Today is Robert's birthday. Yesterday was the birthday of the United States Marine Corp. Somehow I think the connection of birthdays is more than coincidence. In 1951, Robert entered the Marine Corps. They took an unfocused, drifting, high school drop-out and gave him self-confidence and a belief that he could control his own life. Then the government finished the job by providing him with the means (GI Bill) to use his new ambition to do something with his life.
Robert wouldn't be where he is today without the USMC and the GI Bill. His second chance began with his newly-discovered blend of personal initiative and responsibility, but those individual qualities wouldn't have meant much without the GI Bill. So Obama and Romney were both half right, but as always, the truth is often at the Golden Mean.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
ONE DAY
This was sent to a seminar on December 14, 2010.
This is a call to action. The message of ONE DAY is simple. It is a call to working people of America to take one day a week in which they and their family members will re-take control of their lives. On that ONE DAY, say a Wednesday, all will refrain from watching TV or using any electronic device such as a cell phone, computer, ipod, smart phone, and the like, unless use of such technology is required by one's employment. For that ONE DAY, through acts of self-discipline and self-denial, we will regain our humanness, for we will be beyond the reach of media, corporations, advertising, and politicians. ONE DAY declares that this act of self-discipline is the beginning of how to empower people through their recognition of a common bond regardless of the numerous differences that, we are told constantly, divide us.
What should people do on this ONE DAY with their new benefit of having more time? The possibilities are endless, but they could include solitary activities like reading a book or starting a new hobby. They could also involve joining an existing community group that one has read about and found interesting. Or they could start new community groups with neighbors, focusing on their concerns and their ideas for creating better lives and better communities. The possibilities are endless, but they will emerge from the concerns and interests of people living their daily lives and facing common uncertainty about the future.
This is not a call to eliminate electronic technology, but to make it work for us in ways that deal with our concerns. The call of ONE DAY is especially important to the tens of millions of young Americans who feel empowered by the electronic technology because it provides ties to others beyond the prying eyes of adults. But beware, because unless you take control of the nano-world you will become an insignificant click in a wired world that will control you from cradle to grave.
This is a call to action. The message of ONE DAY is simple. It is a call to working people of America to take one day a week in which they and their family members will re-take control of their lives. On that ONE DAY, say a Wednesday, all will refrain from watching TV or using any electronic device such as a cell phone, computer, ipod, smart phone, and the like, unless use of such technology is required by one's employment. For that ONE DAY, through acts of self-discipline and self-denial, we will regain our humanness, for we will be beyond the reach of media, corporations, advertising, and politicians. ONE DAY declares that this act of self-discipline is the beginning of how to empower people through their recognition of a common bond regardless of the numerous differences that, we are told constantly, divide us.
What should people do on this ONE DAY with their new benefit of having more time? The possibilities are endless, but they could include solitary activities like reading a book or starting a new hobby. They could also involve joining an existing community group that one has read about and found interesting. Or they could start new community groups with neighbors, focusing on their concerns and their ideas for creating better lives and better communities. The possibilities are endless, but they will emerge from the concerns and interests of people living their daily lives and facing common uncertainty about the future.
This is not a call to eliminate electronic technology, but to make it work for us in ways that deal with our concerns. The call of ONE DAY is especially important to the tens of millions of young Americans who feel empowered by the electronic technology because it provides ties to others beyond the prying eyes of adults. But beware, because unless you take control of the nano-world you will become an insignificant click in a wired world that will control you from cradle to grave.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
New President
While everyone was distracted by the national election we acquired a new prez at our university. There has been a lot of heavy breathing about the appointment. One concern expressed is about the close relationship between the incoming president and the board of trustess involved in his selection. A second concern is about his lack of academic credentials as a former faculty member or administrator. Here is our take on the new president.
1) We have been in residence with 5 or 6 presidents at our university. Our teaching and research activities did not change one bit under any of them. There may have been some small effects on our annual salary increases related to the amount of money allocated to our college or department, but the real or imagined differences would be small, and any president would likely have done the same thing.
