Saturday, December 21, 2002 Privatizing Schools - To Start
Brad, I agree that unions have had some negative effects on teaching and education in general. As to whether or not they were worse than those that free unadulterated abuse by government would have on teachers, that's hard to say. But, before I get into what I think about privatizing schools, I'm wondering by which meter-stick you mean to judge them? How do we measure a school's goodness? What are the best schools now, to start, and what are the worst, and what are the potential factors that make them this way?
Bush's campaign was no stranger to the bigotry and nastiness he was happy to express indirectly during his reign in Texas where he was known to use the Death Penalty as non-white population control. In terms of the election, here is what I was talking about more nicely enumerated than I have time to do, but in general, don't you remember Tom Jones U, or how happily the boy passed off things such as those mentioned above? His treatment of my own country has been nothing far from disgusting, using Drug-War money to convince our civil-war-ridden country to suspend its own civil liberties. And, Tim, how can you ignore the blatant violations of civil-liberties recent immigrants and foreigners are feeling post-9/11? I was just talking to someone in database stuff at Dartmouth, and they have to create a whole super-student-management system for foreign students now, so that if they dare get below some grade, the government can now within hours and be ready to escort the student home so they don't terrorize or whatever. As for Bush's romance with Vicente - that's the bio I remember, sure you can find one in English - all I can say is that he's probably a nice guy, but he's Mexican like I'm Colombian, and while Bush likes to have an ally who went to Harvard and seeks to stimulate business - or in English, cheap labor - this does not nullify his many coincidental brushese with bigotry. So, yes, it is a wonder - I mean, at least in that I'm wondering which selfish road Bush is really taking - about this agreement.
Just really quickly, I don't know who brought it up before Brad, but the schools and basic infrastructure they might be thinking of are the fundamentalist schools - madrass midras... I forget the word - it's way to close to midrash and I have Second Temple thought floating around in head, but somoene must know. Other than that, I can imagine many forms of infrastructure that are part of any war effort. I just read this long article on these fundamentalist schools, but am totally blanking on them and Google's not supplyin'.
Brad, your last post seems to fudge a distinction I introduced that I thought might be useful for you or at least for the discussion. Striking and Unions are not necessarily connected. What I mean you could think that teachers unions are positive without thinking they should have the right to strike. So when we're talking about the right to strike, you might want to note that, and also say why even if you think unions are good, striking is bad. (Of course, striking and unions are intimately connected. It's hard to strike without a union to organize the strike, and the union might not be effective without the right to strike. But it is at least possible to see how the two are distinct: The police union is very powerful, but it does not have the right to strike. Workers sometimes strike without having a recognized, organized union.) But I think you're wrong by claiming that unions only apply to low skilled workers, or should. Even doctors (!) are increasingly organizing, hardly a low skilled group. If you're against the right to strike, you need to think of different ways a union can still have bargaining power. If you're against unions, we need to think of ways to make it so the workers don't get screwed. To note the problems with unions is not enough: if they have problems, so would a situation without unions have disadvantagees, so I suppose your argument is on balance, we're better off without unions. One final note on unions not being in the 'public interest' I'm not sure why unions have to act in the public interest when corporations are not even expected to be socially responsible. Isn't there a double standard here?
Can Jared provide ANY quote or evidence that Bush "during his election talked a lot like the sub-human in the article referenced above." Whatever Bush's policies have been since Sept. 11, during the 2000 campus and his time as governor of Texas I don't think he demonized immigrants. If I remember correctly, he made a conscious effort to portray an image of friendliness towards immigrants and Mexico. Maybe you secretly think Bush is evil, but say that for the right reasons. Obviously on some issues, politicians have different motives than their public rhetoric, but Jared wrongly claims that Bush's rhetoric and public statements were the opposite of what they actually were. So there is no puzzle as to why Bush's recent actions are consistent with his pre-Sept. 11 rhetoric. I believe Bush was even considering an amnesty or something like that for illegal immigrants (before Sept. 11 stopped this... perhaps enough time has gone by that Bush can consider actions like this again and that's the explanation) Perhaps Jared can point out some actions Bush took as Governor of Texas, though.
