone's silo is so specific and so different. Politics plays
a role too, I suppose. I was free to be an out and proud conservative in my MA program.
I did not feel that freedom in my PhD
program, where you need good professional relationships in order to have a chance at a job.
And ultimately, this is why I can't blame graduate students for figuring out that they need to be technocrats in order to survive.
The job market is tough, there are very few tenure-track jobs available, and the people who make it are the people who don't do
History for the love of it but who do it like...a career.
Which is what they want it to be. They had the right approach and I
had the romantic, and wrong, approach. It's not their fault. Being one of the few to carve out a career in such an industry takes
determination and not a little joyless professionalism. If you aren't ready to turn your passion into a business, don't go to
graduate school.
I noticed when I was in graduate school in the 80s that one thing that seemed to characterize many of the students and professors
in literature-oriented fields -- particularly Comp Lit -- was that they didn't really seem to enjoy reading very much. I'm not
sure they were even capable anymore of just sitting and reading a book purely for enjoyment with trying to mine it for nuggets
to support their pet theory.
"If you deeply love art or books or music, I really believe the last thing you should do is pursue a graduate degree studying
that thing you love. "
They will beat that love right out of you, replace it with vapid ideology, and you'll never love those things with the same
wide-eyed innocence as before.
This is unfortunate, as a cooler, more mature perspective on art is something we should all try to cultivate. But critique
as murder + autopsy is the order of the day.
My American poetry professor in college (a proper reactionary, he spoke without irony of 'the War of Northern Aggression) inoculated
me against 'interrogating the text' in the way the modern academy trains its cadres to do.
While email and web activity of employees is definitely monitored, all other monitoring
usually is pretty fragmentary. Often on a corporate smartphone there are two zones -- secure zone
where you access corporate network and email and private zone where you have access to the
internet via you provider and traffic is not monitored other then for the volume.
Keeping track of all those details (and some of them will be wrong) is just too expensive and
few corporation outside FIRE sector so that.
In short anything that opens company to a lawsuit will be monitored, but outside of that
companies actually are not interested in the information collection as it opens them to
additional liability in save of suicides and such.
Mining data from social media is a different complex topic and requires a separate
article.
Notable quotes:
"... From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks. ..."
"... Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked. ..."
"... Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software. ..."
Orwell, Inc.: How Your Employer Spies On You From When You Wake Up Until You Go To Bed
An increasing number of large companies are using data from employees' electronic devices to
track such personal details like when you they wake up, where they go for coffee in the
morning, their whereabouts throughout the entire day, and what time they go to bed according to
a new Wall
Street Journal article. What's the company explanation for this type of spying?
"An increasing number of companies are keeping track of such information to flag
potentially suspicious activity and measure work-life balance," the article claims.
The article walks through the day in the life of a fictional worker, Chet. It starts by
noting that his employer logs the time and his location when he first wakes up to check his
e-mail in the morning.
From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at
places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication
when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks.
Then, a Bluetooth device and his ID badge mark what time he arrives at the office while
tracking his movement around the building. These technologies are supposedly used to see what
teams collaborate frequently and to make sure that employees aren't accessing unauthorized
areas.
Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New
software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an
attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even
snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked.
Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies
use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference
room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software.
At the end of the day, if Chet goes to the gym or for a run, the company will know that too
and just how many calories he has burned: his fitness tracker logs how many steps he takes and
what exercise, if any, he is doing. Companies then use that information to determine how
frequently employees are exercising and whether or not they should be paying for health and
fitness services.
They retain firms that track us on our social media accounts. Supposedly to defend against
workplace violence threats. And then there are the cameras. We never really know. Just do my
job and keep personal use of company resources to a minimum.
The operation known as "LifeLog" was replaced the very day that Face Book came into
being?
Life Log : The objective of the LifeLog concept was "to be able to trace the 'threads' of
an individual's life in terms of events, states, and relationships", and it has the ability
to "take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages
viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone". [1]
My takeaway from all this is that many, perhaps most, human institutions are corrupt and
that there is no basis from which most people are able to discern truth from lies or right
from wrong. This explains the ability of the Power Elite to easily divide people against each
other. For example, you cannot debate a Liberal because they have their basis for truth on
their personal feeling or emotions. Many conservatives do as well, but they are closer in
their thingking to the foundation from which truth sits upon.
Edward Snowden, former NSA employee. Snowden is an absolute supporter of encryption of all
stored and transmitted content. Now there are many applications that have encryption
features. And among them there are common and well-known messengers, such as, for example,
WhatsApp, Telegram and others.
The former NSA agent also advises to secure his computer, in particular, the hard drive.
On the Internet you can find instructions on how to do this. Usually used special software.
For example, for Windows, there is a program preinstalled in advanced versions of the OS --
BitLocker, for Mac -- FileVault. Thus, if the computer is stolen, the attacker will not be
able to read your data.