2) University presidents are concerned primarily with the external environment of legislatures, corporate donors/partners, and alumni as donors and supporters. They do not get deeply involved in internal matters except in times of fiscal crisis when a major reallocation of resources is required. Our university does not seem to be in a crisis situation and we would expect that future allocation of resources will continue as in the past, with the strongest programs in engineering, some sciences, and management being the most favored.
3) Our new president is more of a technocrat than an ideologue, although many of the heavy breathers would not agree. We view him as someone who likes data, and his proposals will be data-driven and thus may be contested on those grounds. Faculty will not be able to blow smoke up his ass about the traditions of higher education; he will simply listen to faculty concerns and state: this is the problem, what do you propose that we do about it.
4) Many faculty will have their shorts in a knot over the president's history with privatization and the fear that it will be applied at our university. Most major research universities, including ours, are eager to "rent" their faculty or research capabilities to corporate sponsors, but we can't see much that would be privatized.
5) The new president's lack of academic credentials may indicate that he will not undertand the norms and traditions of academic governance. That is a good one and certainly gives us a laugh. We have had the experience of working with a Dean and a President who had extensive careers in academe as faculty and administrators but who had a fondness for ignoring faculty when it didn't suit them. In fact, the Dean had a curious practice of having the faculty vote several times on the same question until they got it right.
Bottom line: The new president will not matter much unless there is a crisis that provides the opportunity for major changes. Why would anyone want to be president of a university in a crisis situation?
1) We have been in residence with 5 or 6 presidents at our university. Our teaching and research activities did not change one bit under any of them. There may have been some small effects on our annual salary increases related to the amount of money allocated to our college or department, but the real or imagined differences would be small, and any president would likely have done the same thing.
2) University presidents are concerned primarily with the external environment of legislatures, corporate donors/partners, and alumni as donors and supporters. They do not get deeply involved in internal matters except in times of fiscal crisis when a major reallocation of resources is required. Our university does not seem to be in a crisis situation and we would expect that future allocation of resources will continue as in the past, with the strongest programs in engineering, some sciences, and management being the most favored.
3) Our new president is more of a technocrat than an ideologue, although many of the heavy breathers would not agree. We view him as someone who likes data, and his proposals will be data-driven and thus may be contested on those grounds. Faculty will not be able to blow smoke up his ass about the traditions of higher education; he will simply listen to faculty concerns and state: this is the problem, what do you propose that we do about it.
4) Many faculty will have their shorts in a knot over the president's history with privatization and the fear that it will be applied at our university. Most major research universities, including ours, are eager to "rent" their faculty or research capabilities to corporate sponsors, but we can't see much that would be privatized.
5) The new president's lack of academic credentials may indicate that he will not undertand the norms and traditions of academic governance. That is a good one and certainly gives us a laugh. We have had the experience of working with a Dean and a President who had extensive careers in academe as faculty and administrators but who had a fondness for ignoring faculty when it didn't suit them. In fact, the Dean had a curious practice of having the faculty vote several times on the same question until they got it right.
Bottom line: The new president will not matter much unless there is a crisis that provides the opportunity for major changes. Why would anyone want to be president of a university in a crisis situation?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Jobs for America: A Citizen-Led Stimulus Plan
This post is a follow-up to the Jobs post on Sept. 23,2010.
Current efforts to deal with the financial crisis and the recession have not been focused on job creation and hold little promise for keeping the official unemployment rate below 8 percent. While achieving little for millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, the net contribution of existing solutions has been to polarize the population and increase the level of accusatory shouting. The bailout money for troubled banks and financial houses made some of them well and contributed to the bonuses of their upper-level personnel, but it had much less effect on Americans who are unemployed, or who have high levels of mortgage and credit card debt.
The immediate effect of bailout dollars for U.S. automakers were plans to close more plants in the United States and to increase production in plants overseas. And the "cash for clunkers" program appeared to work as millions of Americans traded their old gas guzzlers for newer gas guzzlers, but most new purchases were from foreign automakers. These programs not only did not benefit the average American in need of a job, but they also served to generate great conflict and public discord.