Posted by Timothy,
4:05 PM
-
More on teacher strikes
Worth repeating: in principle I agree with the right of workers to organize. I have no nostalgia for the days of turning Gatling Guns at strikers. Nor do I think teachers are evil for desiring better wages. And, believe it or not, I actually don't run a factory in Indonesia forcing 7 year old girls to make Nike Shoes for 25 cents a day. Strange but true.
Anyways... it would be interesting to look at how unions have effected the quality of teaching. Do states with anti-strike laws produce better teachers? And if they do (or don't), does that mean anything?
It seems to me that unions work primarily to the benefit of unskilled labor, precisely because those workers are so replaceable, and thus get bounced off the supply-demand curve real quickly. So why do teachers need to strike? Because their market value stinks?
This is partly why I support privatizing education, at least in theory. Competition among schools (assuming it takes place) will raise the demand for teachers. A quality teacher is a highly skilled worker, and if schools are fighting for "customers", they'll pay far more for effective teachers. Schools don't compete right now, and have no real incentive to do everything in their power to seek out the best teachers around. So in theory, the good teachers make what they're worth, and the bad teachers get fired. In theory teachers don't need unions any more than consultants do.
Obviously in practice privatizing education probably has major problems. Can this country produce enough good teachers to fill every school, or will the flow of teachers eventually create major imbalances among schools? Are skilled teachers the best solution to improving education, or do relatively simpler measures like reducing class size have more effect? If a school is run like a business, can we trust it to value quality teaching, or will we see a move towards emphasis on standardized testing, thus pushing teachers down into the "unskilled labor" end of the spectrum? Perhaps someone who's done the research (like Kumar) can weigh in on this... if he ever decides to show his face around here. :)
I was not aware that bin Laden has been building day-care, roads, health-care, etc... Can anyone dig up some good sources on this?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:45 PM
-
Immigrants and the purpose of the state...
You do bring up a good point, even if you thought it was probably above debate. Should the US government have an obligation to protect its cititzens? You know, the citizens who vote? The citizens who elect the government? Yes, citizenship is random and usually fortuitous. But arguably, if the US had no border policy, the labor market would be flooded, and citizens of the United States will find themselves in greater competition for jobs. Especially if you insist on sending cities like New York into deficit, and jobs become relatively scarce. Does this all actually even out, or does this work to the detriment of certain people? This first part is an empirical question.
The second part is this. If immigration gets to a point where people who are already citizens are hurt by it, should the government tell its citizens, "Folks, we're going to flood the job market, and if you can't find a job, too bad." Maybe it's the fair thing to do, but I doubt that government gets reelected. Is that wrong? Should citizens be denied the right to vote for a xenophobic government that protects the interests of its own people?
I assume in principle you would support the right of 3rd world governments to protect its citizens from capitalist investments that hurt the people (as do I). What's different? Why isn't the US government allowed in principle to protect its citizens by controlling the flow of labor?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:39 PM
-
Bin Laden and Murray
Democratic Senator Murray has come in for criticism for these comments: "We?ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so popular around the world?" Murray asked during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"
The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder ? particularly students, Murray said.
"He?s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven?t done that," Murray said.
"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
Will write more when I get these cards to their appropriate Yuletide recips, but about the immigrants, I was just browsing and I found this repulsive article - there's something so insidious about the racism and the fear in many Americans.
As for the new "agreement with Mexico" (in regards to Social Security) there is something terribly suspicious about it. If anyone knows the origins, or why Bush is suddenly thus motivated (besides his love for Vicente Fox), let me know. I suspect it has much more to do with border control for a man who, during his election talked a lot like the sub-human in the article referenced above. In any case, is it fair for Mexicans or anyone who was working "illegally" to reap the benefits of social security if they put money in? Well, gosh, why in Hell would working be illegal? I can think of a lot of white Americans who could take a lesson from that.
We force people to be citizens or else jump through hoops to get jobs here for the sole purpose of protecting our fellow Americans. Well, that's unfair, and it's complete bullshit. Why should we, because someone was arbitrarily chosen by God or a god or some missing variable conception of situation to be of the US, give them job preference? These are people who had life preferences - better schools, better healthcare, etc. But we protect their jobs from Mexicans and other immigrants? Big threat.