Password Managers A useful thing that most people do not even think about. Such programs
allow you to keep your passwords in order - to create unique keys and store them. According
to Snowden, one of the most common problems with online privacy is leaks.
Tor. The former NSA official calls the anonymous Tor network "the most important
technological project to ensure the confidentiality of those currently used." He stated that
he uses it on a daily basis. Tor allows you to "cover up traces" on the Internet, that is, it
provides anonymity, making it difficult to determine the person's IP address and
location.
Also, Snowden told how to avoid total surveillance. For example, special services that can
remotely turn on a microphone or camera on a smartphone and start listening. The answer is
simple - pull out the microphone and camera modules from the device. Instead, it is proposed
to use an external accessory and disconnect from the selfie and never use it.
The only safe way is to abstain as much as possible, which is now next to impossible.
Security is only as protected as the weakest link. Consider a person who uses their smart
phone giving Google or Apple the permissions needed to use their OS's and apps; we do not
even know exactly how much info we agreed to give away. Consider all the contact info that
your friends, relatives, work or other organizations you associate with have on their devices
and how vulnerable they make it; they are not as cautious as you and some people using these
things do not even think about security; it never occurs to them.. .. just some musing on my
part.
Jeez, I used to sign a quarterly affirmation that I complied with all of the companies
electronic communication monitoring policies...and they made us sign that we understood that
they had climbed up our *** and pitched a tent.
One of the reasons they had to find a replacement for me when I quit.
If you're using your employer's devices, facilities, or networks, you should assume they
are tracking what you're doing, and they have every right to do so. When I buy your company's
products or services, I don't want to have to pay for your time spent messing around at
work.
I can't read the article since it's behind a paywall, but I don't see how your waking and
sleeping time and "work life balance" could be tracked unless you are using your employer's
devices or networks outside of work. Which is friggin stupid if you do it.
Actually it doesnt work like that... Chet isn't informed of this happening. The fact that
the company does this is buried in vague language in the 500 page employee handbook that Chet
has to sign when he is hired. Chet is just like anyone else with a company provided
electronic device. All companies monitor and track everything they can with the electronic
devices they provide. If you have one and th think your company doesnt do it... you are
naive.
Chet has the ability to determine when and where he uses the work-provided devices. And
why does work have access to his fitness tracker? Supplied by his employer too? Really, Chet
had options
Not with me... I have a personal phone and when I am not at work I keep my work phone at
home turned off. My emails are forwarded to my personal device and any voicemail I get also
gets forwarded to my personal device. I never place personal calls with my work phone and I
turn it off the second I leave work to go home.
What a waste of resources. If you want to see what I do, just ask. I'll show you how I
accomplish my work-related duties. How I manage my time at work. Where I go to cry and regret
my life choices.
"... Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that, of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity ..."
"... Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In 1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths. ..."
"... I think there's a good deal to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. " ..."
Poor old Aldous Huxley. In other circumstances, his name would be all over the place today, the 50th anniversary of his death.
Yet, just moments after his demise, the Brave New World author had the misfortune, if that's the right word, of becoming a key
member of the "eclipsed celebrity death club".
Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that,
of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity
A book has been written about these three deaths on the same day by Peter Kreeft. He imagines them talking together in the heavens.
Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In
1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths.
Positioning Lewis as a proponent of ancient Western theism, Kennedy as a modern Western humanist, and Huxley as an ancient Eastern
pantheist, Kreeft wrote a conversational book entitled Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F.
Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. "
Aldous Huxley said something that points exactly what happening in the world now. We are lead by a wild species. The Zios don't
want to be domesticated by freedom of speech. Spare the rod ( of freedom of speech) spoil the child. The Zios want to be wild forever.
They want to do whatever they want on earth with no scolding feedback.
This question and answer talk was at Berkeley Univ. on March
20 1962. This fear of being domesticated is why the ADL went crazy on 6/6/19, closing down websites and videos all over the internet.
Another point which was made by Sir Charles Darwin in his book "The Next Million Years" which I think was one would with
in different terms .
I envisaged in brave new world .I mean here
he points out that the human species is still a wild species, it has never been domesticated .
I mean domesticated species is
one which has been tamed by another species. Well, until we get an invasion from Mars we shall not be tamed by another species.
All we can do is to try to tame ourselves.
An oligarchy tries to tame ourselves but the oligarchy still remains wild. I mean
however much it succeeded in taming the domesticating the rest of the race it from it must remain wild. And this was the part
of the fable the dramatic part of the fable of brave new world is that the people in the upper hierarchy who were not ruthlessly
conditioned could break down.