We propose for consideration a stimulus plan that can create jobs for average Americans and can do so in a way that unifies people in a belief that it serves the common good. The focus would be on America's deteriorating infrastructure of interstate highways, state roads, bridges and dams, aviation, drinking water, toxic waste sites, national power grid, public parks, beaches and recreation sites.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has provided a Public Infrastructure Report Card of conditions in 15 areas, and the grades have been poor to failing. These projects to upgrade infrastucture would not be make-work, but vital to the health and safety of Americans no matter where they live or how much money they make.
Recent high-profile disasters such as the failure of the levees to protect New Orleans from Katrina and the collapse of a major bridge in Minneapolis provide ample evidence of the need to improve America's infrastructure. How would Jobs for America project work?
When Americans file their tax returns each year they would be invited to make a voluntary contribution of $100 to $500 to the project by adding the amount to the tax they owe or deduct their contribution from their tax refund. If 20 million taxpayers contributed an average of $100 it would generate $2 billion for the project. More than 132 million Americans file tax returns, and we believe that at least 20 million would buy into the project.
The political pressure of a citizen-led stimulus plan would require Congress to become a partner with the citizens' voluntary contributions by providing matching funds of 10 times what citizens contribute; in this example, $20 billion. The money would come from the procurement side of the defense budget (currently at $104 billion) which always has spending for new ships or planes that the military has not requested.
Infrastructure building projects would be located in each state, and when states apply for project funds to rebuild infrastructure they would have to make a matching contribution, either financial or in-kind. National labor unions would provide the skilled work force of carpenters, electricians and masons that would be at the heart of the infrastructure projects. They would be expected to become a partner by making wage and work-rule concessions to help reduce the cost of the infrastructure projects.
The project would be started by bringing together a leadership team of high-profile Americans, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ralph Nader, who are unifying symbols with a record of having worked on behalf of the common good. They would initiate a national public education effort to inform Americans about the Jobs for America project. Buy-in contributions would come from national advertising firms and national media outlets who would work together to deliver the message to the public.
The solution to the current economic crisis and recession will depend upon a sustained effort to create jobs in a way that calls on all Americans to share the pain and the gain. The key to restoring hope requires a combination of creating jobs and making existing jobs more secure. It is time to bring Americans together for another "moon mission," but this time we should land in the United States.
Current efforts to deal with the financial crisis and the recession have not been focused on job creation and hold little promise for keeping the official unemployment rate below 8 percent. While achieving little for millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, the net contribution of existing solutions has been to polarize the population and increase the level of accusatory shouting. The bailout money for troubled banks and financial houses made some of them well and contributed to the bonuses of their upper-level personnel, but it had much less effect on Americans who are unemployed, or who have high levels of mortgage and credit card debt.
The immediate effect of bailout dollars for U.S. automakers were plans to close more plants in the United States and to increase production in plants overseas. And the "cash for clunkers" program appeared to work as millions of Americans traded their old gas guzzlers for newer gas guzzlers, but most new purchases were from foreign automakers. These programs not only did not benefit the average American in need of a job, but they also served to generate great conflict and public discord.
We propose for consideration a stimulus plan that can create jobs for average Americans and can do so in a way that unifies people in a belief that it serves the common good. The focus would be on America's deteriorating infrastructure of interstate highways, state roads, bridges and dams, aviation, drinking water, toxic waste sites, national power grid, public parks, beaches and recreation sites.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has provided a Public Infrastructure Report Card of conditions in 15 areas, and the grades have been poor to failing. These projects to upgrade infrastucture would not be make-work, but vital to the health and safety of Americans no matter where they live or how much money they make.
Recent high-profile disasters such as the failure of the levees to protect New Orleans from Katrina and the collapse of a major bridge in Minneapolis provide ample evidence of the need to improve America's infrastructure. How would Jobs for America project work?
When Americans file their tax returns each year they would be invited to make a voluntary contribution of $100 to $500 to the project by adding the amount to the tax they owe or deduct their contribution from their tax refund. If 20 million taxpayers contributed an average of $100 it would generate $2 billion for the project. More than 132 million Americans file tax returns, and we believe that at least 20 million would buy into the project.