This being said, simply, I would argue that the original concept is simply inane. As for people receiving Social Security illegally in terms of this system, it's sort of a different thing. Why? Well, what was the purpose of the worker laws? If my very basic understanding of them and then distillation didn't suffice, I'm guessing there are some resources that can further our understanding. But, does that purpose or those purposes coincide with the purpose of social security? I would argue no. Social security benefits have nothing to do with your citizenry or which flag you wave around. It is money that you put in, and later on, it's money that you should get back. It's forced retirement saving, that's all. The idea that we would force it from anyone and not give it back is simply not just. Once again, I think some people are happy to favor the criminal with the briefcase and the Armani suit.
Posted by Jared,
1:02 PM
-
Where's the Welcome Wagon??
So the Observer has rolled out it's biggest gun and fired of a salute round--backhanded or not. But, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we've yet to get the same treatment from the DartLog crowd. I'd find it hard to believe we're being snubbed, but also find it almost as hard to believe that Grossman just hasn't noticed. No matter what else one might think of him--and from what I've heard even many of his not-so-former colleagues down on Main Street think very little--he's a rather techie guy.
Tim, perhaps you could mention us to the "morally blind posters on dartlog.net" (your words, not mine) whom you'll be seeing on New Years. We might be able to get a link out of the deal.
Posted by Clint,
1:00 PM
-
A National Review writer sides with Jared!?!
A federal jury in Oregon has found Wal Mart guilty of cheating its employees on overtime. I know a lot of folks believe it's unpatriotic to hold a grudge against Wal Mart, because there's nothing Americans admire more than success, but you know what? I'm glad those dirtbags were called to account for what they did. Call me Joe Hill, but I think it's too easy for those of us on the Right to forget why unions were, and still are in many cases, necessary. This story reminds me of one of my male relatives, a hard-working blue-collar guy, votes Republican, loves Rush, etc. For years he worked at a paper mill, and would come home at the end of the work day with a headache and a nosebleed. There was supposedly some kind of toxic, odorless gas in the air. The EPA had made the plant put an electronic monitor in the work area, but it kept going off so often that the foreman simply stuffed a sock in it to shut the device up. True story. My relative said the workers had to live with it because their union was weak, and management had made it clear that if they complained too much, they might shut the plant down and move it to Mexico, thanks to NAFTA. All these working men were trapped, basically, because jobs aren't plentiful in this area, and they had to feed their families. It wasn't right, and it isn't right.
Well my point in bringing the teachers up was not the point about whether teachers unions are good, but to note that in many states it is illegal for them to strike. You can like unions, but not like teacher strikes (by the way, they still happen, and I imagine sometimes rightly so. Whatever your view, I don't think you could paint the teachers as evil for striking when they do, would you? They might present a 'nicer image' In any case, labor history is relevant in the sense that many, many actions we take as rights now were considered illegal in the last century, and the government violently tried to put workers down.) There seems to be some differentiation in who is allowed to strike based on if the workers provide 'essential services'. But earlier this year, some of the dock workers on the west coast were involved in a strike. The Bush administation had the power to shut it down based on 'harm to the national economy'. Democratic Presidents would likely and rightly have let the strike go on. The Bush admin, but threatening to weigh in, implicitly gave more power to management. (Remember, the strike wasn't illegal there, it would only be if Bush said it was.) And governmental action sets the tone for company action by signalling how much the government will act against companies that union bust. Reagon completely changed the dynamics with unions when he fired the air traffic controllers. You can't simply just decide from on high what is the best and most fair policy: you have to allow for the equalization of bargaining power. And the right to strike is essential for that.
Posted by Timothy,
3:35 AM
-
Why can't this debate... just... die...
Hehehe... I think you hit the problem on the head. Ideally, workers should be able to strike and get what they want. Practically, what does that mean, and what does it mean to allow them to shut down the city in order to get it?
I did mention teachers in an earlier post... like I mentioned, it appears to me that teachers unions have been detrimental to the quality of teaching. I received a reprimand for thinking this, but I wouldn't mind seeing what other people would argue.
As for replacing workers... tough to say. If you were going to stand purely by Mr. Alessandroni's notion of justice and fairness, I think you could easily argue in support of worker replacement. The prospective replacement workers ae presumably jobless, and are perfectly willing to work in an available situation that other people (the strikers) disdain. Isn't it fair to give them the jobs? After all, why should they be unemployed when they will happily work in a particular situation? Why should the replacement workers suffer and get stepped on? That doesn't seem fair, does it?
