This is a delayed response to the recent outpouring of commentary about "American exceptionalism" which was undoubtedly inspired by the exchange between Obama and Putin on the subject. Obama believes that the US is special because of its willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to help others. Putin's response was to warn that it is dangerous to encourage people to think of themselves as exceptional because it may encourage dangerous behavior in international affairs.
We think that neither Obama nor Putin understands the one true meaning of American exceptionalism. It has nothing to do with jingoistic feelings of superiority or sentiments of national feel-good or cultural pride. Put simply, it is the belief, grounded in the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution that there is a person called a "citizen" and that citizen is the sovereign who controls all rights (whether they come from God, or Nature's God) about how to live one's life. To secure individual rights, and adjudicate conflicting rights, sovereign citizens rights are loaned on a temporary basis to organized entities like governments, and they may be withdrawn whenever citizens feel that their sovereignty is being ignored. We believe that the Occupy Movement and Tea Party Movement are examples of citizens acting to take back their sovereignty.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Crime, Color & Cops
We are reluctant to get into the thicket of crime, color, and cops because there are many scholars who have devoted their careers to the subject. But we are willing to comment on media coverage of the topic and to try to be more analytical.
(1) Crime statistics indicate that non-whites commit more crimes than whites. Why this is so would take you into a literature worth 10 dissertations. But basically, if cops spend more time in non-white, poor neighborhoods they will detect and report more criminal behavior by poor and non-white subjects. What is presented as evidence of police racism may be situational.
(2) The cop-offender relationship has to be understood as a relationship between isolated offenders and organized cops. That means that one side has no collectively-based rules of engagement and the other side has extensive rules of engagement. This means that offenders may not realize that they are provoking an unwanted response from a cop who has memorized the rules of engagement and for whom self-protection is essential.
(3) Why does a cop shoot an offender six times? (Ferguson question). If you have ever fired a handgun you know that it is very inaccurate. So once a decision is made to fire at an offender, a cop will fire until the clip is empty. Handguns are very ineffective tools, which is why automatic rifles and shotguns have become popular.
(4) What constitutes a crime should not be a matter of culture, but is often discussed as if it may be. Drinking at home or in a bar is not a crime. But public drunkenness is a crime, as is driving under the influence. Smoking pot at home is not a crime, but smoking pot in public is a crime. Carrying a closed bottle of spirits is not a crime, but an open bottle is. Whether or not the amount of drugs in ones possession is a crime may depend on the situation. The cops have very clear guidelines telling them what do, but offenders seem to have no collective guidance. This difference may be the basis for many drug-related arrests.
(5) To account for police racism we are often given the statistic that whites use pot more than non-whites, but non-whites are more likely to be arrested for doing so. Even if true, this difference may be irrelevant to crime statistics if whites use their drugs in private places and non-whites do so in public places.
(6) Why police tend to kill mentally ill men seems too obvious to require comment. Cops respond to situations in ways that protect themselves first, and then the public. If police kill black men, mentally ill men, and poor men (what they data indicate), is it possible that these three categories of men may be exhibiting provocative and threatening behavior without realizing they are doing so and thereby provoking the defensive behavior of cops.
(1) Crime statistics indicate that non-whites commit more crimes than whites. Why this is so would take you into a literature worth 10 dissertations. But basically, if cops spend more time in non-white, poor neighborhoods they will detect and report more criminal behavior by poor and non-white subjects. What is presented as evidence of police racism may be situational.
(2) The cop-offender relationship has to be understood as a relationship between isolated offenders and organized cops. That means that one side has no collectively-based rules of engagement and the other side has extensive rules of engagement. This means that offenders may not realize that they are provoking an unwanted response from a cop who has memorized the rules of engagement and for whom self-protection is essential.
(3) Why does a cop shoot an offender six times? (Ferguson question). If you have ever fired a handgun you know that it is very inaccurate. So once a decision is made to fire at an offender, a cop will fire until the clip is empty. Handguns are very ineffective tools, which is why automatic rifles and shotguns have become popular.