The political pressure of a citizen-led stimulus plan would require Congress to become a partner with the citizens' voluntary contributions by providing matching funds of 10 times what citizens contribute; in this example, $20 billion. The money would come from the procurement side of the defense budget (currently at $104 billion) which always has spending for new ships or planes that the military has not requested.
Infrastructure building projects would be located in each state, and when states apply for project funds to rebuild infrastructure they would have to make a matching contribution, either financial or in-kind. National labor unions would provide the skilled work force of carpenters, electricians and masons that would be at the heart of the infrastructure projects. They would be expected to become a partner by making wage and work-rule concessions to help reduce the cost of the infrastructure projects.
The project would be started by bringing together a leadership team of high-profile Americans, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ralph Nader, who are unifying symbols with a record of having worked on behalf of the common good. They would initiate a national public education effort to inform Americans about the Jobs for America project. Buy-in contributions would come from national advertising firms and national media outlets who would work together to deliver the message to the public.
The solution to the current economic crisis and recession will depend upon a sustained effort to create jobs in a way that calls on all Americans to share the pain and the gain. The key to restoring hope requires a combination of creating jobs and making existing jobs more secure. It is time to bring Americans together for another "moon mission," but this time we should land in the United States.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Politicians versus Sovereigns
Selected from a longer op-ed piece, January 2012.
To most politicians (those who make a career out of holding public office) ordinary Americans are not citizens but voters. If you were viewed as citizens under the U.S. Constitution, you would be recognized as Sovereigns: the source of all rights that are loaned to the State through elected officials, but only for the purpose of enacting laws that benefit the individual person who loans those rights. Sovereigns often lose some of their rights to the organizations in which they are employed, but the loss is contractual and "freely" given by the Sovereigns as a condition of employment, and this loss of rights is sanctioned by the State.
Sometimes Sovereigns give their rights to non-State organizations, like unions, for the purpose of limiting the power of the State or employing organizations, but this only perpetuates the problem of lost rights because organization members only have a weak voice in determining how their interests are served. When Sovereigns loan their rights to the State or an organization, it is very difficult to regain those rights. It is perhaps only in the case of elected officials that the Sovereigns have the legal means to take back their rights via elections, but that is a small victory as it just repeats the problem of the loss of sovereign rights while it renews the belief in elections and in citizens as voters and campaign contributors.
One way to minimize the negative effects of this endless cycle of lost rights is to support term limits for elected officials, which automatically limits the amount of time that the official can ignore the Sovereign. It should also reduce the amount of effort that officials have to expend worrying about raising money for re-election, and the amount of effort they must devote to pandering to the Sovereigns, i.e. promising them things that will never come to pass but may help the re-election campaign.
There is abundant evidence from polling data and from term limits referenda in 23 states that the average voting American (the Sovereigns) supports term limits. Anarchists and Libertarians are among the first to recognize the problem of loss of power by Sovereigns, but their voices are drowned out by believers in electoral democracy; besides they just want to get rid of most forms of government, and that is unrealistic and not helpful. The alternative is to expand opportunities to foster citizens as Sovereigns by promoting extensive public discussion of policy issues and permitting voting via compterized referenda to create binding decisions. This would be a form of direct democracy or participatory democracy that puts the Sovereign at center stage.
To most politicians (those who make a career out of holding public office) ordinary Americans are not citizens but voters. If you were viewed as citizens under the U.S. Constitution, you would be recognized as Sovereigns: the source of all rights that are loaned to the State through elected officials, but only for the purpose of enacting laws that benefit the individual person who loans those rights. Sovereigns often lose some of their rights to the organizations in which they are employed, but the loss is contractual and "freely" given by the Sovereigns as a condition of employment, and this loss of rights is sanctioned by the State.