Of course, personally I think the doctrine notion of fairness has a lot of problems and leads to paradoxes like the one above. But now I've confused myself (as usual) and can't really think of an argument against replacement workers. Figures. I was fighting off Mr. Alessandroni before and now I've completely succumbed to his point of view. It's official: working on linguistics for 14 hours a day during vacation does not improve my already flaccid political thinking. Oh well... Think I'll call it a night.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:22 AM
-
re: The "racist" South
Yes, Mississippi has come a long way. It was at, say, the 8th circle of hell, and now it's climbed up to... well, I haven't read Dante recently....
In response to Brad, the whole South doesn't need to be racist, just significant voting blocs. Even 10% or 20% of the people in a state can have a huge effect on the political culture of a state, especially if the rest of the population isn't willing to vote against politicians for pandering to crypto-racists. And those voting blocs have shifted to the Republicans, who still use racially coded appeals. Geez, Brad, I'm aiming to smear the Republicans, not the South! heh. But there are obviously major racist problems down there (not to say the North is like the Virgin Mary). I suppose I'm not from the South, and don't have stats to back this up, but for now, I'm not terribly comforted by states that elect Lott, Thurmond, Helms and Sessions. Aside from that though, a lot of these states have confederate emblems on their flags (many of them added only during school desegregation). There are people whose battle isn't just 1948: it's 1860! But the evidence is in Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy: he knew exactly what he was doing in trying to pull racist whites away from the Democrats.
One tact against the line that the South is racist is to say they just don't like liberals who care only about Blacks and pander to them. Hmm. Clinton, through his use of welfare reform, tried apparently to 'neutralize' the issue of issue of race. A lot of people didn't think Clinton had the best record on race, though. But that's another debate, an interesting one, but I don't think it is at the same Lott-like level. I only bring this up to say I wouldn't call this the Clinton line on race, despite his recent comments.
Posted by Timothy,
3:16 AM
-
Transit strike...Wali weighs in after the debate is dead
I hadn't weighed in on the transit strike debate. But I wanted to provide this link which argues it was about respect, not money. I haven't looked at the issues, and only offer these glib comments: On principle, I side with workers' right to strike in general. In practical terms, I live in New York City, so I know it would be an utter nightmare! Then again, I walk to school and stay largely confined to the Columbia area, so what does it practically matter to me? Heh. Hope you all take a joke. But seriously, has anyone mentioned whether teachers, police, and air traffic controllers should be allowed to strike and how Ronald Reagan hurt unions everywhere by firing that last group when they did strike in violation of the law? And how does Brad feel about the currently legal practice (at least in most places) of allowing the permanent replacement of striking workers?
A few days ago, Mr. Waligore posted about Clinton calling the GOP on race hypocrisy. Clinton quipped, "How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?"
Thus, the Clinton syllogism: the South is racist, and the Republicans win the South, so therefore the Republicans must be racist. Seems sound enough. But just how racist is the South? The Denver Post had a feature the other day where they sent a crack team of reporters to investigate racism in Trent Lott's home state. They concluded that racial tensions and racism still flowered in Missouri, and it's no wonder that they all love that bigot Lott. You could practically hear the sound of Clinton nodding vigorously.
But...
From the start, the feature seemed bogus. I don't know how many conclusions can be drawn from talking to a few select personalities in a few small towns. The Post only interviewed white people, and it's hard to believe that the folks featured in the picture, sitting around a small town diner, looking firmly ensconced in the 1950's, comprise all of Missouri.
Today the Post received several letters to the editor from people who live in Missouri or have spent time there. The letters were unanimous in asseverating that Missouri has come a LONG way racially, that Missouri has more black politicians than any other state, that the article was skewed and completely unrepresentative, that the majority of Southerners live and practice racial harmony every single day.
So just how racist is the South? The stereotype seems to be: very, or at least enough to keep Republicans in office. Is this true? Or mostly a result of misrepresentation and oversimplification?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:02 AM
-
Ward Connerly: Segregation Isn't Necessarily Racist
Ward Connerly, an African-American who has been spearheading efforts to get rid of affirmative action in the past few years, had this to say last week: ""Supporting segregation need not be racist ... One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races." Huh?