(4) What constitutes a crime should not be a matter of culture, but is often discussed as if it may be. Drinking at home or in a bar is not a crime. But public drunkenness is a crime, as is driving under the influence. Smoking pot at home is not a crime, but smoking pot in public is a crime. Carrying a closed bottle of spirits is not a crime, but an open bottle is. Whether or not the amount of drugs in ones possession is a crime may depend on the situation. The cops have very clear guidelines telling them what do, but offenders seem to have no collective guidance. This difference may be the basis for many drug-related arrests.
(5) To account for police racism we are often given the statistic that whites use pot more than non-whites, but non-whites are more likely to be arrested for doing so. Even if true, this difference may be irrelevant to crime statistics if whites use their drugs in private places and non-whites do so in public places.
(6) Why police tend to kill mentally ill men seems too obvious to require comment. Cops respond to situations in ways that protect themselves first, and then the public. If police kill black men, mentally ill men, and poor men (what they data indicate), is it possible that these three categories of men may be exhibiting provocative and threatening behavior without realizing they are doing so and thereby provoking the defensive behavior of cops.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Police and Me
The latest incident of a police shooting in a local neighborhood caused Robert to reflect on his teenage years and dealing with local police. Robert and a small group of six or seven friends would almost daily and nightly hang out in front of Al's candy store. We would often pitch pennies against the wall, play cards, shoot crap, or just shoot the breeze. Al didn't mind us hanging there as long as we didn't block the front door and interfere with customers. And we were among of his best customers when it came to Squirrel Nuts, Jawbreakers, and Ice Pops. Al also knew that he was never in danger of a stick up as long as we were in front.
We rarely saw the cop on the beat but on occasion a squad car would pull up to the curb and one or two cops would approach to see what we were doing. We knew the drill. You answered all questions as best you could. No wise cracks and no mouthing off, because that could result in getting smacked around. You emptied your pockets and said as little as possible. We all considered this normal police practice that was no big deal. We also knew that any resistance or mouthing off could put you in the squad car with a trip to the precinct where you might be charged, or they might only try to throw a scare into you. If you were lucky, your main problem was walking back from the precinct to your neighborhood.
The big difference between then and now is that we were young kids (14-15 year olds). Men, young or old, did not hang out on street corners. They were in store-front men's clubs, or in local bars. If you stayed off the street you stayed away from police.
We rarely saw the cop on the beat but on occasion a squad car would pull up to the curb and one or two cops would approach to see what we were doing. We knew the drill. You answered all questions as best you could. No wise cracks and no mouthing off, because that could result in getting smacked around. You emptied your pockets and said as little as possible. We all considered this normal police practice that was no big deal. We also knew that any resistance or mouthing off could put you in the squad car with a trip to the precinct where you might be charged, or they might only try to throw a scare into you. If you were lucky, your main problem was walking back from the precinct to your neighborhood.
The big difference between then and now is that we were young kids (14-15 year olds). Men, young or old, did not hang out on street corners. They were in store-front men's clubs, or in local bars. If you stayed off the street you stayed away from police.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Speed Up -- Academic Style
One of the funnier skits of Father Guido Sarducci, the hip, chain-smoking priest who is the creation of comedian Don Novella, was the "five minute university." The premise of the skit was that the average college graduate remembers very little of what they learned in their college years. So Father Sarducci proposed to teach students, at the cost of the $20 tuition, the essentials. For the Spanish Course he will teach you how to say como esta usted, because that is all you will remember years after graduation. For the Economics course, he will teach you supply and demand. And so on, and if you have a minute left over, he will throw in a law degree.
Well it appears that Father Sarducci's skit has moved closer to reality as a solution to todays high cost of a college education. Our university offered a $50,000 incentive grant for academic departments to come up with a plan to shorten the four-year degree and thereby save students and their families the cost of four years of tuition, room and board, etc. One department has become the winner of that incentive grant by creating a more cost-effective three-year degree.