I mean this Charles Darwin insists that because man is wild he can never expect to domesticate
himself because the people on top would always be undomesticated sooner or later always run wild. I think there's a good deal
to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. "
"... As Curtis notes, full-time salaries are only one part of the faculty salary picture. Curtis' own research for the AAUP (published as an appendix to my Equality for Contingent Faculty documents that only twenty-five percent of professors now teach on the tenure-track, and only sixteen percent have tenure. Seventy-five percent of all college professors, one million in total, teach off the tenure-track, with fifty percent of all professors teaching part-time. ..."
"... While "free trade" agreements encouraged the closing of American factories and the loss of millions of American jobs, colleges and universities instituted their own brand of wage theft called by adjunct Ron Swift "inside-outsourcing." Even though the number of students was increasing, the colleges staunched the number of well-paid, secure, full-time tenure-track positions. They met rising enrollments by staffing classrooms with "contingent" faculty who teach off the tenure-track without the protections for free speech afforded their tenured brothers and sisters. ..."
"... The colleges save money by refusing to pay these contingent professors a living wage, in flagrant violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. They are paid on a completely separate and lower pay scale than their full-time counterparts are paid for teaching the very same courses; they are paid on average only about fifty percent of what a full-timer would earn for teaching the same number of courses. See my " The Wal-Martization of Higher Education: How Young Professors Are Getting Screwed "). ..."
"... In " The Ph.D. Now Comes with Food Stamps ," the Chronicle of Higher Education has documented hundreds of thousands of people with graduate degrees receiving some form of public assistance, many of them contingent faculty. ..."
So are the Democrats right to try and solve the equality problem
by making college more affordable, with tuition perhaps free? Or are these proposals simply the
current version of the Herbert Hoover's 1928 Presidential campaign where he literally offered
voters "
A chicken for every pot."
But before we go spending trillions of dollars on college tuition and eliminating student
debt, shouldn't we ask: What has been driving up the cost of attending college over the past
few decades leading to the current lack of affordable college options?
In his run for re-election as Vice President in 2012, Joe Biden made clear that he blamed
college professors' high salaries for the skyrocketing costs of tuition. This was an
astonishing charge, especially given that his wife has long been a college professor. He was
immediately admonished by faculty groups around the country. "
Faculty Groups Try to Educate Biden on Salaries ".
John Curtis, former Director of Research for the American Association of University
Professors, wrote a rebuttal to Biden on January 18, 2012. He took issue with Biden's claim,
pointing out that full-time faculty salaries have been stagnant for a number of years. He noted
that tuition rates, in contrast, had risen "between three and fourteen times as fast as
full-time faculty salaries." (underlining added)
As Curtis notes, full-time salaries are only one part of the faculty salary picture. Curtis'
own research for the AAUP (published as an appendix to my Equality for
Contingent Faculty documents that only twenty-five percent of professors now teach on
the tenure-track, and only sixteen percent have tenure. Seventy-five percent of all college
professors, one million in total, teach off the tenure-track, with fifty percent of all
professors teaching part-time.
While "free trade" agreements encouraged the closing of American factories and the loss of
millions of American jobs, colleges and universities instituted their own brand of wage theft
called by adjunct Ron Swift "inside-outsourcing." Even though the number of students was
increasing, the colleges staunched the number of well-paid, secure, full-time tenure-track
positions. They met rising enrollments by staffing classrooms with "contingent" faculty who
teach off the tenure-track without the protections for free speech afforded their tenured
brothers and sisters.
The colleges save money by refusing to pay these contingent professors a living wage, in
flagrant violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. They are paid on a completely
separate and lower pay scale than their full-time counterparts are paid for teaching the very
same courses; they are paid on average only about fifty percent of what a full-timer would earn
for teaching the same number of courses. See my "
The Wal-Martization of Higher Education: How Young Professors Are Getting Screwed ").
In other words, though women are still paid only 82% percent of what men earn for doing the
same work, with black men earning only 73% and Hispanics only 69%, most adjunct professors are
paid at most 50% of what tenure-track faculty earn for teaching the same course.
Though possessing Master's and Doctorates and tens of thousands of dollars in student loans,
these college professors are not being paid for all of the hours they work outside of class
preparing lectures, grading tests, and meeting with students. They often do not even have
offices. Their work schedule is capped below full-time so they will not qualify for tenure.
Their work varies from quarter to quarter and they are often denied unemployment when they are
in fact unemployed. The adjuncts and other contingent professors usually do not have any health
insurance or retirement benefits
In " The Ph.D. Now Comes with
Food Stamps ," the Chronicle of Higher Education has documented hundreds of
thousands of people with graduate degrees receiving some form of public assistance, many of
them contingent faculty.
The treatment between the two tiers is so disparate that I have called it "faculty
apartheid" because the tenure-track few control and dominate the contingent many. Indeed, the
tenured faculty often serve as the direct supervisors of the contingents. I have called the
kind of discrimination that exists in high