Bob Herbert also reports on weird (or are they?) comments by Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana):
Back in 1994, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns dropped by a local newspaper, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and told an editor an anecdote about one of his constituents, a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington, D.C. The senator said the rancher asked him, "Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niggers?" Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was "a hell of a challenge." The anecdote was published and Senator Burns apologized. When he was asked why he hadn't expressed to the rancher any disapproval of the use of the word nigger, Senator Burns said, "I don't know. I never give it much thought."
Posted by Timothy,
2:50 AM
-
Immigration and Social Security
The Washington Post reported two days ago that the Bush administration plans to pass legislation that will send social security checks to Mexican immigrants. From the looks of things most of the beneficiaries will be Mexicans who legally worked in America, paid Social Security taxes, but never received benefits.
Fair enough, and I completely agree with that part. But I'm not so sure about the second part. In addition, roughly 13,000 immigrants who do not legally reside in the US will also begin receiving benefits, negating a 1996 law that illegal residents could not claim benefits. Moreover, Mexican workers who currently work legally will potentially get back the money they put into the system while working illegally with a false Social Security number?
So here's the question. If a person who is neither a citizen nor a legal immigrant gives money to the US government in the form of taxes, does that government have a moral obligation to return that money? Or should it focus on its moral obligation to spend the money on its citzens and legal residents? Is the government completely unjust by withholding money from those who earned it illegally?
Hint: I'm taking the basic issues of the MTA debate and dropping them onto a new situation. Bring it. :)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:45 AM
-
Sen. Sessions (R-AL): The Senator Worse than Lott
Check out TNR's article by Sarah Wildman, on Republican Senator Sessions from Alabama. But it's just Lott, remember?
But on the democratic side, Klansman Robert Byrd will play a confederate general in a movie. Yikes. (Robert Duvall plays Lee.)
After his experience on the set, Byrd was moved to make a speech on the Senate floor about his experience in the movie and how the current war against extremist Muslim terrorists parallels the challenges faced by America during the Civil War.
Byrd said that he has long felt that understanding our history was a key to dealing with new challenges.
"I have talked countless times about George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, the Founding Fathers, the Constitutional Framers, Nathan Hale, Abraham Lincoln, and other true American heroes," Byrd said. "I try to encourage young people to learn about these great figures of our country's past. I urge students to read, to visit historical sites, and to soak up as much knowledge as they can."
Posted by Timothy,
2:38 AM
-
Lott and Shelby Steele
Trent Lott's racism is deep, really deep. And I should be clear that when I say the Republican party has problems with racism, I do not mean that most of them have the racist core that Lott has. Conservative Shelby Steele says that just after Trent Lott made his gaffe, his staff knew Lott wouldn't willing to go all the way and suggest how deeply immoral segregation was. Look at what I've put in bold below:
On the Tuesday after Trent Lott's racial gaffe, I was approached by people close to the senator for advice on an appropriate apology. There was real desperation in their voices as they spoke into a speakerphone, but I had already concluded that he deserved what he was getting. That such a thought--segregation as a deliverance from "all these problems over all these years"--was rambling around in his head under the category of humor was clearly chilling. But they were also asking a perfectly reasonable question: How does a white male Mississippian, who has made an amazingly ugly racial gaffe, apologize? Could he have a political redemption?
I offered nothing that wasn't obvious. He should talk about growing up in a segregated society and admit that he was affected by it. He should discuss in detail how he came to the realization that segregation and racism were wrong. Was there an epiphany, an incident, a process? They asked for language, so I gave them what I wanted to hear: "I loathe segregation and racism with everything in me. This loathing is, for me, the starting point of human decency." "He won't do all this," one of them said. "Then he should go down," I said.
By the way, I've seen elsewhere that Bush was pissed when Lott didn't say segregation was immoral in his, I think, third apology. That had been planned, but somehow Lott 'forgot' necessitating his fourthy apology I could be wrong on that though. But Emmett Hogan on dartlog.net is quite right that besides himself, only Buchanan, Novak and "loonies" are supporting Lott... wonder why?