We like this idea and have thought about how to apply it in our sociology program. We have come up with the idea of "Life Experience Credits" whereby students receive academic credit for their real life experiences before coming to college. Here is how it would work.
1) If you have ever voted in a national election you get 3 credits for the American Government
course.
2) If you have ever lied or cheated on an exam in high school, you get 3 credits for the Social
Deviance course.
3). If you had a friend in high school who was a person of color, you get three credits for the Racial
and Cultural Minorities course.
You get the idea. Providing academic credit for real-life experiences could take a year, or even two, off the academic calendar for graduation. We can get them in and out in two years!
That Father Sarducci is a genius!
Well it appears that Father Sarducci's skit has moved closer to reality as a solution to todays high cost of a college education. Our university offered a $50,000 incentive grant for academic departments to come up with a plan to shorten the four-year degree and thereby save students and their families the cost of four years of tuition, room and board, etc. One department has become the winner of that incentive grant by creating a more cost-effective three-year degree.
We like this idea and have thought about how to apply it in our sociology program. We have come up with the idea of "Life Experience Credits" whereby students receive academic credit for their real life experiences before coming to college. Here is how it would work.
1) If you have ever voted in a national election you get 3 credits for the American Government
course.
2) If you have ever lied or cheated on an exam in high school, you get 3 credits for the Social
Deviance course.
3). If you had a friend in high school who was a person of color, you get three credits for the Racial
and Cultural Minorities course.
You get the idea. Providing academic credit for real-life experiences could take a year, or even two, off the academic calendar for graduation. We can get them in and out in two years!
That Father Sarducci is a genius!
Monday, August 11, 2014
Piketty = Economics minus Politics
Ever since the appearance of Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty we have received numerous emails from colleagues asking us to read/discuss the book, or to create and attend special sessions at professional meetings to listen to a panel discussion of this new work. We confess to not having read the book, but we did read a lengthy discussion of the book in the New York Times. The NYT article left with the following conclusions.
The NYT discussion of the Piketty book makes it appear to be very heavy on the economic side but very light on the political side. For example, the post-WW II "Golden Age" for workers (wage expansion, job security, pensions) is presented as if it were an aberration or an anomaly to an otherwise consistent trend of the dominance of capitalist profits over worker wages. What is missing in this pursuit of a pure economic principle is the understanding that in a capitalist system, profits will always be distributed according to the relative power of the players: capitalists, labor, AND THE STATE. The role of the State in 1945-1970 (the Golden Years) was very different than it was post-1970, when corporations were enabled by legislation from both political parties that permitted closing production in the US and expanding investment overseas, while protecting the profits garnered from overseas investment and production.
Why all the silence on the role of politics in first shaping the economy and creating the Golden Years for workers, and then enabling corporations to dominate workers and destroy major sectors of the US economy (manufacturing, textiles, consumer electronics, to name a few). If Piketty is supposed to be a political economist (at least if he is to be viewed as the "new" Marx), let us try to put the politics back into political economy.
The NYT discussion of the Piketty book makes it appear to be very heavy on the economic side but very light on the political side. For example, the post-WW II "Golden Age" for workers (wage expansion, job security, pensions) is presented as if it were an aberration or an anomaly to an otherwise consistent trend of the dominance of capitalist profits over worker wages. What is missing in this pursuit of a pure economic principle is the understanding that in a capitalist system, profits will always be distributed according to the relative power of the players: capitalists, labor, AND THE STATE. The role of the State in 1945-1970 (the Golden Years) was very different than it was post-1970, when corporations were enabled by legislation from both political parties that permitted closing production in the US and expanding investment overseas, while protecting the profits garnered from overseas investment and production.
Why all the silence on the role of politics in first shaping the economy and creating the Golden Years for workers, and then enabling corporations to dominate workers and destroy major sectors of the US economy (manufacturing, textiles, consumer electronics, to name a few). If Piketty is supposed to be a political economist (at least if he is to be viewed as the "new" Marx), let us try to put the politics back into political economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)