Sometimes Sovereigns give their rights to non-State organizations, like unions, for the purpose of limiting the power of the State or employing organizations, but this only perpetuates the problem of lost rights because organization members only have a weak voice in determining how their interests are served. When Sovereigns loan their rights to the State or an organization, it is very difficult to regain those rights. It is perhaps only in the case of elected officials that the Sovereigns have the legal means to take back their rights via elections, but that is a small victory as it just repeats the problem of the loss of sovereign rights while it renews the belief in elections and in citizens as voters and campaign contributors.
One way to minimize the negative effects of this endless cycle of lost rights is to support term limits for elected officials, which automatically limits the amount of time that the official can ignore the Sovereign. It should also reduce the amount of effort that officials have to expend worrying about raising money for re-election, and the amount of effort they must devote to pandering to the Sovereigns, i.e. promising them things that will never come to pass but may help the re-election campaign.
There is abundant evidence from polling data and from term limits referenda in 23 states that the average voting American (the Sovereigns) supports term limits. Anarchists and Libertarians are among the first to recognize the problem of loss of power by Sovereigns, but their voices are drowned out by believers in electoral democracy; besides they just want to get rid of most forms of government, and that is unrealistic and not helpful. The alternative is to expand opportunities to foster citizens as Sovereigns by promoting extensive public discussion of policy issues and permitting voting via compterized referenda to create binding decisions. This would be a form of direct democracy or participatory democracy that puts the Sovereign at center stage.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Iran Versus the World: Comparing Threats
This was a letter to the editor on 2/23/12
The drums of war are beating loudly in Washington, D.C. and in U.S. and Israeli media. The same war drum beaters that gave us the war in Iraq have reappeared with another round of "evidence" of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
How frightened should we be about the nuclear ambitions of Iran? If we believe the five major nuclear powers and the warmongering think tanks, we should be horrified by the propect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fears of the five nuclear powers might seem odd, given their obvious attraction to nuclear warheads: United States (10,600 warheads), Russia (8,600 warheads), Britain (200 warheads), France (350 warheads) and China (400 warheads).
Perhaps the five nuclear powers are concerened about Iran's threat to their neighbors in the Middle East, such as Israel (200 warheads), and the newest members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan (about 200 warheads between them). It would seem that if anyone should be fearful of nuclear weapons, it should be Iran. They are surrounded by nuclear-tipped nations that have shown a real taste for settling disputes militarily.
Until the nuclear nations agree to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals, maybe a balance of terror is the better alternative.
The drums of war are beating loudly in Washington, D.C. and in U.S. and Israeli media. The same war drum beaters that gave us the war in Iraq have reappeared with another round of "evidence" of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
How frightened should we be about the nuclear ambitions of Iran? If we believe the five major nuclear powers and the warmongering think tanks, we should be horrified by the propect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fears of the five nuclear powers might seem odd, given their obvious attraction to nuclear warheads: United States (10,600 warheads), Russia (8,600 warheads), Britain (200 warheads), France (350 warheads) and China (400 warheads).
Perhaps the five nuclear powers are concerened about Iran's threat to their neighbors in the Middle East, such as Israel (200 warheads), and the newest members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan (about 200 warheads between them). It would seem that if anyone should be fearful of nuclear weapons, it should be Iran. They are surrounded by nuclear-tipped nations that have shown a real taste for settling disputes militarily.
Until the nuclear nations agree to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals, maybe a balance of terror is the better alternative.
Anti-Authority Flashbacks
A recent news item about police brutality sent Robert back to his files in search of a item he wrote years back. Here it is.
Growing up in a poor Italian neighborhood in New York City one soon learned the rules of engagement with the police. You stopped when told, emptied your pockets, and spoke only when spoken to. Any effort to defend yourself, to make light of the situation, or to question the actions of the police would be seen as "mouthing off," resulting in some well-placed punches, a broken nose, loss of teeth, or some other injury associated with "falling down" or "resisting arrest."
He recalled those youthful lessons after hearing on TV the Director of the FBI, William Sessions, explain why the FBI had decided to drive armored vehicles through the wall of the "compound" (home?) of the Branch Davidians. Several times he repeated that David Koresh had chosen to "defy" the authorities and that he must "submit to lawful authority." Another FBI agent stated that "these people had thumbed their nose at law enforcement."