Posted by Timothy,
2:13 AM
-
Friday, December 20, 2002 Insults...
I am fairly sure I steered the conversation *away* from insults rather than towards. But ca m'egal, and Mr. Alessandroni, I do apologize if I gave offense...
Anyways, from the looks of the latest post on the subject it seems that this transit discussion cannot be carried on civilly, so I will drop it. I'm sure we'll come around to these issues again regardless...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
8:41 PM
-
Repugnant: Another Congressman with "Segregationalist feelings"
Retiring Republican North Carolina Congressman Cass Ballenger says that Cynthia McKinney inspired "segregationist feelings" in him. Of course, now that Trent Lott is gone, all the Republican problems on race are over, right? (P.S. He also called McKinney a 'bitch'.)
I just wanted to promote my favorite (non-Dartmouth) weblog. Josh Marshall made these comments in reference to Republicans who claim that it's silly to say all Republicans are racist:
A few readers have told me that my thinking on this is all wet because racism or racialist thinking just isn't part of conservative 'thought'. But whether this is true or not is irrelevant. This is about getting votes, not 'thought'. Ballot-box-stuffing wasn't part of Democratic 'thought' either in, say, the thirties. Many Dems found it abhorent. And most didn't practice it. But the party as whole benefited from it when it happened in Chicago because it kept Democratic congressmen or senators in Washington. (Needless to say, Republicans controlled corrupt machines too; just not as many. And election fraud never had anywhere the impact of the Republican absorption of Southern Dixiecrats.)
So just as we might say with the Democrats of 70 or 80 years ago, the issue isn't one of 'thought' or whether the whole party is 'corrupt' or 'racist'. These are false questions, either imprecisely posed or meant to obfuscate.
The question is whether the party as a whole benefits from the use of racism or race-tinged wedge issues in certain parts of the country and whether the party as a whole makes any efforts to say such behavior won't stand. In the case of Republicans and race the answer to the first question is clearly 'yes' and the answer to the second question is 'not nearly enough'.
The Democrats of course used to have this problem. For several decades of the last century they were the party of both the most liberal Northerners and the most reactionary Southerners -- liberal and reactionary on the issue of race in particular. Eventually, the strain just became too great. And Democrats outside the South began pushing for the national party to take a stronger stand on civil rights. That led -- among other things -- to the 1948 Dixiecrat break-away led by Strom Thurmond -- something you have heard of recently.
In any case, the latter-day Dixiecrats are an important part of the Republican party. Though many Republicans are repelled by its frequent appeals to race-politics, the party as a whole nonetheless benefits from it. So they have to take responsibility for it, even though Trent Lott-types have little to do with Wall Street Republicans or neo-conservative intellectuals. Republicans can't be the party of black opportunity and anti-black resentment no matter how big the tent. The Democrats tried it; it didn't work. ... I doubt [Senator Bill] Frist is a racist. But this almost makes the point more clearly. Even some of best Southern Republicans seem incapable of resisting the temptation to dabble in racial code words and appeals on the stump. (In Frist's case, perhaps it was a rather notorious campaign consultant who worked for him that year and has a rep for such ugly tactics.)
I think the Bush family is a very similar case. I don't think this President Bush or the last one were racist in any way. Nor do I think either of them liked dabbling in racial politics. But in a pinch, when the chips were really down, both have been willing to do so. For this President Bush you need look no further than the South Carolina primary fight in February 2000.
Posted by Timothy,
7:47 PM
-
Internal Bloggin' Stuff
Jared said: "anyway, I don't think that Blogs should get personal. Not in terms of some pedantic snobs with Culture | Academia etc. or especially internally." Nice going, Brad, you had to choose the administrator to insult! Heh. But seriously, I would hope that we have a site where people wouldn't personally attack each other. Not because I think attacks on people's ideas and how they present them are necessarily always bad, but it would be a sign that we are having respectful and intelligent conversation. So I would suggest we try to develop some informal norms and customs as we go along, before the site gets a bigger audiance. I'm not saying no one should ever attack each other, but we should aim for a world in which this is not needed! Plus, gratutious insults mean akwardness when bloggers meet face to face.
Not that I really know what jeepers means, but, anyway, I don't think that Blogs should get personal. Not in terms of some pedantic snobs with Culture | Academia etc. or especially internally.
