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.
Friday, August 15, 2014
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.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Do we really want to go to Mars?
A recent report by the National Research Council ("Pathways to Exploration") offers a argument for a new ambitious and costly project to send astronauts to Mars. This reminded Robert of another celebratory occasion more than 40 years ago. It was the Grissom-Chaffee Memorial Seminar ("Technology and Man's Future") held in Purdue's Elliot Hall of Music on April 13, 1973. The main speaker was the Apollo moon mission commander Capt. Gene Cernan. Robert had the privilege of being invited by then-Purdue President Arthur Hansen to be a discussant following the speaker's presentation. Cernan showed some remarkable photos taken during the moon mission and the audience was gasping. This was a tough act to follow, but here is a part of what Robert said more than 40 years ago.
"I believe that the regulation of technology is the most important intellectual and political task on the American agenda. I believe that a beginning on this task is possible if we do several things. First, we must recognize that technology is more than simply 'organized knowledge for practical purposes.' Such a benign definition of technology emphasizes its purity--that there is no intrinsic flaw or benefit in technology--only in those using it. We must begin to understand technology as an institutional system with an ideology, elites, interest groups and supportive links with corporations, foundations, military interests, federal government and universities.
"Any attempt to alter, regulate or stop certain technological developments will have to confront that institutional system--and it will take more than the wisdom of scientists, humane values and a convincing cost-benefit model.
"The second thing that must be done is the creation and institutionalization of a technical-professional role that will put people first and technology second. It is often assumed that technical experts and professionals have no ax to grind, and therefore their output is always on behalf of the general good or humankind, rather than for their own benefit, or that of people involved in the technical practice, or for the corporate profits that always seem to accrue after major technical innovations have been developed.
"Unfortunately, the experts loyalties are not always pure. Neither is the power that must be granted if they are to apply their special knowledge."
What was said more than 40 years ago may not make much sense today. But it may be worth considering.
"I believe that the regulation of technology is the most important intellectual and political task on the American agenda. I believe that a beginning on this task is possible if we do several things. First, we must recognize that technology is more than simply 'organized knowledge for practical purposes.' Such a benign definition of technology emphasizes its purity--that there is no intrinsic flaw or benefit in technology--only in those using it. We must begin to understand technology as an institutional system with an ideology, elites, interest groups and supportive links with corporations, foundations, military interests, federal government and universities.
"Any attempt to alter, regulate or stop certain technological developments will have to confront that institutional system--and it will take more than the wisdom of scientists, humane values and a convincing cost-benefit model.
"The second thing that must be done is the creation and institutionalization of a technical-professional role that will put people first and technology second. It is often assumed that technical experts and professionals have no ax to grind, and therefore their output is always on behalf of the general good or humankind, rather than for their own benefit, or that of people involved in the technical practice, or for the corporate profits that always seem to accrue after major technical innovations have been developed.
"Unfortunately, the experts loyalties are not always pure. Neither is the power that must be granted if they are to apply their special knowledge."
What was said more than 40 years ago may not make much sense today. But it may be worth considering.
Friday, March 21, 2014
1984 Redux
It just dawned on us, in an awakening of our conspiratorial senses, that the missing Malaysian plane is not what it seems. In reality, the plane went down in the water minutes after the transponder was turned off. But agents of the U.S Government convinced the main stream media to continue the avalanche of "news" about the missing plane and the continuing "search" in order to present the subliminal message that government surveillance technology was a very imperfect technology and the public need not worry about the government spying on its own citizens. The media were at first reluctant to participate in the hoax until they realized the positive effect on their profits coming from the sale of advertising time and space. The government for its part always has deniability from "black ops" operations.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Simulacra-Land
This post is probably the result of too many servings of winter fruits and vegetables. "It looks like a tomato but it doesn't taste like one." Doesn't that sound familiar? Now substitute tomato with strawberry, melon, or peach and you get the picture, a familiar one to many of us. It doesn't taste like what it says!
Now switch to the national scene. "The U.S. gross national product per capita is the highest among all nations." But how come it doesn't feel like that? Maybe it's because we have lost millions of U.S. jobs to plants overseas. And maybe it's because the U.S. tax code encourages companies to invest in joint ventures and overseas production while protecting their profits from the Taxman.
Next image of reality. "The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since 2009 because of strong job creation." How can that be? Maybe it's because we stopped counting the millions of Americans who have given up looking for work and who are no longer counted as being in the labor force.
Simulacra are images of reality, but not the real thing. Our tomato, GDP, and unemployment rate are poor representations of the real thing. Unfortunately, our political leaders and national media have been very successful in spoon-feeding the American people with false images of reality and constructing Simulacra-Land.