It is also possible, in this connection, to think about the experience of Rodney King, who also committed the "crime" of "defying" authority. The power of the state and the authority of its agents of law enforcement is especially fragile when it relies on its overwhelming control of the means of violence and repression.
Who was the FBI protecting when they decided to destroy the home of the Branch Davidians? What was the threat posed by Rodney King requiring the punishment that he received?
Growing up in a poor Italian neighborhood in New York City one soon learned the rules of engagement with the police. You stopped when told, emptied your pockets, and spoke only when spoken to. Any effort to defend yourself, to make light of the situation, or to question the actions of the police would be seen as "mouthing off," resulting in some well-placed punches, a broken nose, loss of teeth, or some other injury associated with "falling down" or "resisting arrest."
He recalled those youthful lessons after hearing on TV the Director of the FBI, William Sessions, explain why the FBI had decided to drive armored vehicles through the wall of the "compound" (home?) of the Branch Davidians. Several times he repeated that David Koresh had chosen to "defy" the authorities and that he must "submit to lawful authority." Another FBI agent stated that "these people had thumbed their nose at law enforcement."
It is also possible, in this connection, to think about the experience of Rodney King, who also committed the "crime" of "defying" authority. The power of the state and the authority of its agents of law enforcement is especially fragile when it relies on its overwhelming control of the means of violence and repression.
Who was the FBI protecting when they decided to destroy the home of the Branch Davidians? What was the threat posed by Rodney King requiring the punishment that he received?
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Reflections on the Fourth of July
Originally posted on July 21st, 2009
As a part of July 4th celebation we decided to read the Declaration of Independence. The opening statement was truly inspirational, but as we read on we found the document to be very "whiny." Some of the complaints against the British Crown were focused on broad principles of governance that were denied to the colonies, but many had the tone of anecdotal complaints with little evidence. We envisioned the 56 representatives of the colonies sharing rumors about how British soldiers treated the colonists that were written into the document as if they were widespread accounts.
We were left wondering if the complaints were widespread acts or retold stories without evidence. In our view, the Declaration of Independence would have been greatly improved by having an appendix with substantiating evidence.
As a part of July 4th celebation we decided to read the Declaration of Independence. The opening statement was truly inspirational, but as we read on we found the document to be very "whiny." Some of the complaints against the British Crown were focused on broad principles of governance that were denied to the colonies, but many had the tone of anecdotal complaints with little evidence. We envisioned the 56 representatives of the colonies sharing rumors about how British soldiers treated the colonists that were written into the document as if they were widespread accounts.
We were left wondering if the complaints were widespread acts or retold stories without evidence. In our view, the Declaration of Independence would have been greatly improved by having an appendix with substantiating evidence.
Jobs
Originally posted September 23rd, 2010
The big topic these days is jobs and how to create them. Most proposals that we see do not seem to gather great support from the American public. We believe that the main reason for luke-warm support for many proposals like more stimulus money, or more tax cuts, is that most people don't trust the motives of those offering new ideas. How do you build trust in new ideas? We think that the key is to make people part of the idea, what we often mean by the phrase have "skin in the game." Here is what we propose.
The key to a jobs program is to identify job creating projects that are concrete and doable as quickly as possible. The concrete programs are often identified as "infrastructure" projects--roads, bridges, public buildings--things that people use on a daily basis and are seen as beneficial to many people. We all benefit from the rebuilding of deteriorating infrastructure in the places where we live.
Infrastructure projects should be generated by public discussion and public meetings in the areas where the projects are located. Meeting with the public would be the technical people like engineers who would describe what needs to be done; it would include the contractors who are interested in bidding for work on the project, and labor groups who would provide the carpenters, electricians, and other labor; it would include political officials who who would provide guidance with the regulations, and legal requirements for large-scale public projects. The elected public officials would be responsible creating the proposals that will compete for the money to fund infrastructure projects.
The next step is find the money to pay for infrastructure projects. That's a subject for another blog.