In regards to Unions, and what I said about them, I wasn't offering a solution. I just said, I thought clearly, I don't love unions, but they are our only option against government/business tyranny. In fact, this whole situation is such a blatant example of that, that it fascinates me that some still argue for the government.
The argument about how much these workers or any should get is entirely distinct. I was saying that they should have a voice, that's all. How much people deserve to make is a huge discussion which involves professional athletes, teachers, executives, and everyone else. If anyone dreams that they have found some magical formula for how this should in fact work, I'd be very open to hearing it.
And I wasn't preaching Klein to you, I was trying to demonstrate the scale of the problem. However, perhaps we all could use a little half-articulated idealistic anti-commecialism dribble, it seems like some would rather slide with the other side - if the problems are so big and so confusing for pwetty rich wittle heads, then why should we be bothered to solve them? Maybe Stevenson's right about ideological attachments - the see-saw is just too high for some.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with the main point at hand, which was my initial argument that the workers were screwed. They were in that Bloomberg chose to use a 40 year-old law that should be questioned anyway to prevent them from having power. Should workers have power, yes. Are unions the only way to do that? In this conception of reality, until someone comes up with a better idea - Brad, I await yours - I think that they are.
How do we prevent unions from having too much power? Well, as Adam Smith would have said had he not been such a tight-ass, the shit will take care of itself. If we can look at unions as parasites, or even if we just see them as dependents, either way, if they suck too much blood, the host dies. Now, one might exclaim excitedly, you can't just kill a poor business, but even more importantly, you can't just kill a city. Well, you can, but obviously you'd be motivated not to, 'cause you wouldn't have a damn job at the end. I feel ridiculous writing about basic market economics after just talking about communism, but really, it shouldn't even be a question.
What happens when people are dependent, poeple dying in those ambulances? Hate to put the shocker out, but what happens when a functionally illiterate pre-hominid sends people to an oil war? People die. What happens when a mayor whose only accomplishment was standing in front of some towers looking touched and, of course, hiding poor people, spends five years draining the city's resources with cosmetics and tax breaks for the rich? No money, then people die. If a government sucks, just like if a company sucks, it does not succeed. Do people in general deserve the assholes they vote for, yes. Should these transit workers be stepped on because of it? No. If New York's deficit grows because these people get treated fairly, then so it is. If people die because this government refuses to find other options, then the fault is the government's. It is, as I've said before, a perversion of sense to hold the workers accountable and excuse the government's myopia.
As for solutions, I have one. Justice. We should trust our sense of justice and our sense of fairness above the imbecilities of those who seek to challenge them and those who ignorantly seek to defend those who challenge them. In a more concrete sense, in New York, they should have been able to strike. That would have been fair. If they had, it would have soon been apparent that the government had not handled the situation well. Perhaps people might have even latched on to the gross mistakes of the previous government's economic policy. Or else, people would have seen through the selfishness of the union, those bastards wanting to make more than 32 grand a year (what you get if you're not management - it was obviously missed how blatantly misleading that $44,000 figure was) and actually send their kids to college or something assanine like that. The people, rabble rabble, would make the union look awful they'd lose membership, etc. blah blah blah, this, Adam Smith, is the whole idea. If things were fair then it would work. That's my solution, though only situationally. Conceptually, unions don't work, and that government doesn't work, and people are ignorant, and and and and. I await other solutions as they may come.
Mr. Alessandroni, congratulations, you have utterly missed my point. You can continue with your shrill insults and history of the labor movement, but I don't see how either are relevant in any way.
I fully understand the importance of unions-- in fact I believe I said exactly that in my last post. I understand that the Nike shoes you insist that I own were made by exploited workers. I don't support exploitation. Do you understand that?
My question was, given that we need to protect against the excesses of employers, how do we protect against the excesses of unions? As far as I can see, unions have hampered the quality of teachers. This isn't a "dis", it's an empirically based judgment. Yes, there are thousands of wonderful teachers. But there are thousands of horrible teachers. How do we weed out the latter without hurting the former? Schools can't fire worthless teachers that have tenure, they have to keep giving them raises every year-- I went to an extremely crappy school where this was a major issue. How do we get around this? Maybe it's just me, but pointing to plumber's salaries and calling me "blind and ignorant" really doesn't seem like a solution at all.