Now switch to the national scene. "The U.S. gross national product per capita is the highest among all nations." But how come it doesn't feel like that? Maybe it's because we have lost millions of U.S. jobs to plants overseas. And maybe it's because the U.S. tax code encourages companies to invest in joint ventures and overseas production while protecting their profits from the Taxman.
Next image of reality. "The unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since 2009 because of strong job creation." How can that be? Maybe it's because we stopped counting the millions of Americans who have given up looking for work and who are no longer counted as being in the labor force.
Simulacra are images of reality, but not the real thing. Our tomato, GDP, and unemployment rate are poor representations of the real thing. Unfortunately, our political leaders and national media have been very successful in spoon-feeding the American people with false images of reality and constructing Simulacra-Land.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Grass, Ass and Class
Robert once taught a course entitled "Drugs, Policy, and Society." The topics of greatest interest to the students in the course focused on the scientific evidence for addictive effects of different drugs, and the legalization of marijuana. The final oral exam required each student to make an oral argument for or against the legalization of pot. Almost all of the students were for legalization, and they insisted that the instructor (Robert) should also make the same presentation. I always took the "No" position on legalization. Why?
Robert's argument was to contrast the effects of pot, not on the science of drugs, but on the social class position of the users. The main argument was that most public support for legalization comes from the middle class and young people like those in the class. These relatively privileged people have the luxury of experimentation with drugs while in high school or college, because they will soon be moving on to their educational or work careers that will consume their interests and energies, and they will have fond memories of their experimentation with drugs, which was never a central life activity but comparable to beer parties and casual sex. If they went too far with drugs or sex, leading to dependency or pregnancy, they had family resources to help them get through a tough spot in their lives. But for young men and women without financial means who were not going anywhere, drug use can easily become "psychologically addictive" (the science is not clear on this concept) or a central feature in their daily lives. In short, the middle class casual user has a chance of "moving on" after experimentation with drugs, but not the working class youth who is not going anywhere in terms of education or employment, and where pot is more likely to become a gateway drug.
The President has spoken on this issue and his position is "soft," meaning that he wants to be on both sides as a former "user" who experienced no harm, and as a responsible adult warning that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. The President is obviously in the youthful middle class user category, and he is tone-deaf on matters of class, about which he knows little on the basis of personal experience.
So the bottom line is that the privileged American enjoys the pleasures of youthful experimentation, and the bill is paid for by working class youth. We move beyond drugs to include equally dangerous sexual experimentation because of the positive treatment of casual sex in Hollywood and the media, which may be positive for the privileged, but potential disaster for the teenage mother with no resources and no future. For those who remember Dan Quayle, who was a dim bulb on many issues, but who spoke out against the glorification of single motherhood by the media. Quayle was right on the mark on this issue, but his views had already been marginalized by his dim bulb "trope."
Robert's argument was to contrast the effects of pot, not on the science of drugs, but on the social class position of the users. The main argument was that most public support for legalization comes from the middle class and young people like those in the class. These relatively privileged people have the luxury of experimentation with drugs while in high school or college, because they will soon be moving on to their educational or work careers that will consume their interests and energies, and they will have fond memories of their experimentation with drugs, which was never a central life activity but comparable to beer parties and casual sex. If they went too far with drugs or sex, leading to dependency or pregnancy, they had family resources to help them get through a tough spot in their lives. But for young men and women without financial means who were not going anywhere, drug use can easily become "psychologically addictive" (the science is not clear on this concept) or a central feature in their daily lives. In short, the middle class casual user has a chance of "moving on" after experimentation with drugs, but not the working class youth who is not going anywhere in terms of education or employment, and where pot is more likely to become a gateway drug.
The President has spoken on this issue and his position is "soft," meaning that he wants to be on both sides as a former "user" who experienced no harm, and as a responsible adult warning that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. The President is obviously in the youthful middle class user category, and he is tone-deaf on matters of class, about which he knows little on the basis of personal experience.
So the bottom line is that the privileged American enjoys the pleasures of youthful experimentation, and the bill is paid for by working class youth. We move beyond drugs to include equally dangerous sexual experimentation because of the positive treatment of casual sex in Hollywood and the media, which may be positive for the privileged, but potential disaster for the teenage mother with no resources and no future. For those who remember Dan Quayle, who was a dim bulb on many issues, but who spoke out against the glorification of single motherhood by the media. Quayle was right on the mark on this issue, but his views had already been marginalized by his dim bulb "trope."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)