The big topic these days is jobs and how to create them. Most proposals that we see do not seem to gather great support from the American public. We believe that the main reason for luke-warm support for many proposals like more stimulus money, or more tax cuts, is that most people don't trust the motives of those offering new ideas. How do you build trust in new ideas? We think that the key is to make people part of the idea, what we often mean by the phrase have "skin in the game." Here is what we propose.
The key to a jobs program is to identify job creating projects that are concrete and doable as quickly as possible. The concrete programs are often identified as "infrastructure" projects--roads, bridges, public buildings--things that people use on a daily basis and are seen as beneficial to many people. We all benefit from the rebuilding of deteriorating infrastructure in the places where we live.
Infrastructure projects should be generated by public discussion and public meetings in the areas where the projects are located. Meeting with the public would be the technical people like engineers who would describe what needs to be done; it would include the contractors who are interested in bidding for work on the project, and labor groups who would provide the carpenters, electricians, and other labor; it would include political officials who who would provide guidance with the regulations, and legal requirements for large-scale public projects. The elected public officials would be responsible creating the proposals that will compete for the money to fund infrastructure projects.
The next step is find the money to pay for infrastructure projects. That's a subject for another blog.
Meritocracy Myth
Orginally posted June 22, 2009
We are relieved every time the Obama administration selects someone who graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. We have been concerned by the special attention that has been given to graduates of Cortland State, Middle Tennessee State, Roosevelt University, and Purdue University.
Sarcasm aside, we are pleased whenever anyone gets out of the "South Bronx" (Sotomayor) or the "South Side" of Chicago (the Obamas),but these locational mythic stories say nothing about the journey. They are always presented as a story of the "American Dream," but it is never really told in full so that the public may really see how the "rags to riches" story really works. What are some elements of the "full story?"
The full story is that all elite colleges have "creaming" programs which involve searching for a small number of the most talented high schoolers with American Dream stories (drug addict mother; single parent struggling against odds) that they can bring to campus in the hope that they have found a "jewel" who will eventually join the privileged class. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don't search for for talent in just any high school in the South Bronx or on the South Side, but they go to "feeder" high schools that participate in the American Dream-Myth of Meritocracy programs with elite colleges.
These high profile stories validate the belief in equality of opportunity without making any changes in the social structures of inequality that inhibit real opportunity for most American high school students. The creaming programs make elite schools look good, the feeder high schools look good, and the success story winners are forever grateful to the system. The main result is that the myth of meritocracy prevails. Those who are left behind in the South Bronx or the South Side have only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of their opportunities.
The biggest winners in this mobilty game are the privileged class graduates of elite institutions who become associated with the achievments of those who have been "creamed" from the South Bronx. All these graduates of elite schools become viewed as the "best of the best;" the high achievers at the countries finest universities who are certainly deserving of their high salaries, wealth, appointments to the Supreme Court, or any other high position in the public or private sector.
We are relieved every time the Obama administration selects someone who graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. We have been concerned by the special attention that has been given to graduates of Cortland State, Middle Tennessee State, Roosevelt University, and Purdue University.
Sarcasm aside, we are pleased whenever anyone gets out of the "South Bronx" (Sotomayor) or the "South Side" of Chicago (the Obamas),but these locational mythic stories say nothing about the journey. They are always presented as a story of the "American Dream," but it is never really told in full so that the public may really see how the "rags to riches" story really works. What are some elements of the "full story?"
The full story is that all elite colleges have "creaming" programs which involve searching for a small number of the most talented high schoolers with American Dream stories (drug addict mother; single parent struggling against odds) that they can bring to campus in the hope that they have found a "jewel" who will eventually join the privileged class. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don't search for for talent in just any high school in the South Bronx or on the South Side, but they go to "feeder" high schools that participate in the American Dream-Myth of Meritocracy programs with elite colleges.
These high profile stories validate the belief in equality of opportunity without making any changes in the social structures of inequality that inhibit real opportunity for most American high school students. The creaming programs make elite schools look good, the feeder high schools look good, and the success story winners are forever grateful to the system. The main result is that the myth of meritocracy prevails. Those who are left behind in the South Bronx or the South Side have only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of their opportunities.
The biggest winners in this mobilty game are the privileged class graduates of elite institutions who become associated with the achievments of those who have been "creamed" from the South Bronx. All these graduates of elite schools become viewed as the "best of the best;" the high achievers at the countries finest universities who are certainly deserving of their high salaries, wealth, appointments to the Supreme Court, or any other high position in the public or private sector.
Identity and Biology
Written for seminar 5/26/12
After reading today's newspaper account of Liz Warren's struggle with her identity or biology ("I'm 1/32 Native American") I was reminded of a long-standing question from my youth. I had observed, as a young ethno-demographer, that almost all the Italians I knew had much darker skin than anyone else except neighborhood Negroes. In fact, I had darker skin than one of my Negro friends, Junior Emerson. As I matured and read more widely (the NY Daily News) I discovered that almost all Southern Italians were darker than those from the Florence area in the North. How could that be? Was Sicily closer to the sun? Were Sicilians and Barese (that's my family from Bari in the south on the Adriatic coast) too poor to afford sun screen or sun hats? No, the question required deeper understanding.
It wasn't until my college days and my first course in biology when I learned of Gregor Mendel and theories of plant genetics and its link to human genetics. The plot thickened when I took a medieval history course and learned about the Mamaluke people from North Africa. Yipes! In my neighborhood we called kids that we thought were dummies "mamalukes." How can that be? Later in the history course I read about a Sultan named Mingooch. Holy shit! My father's nickname was Mingooch. What the hell is going on?
If Liz Warren has identity without biology, I have biology without identity and I am totally confused. Am I really African American (1/36?). Could I have gone to Harvard with Liz Warren instead of Cortland State? Has my career at Purdue been limited by the missed opportunities enjoyed by Warren, as self-identified Native American? Should I tell my kids that they may be descendents of Sultan Mingooch? Would that do them any good?
I am also saddened by the fact that I may have mislead you members of the seminar, who have white identity and who may start to think of me in a new way. I think that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Liz Warren for coming out and telling the world that she was one of the first Native Americans at Harvard. Who knows, Purdue may have to acknowledge that I was the first African American to get a PhD in sociology from Purdue, and my life will be used to counteract the bad publicity from the Leon Higgenbottom years.
RP
After reading today's newspaper account of Liz Warren's struggle with her identity or biology ("I'm 1/32 Native American") I was reminded of a long-standing question from my youth. I had observed, as a young ethno-demographer, that almost all the Italians I knew had much darker skin than anyone else except neighborhood Negroes. In fact, I had darker skin than one of my Negro friends, Junior Emerson. As I matured and read more widely (the NY Daily News) I discovered that almost all Southern Italians were darker than those from the Florence area in the North. How could that be? Was Sicily closer to the sun? Were Sicilians and Barese (that's my family from Bari in the south on the Adriatic coast) too poor to afford sun screen or sun hats? No, the question required deeper understanding.
It wasn't until my college days and my first course in biology when I learned of Gregor Mendel and theories of plant genetics and its link to human genetics. The plot thickened when I took a medieval history course and learned about the Mamaluke people from North Africa. Yipes! In my neighborhood we called kids that we thought were dummies "mamalukes." How can that be? Later in the history course I read about a Sultan named Mingooch. Holy shit! My father's nickname was Mingooch. What the hell is going on?
If Liz Warren has identity without biology, I have biology without identity and I am totally confused. Am I really African American (1/36?). Could I have gone to Harvard with Liz Warren instead of Cortland State? Has my career at Purdue been limited by the missed opportunities enjoyed by Warren, as self-identified Native American? Should I tell my kids that they may be descendents of Sultan Mingooch? Would that do them any good?
I am also saddened by the fact that I may have mislead you members of the seminar, who have white identity and who may start to think of me in a new way. I think that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Liz Warren for coming out and telling the world that she was one of the first Native Americans at Harvard. Who knows, Purdue may have to acknowledge that I was the first African American to get a PhD in sociology from Purdue, and my life will be used to counteract the bad publicity from the Leon Higgenbottom years.
RP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)