Finally, I agree, living in NY on $44,000 isn't that great. And many probably make less-- as do McDonald's employees, deli workers, doormen, etc. etc. How much should they make? Just about every union in the city has been growling since Bloomberg got there. Teachers, policemen, firemen. He's compromised with just about everyone, and he's still in a budget hole. Now the hike in property taxes are going to hurt roughly 60,000 private sector jobs-- boohoo you say, but where do you think all this money comes from? From what I gather your only proposal seems to be to have Bloomberg himself cover the deficit with his personal fortune. Do you have a better proposal?
To clarify: I'm not saying "screw the MTA workers" at all. But I'm not going to blindly grab my hammer and sickle without figuring out how these things fit into the larger economic picture. If you understand that, and still think I need insulting, fine, fire away. Otherwise stop preaching Naomi Klein in my direction. It's just silly.
Though in theory, I might create a system wherein we can in fact all have nice little emoticons. We'll see.
My name is Jared, I'm an '03, not as flamingly liberal as some, but I certainly am big on the sort of childish concept of fairness. Like but but... but that's just not fair... Anyway, I'm not terribly interesting, but I am involved with some administration stuff on this Blog, so if you hate the color or the pictures or want to suggest links, definitely e-mail me. Incidentally, I'm also up with DTV, and I want to announce [little plug here] that we got love for Sopranos and Sex in the City on top of our regular movies, so Blitz DTV to recommend times and such.
As an important aside, Jon, the unfortunate truth is that dogs hump your leg because of all that eau de lady dog you wear. Drives dogs and Kumar wild, I hear.
Wow, don't know how to respond to the dis' on teachers, as I will be one soon, at least in theory.
Unions themselves are a tricky issue, and in fact I will admit that I do not generally support unions, because often they create rules and precedents that eventually serve to cripple the very companies that in the end support them. Like parasites. Unfortunately, they are in some ways inevitable responses to our poorly regulated major industries. Unfortunately, it would be ridiculous to pretend that without unions, workers would somehow magically have some voice.
Some people are happy to give the employers the ultimate say, which is tragically elitist and pathetic, but most would argue that the ultimate right should be with workers. Workers, however, can be replaced with quieter workers, especially in a Bush economy. This is why, unless someone has a better option, unions are necessary to counteract the power of big businesses. If you want, you can look at your Nike sneakers that were made by a seven-year-old girl who makes $3 a day, and you can see the sense of leaving the worker alone to fight against the business. And, if you think that's only in third-world unsightly little Sally Struthers countries, remember how much higher our own rate of poverty has been in the last year, and think of how many people, just like your seven-year-old Air Jordan expert, would be happy to work for almost anything. And, if you think it doesn't matter, perhaps you can post something here.
As for unions existing for the greater good of the world, well, it depends. Unions certainly, as you know, aren't good for business, and so in a way aren't good for those who rely on services, whether it's something petty like Christmas shopping, or something important like ambulance transport. What they are good for is making up for something our government, especially now, is utterly incapable of. They prevent business from screwing its workers. And, as you know from your Nikes, unregulated business is happy to do this. If they do, we end up with even greater disparities between workers and managers, owners of production and producers. All of a sudden, the workers realize that they have no power unless they ALL get together and they ALL strike, law or no law, suddenly a spectre haunts the US, there is a worker's revolution and a flightly communist state and 50 years later we're all destitute and selling our organs or our children or some vestiges of our nuclear program to survive.
As for teachers not teaching, that sucks, but, frankly, considering how the average teacher makes 10 grand less a year than the average plumber with, by definition, often at least 6 years more education, maybe a less blind and ignorant interpretation of the facts would imply a different cause for the lackluster results.
And to average $44,000 a year living in NYC isn't that great. The cost of living is much higher. More importantly, to average anything doesn't speak to the baselines. Anyone can lie with numbers, but this is a more blatant one. The 44 average includes management - think about it.
Posted by Jared,
12:51 PM
-
A Cool Smiley For Brad
This is my favorite smiley. I'm thinking of appending it to all of my posts. Women want me and men want to be me. And dogs hump my leg.
Posted by Jonathan,
3:30 AM
-
Getting to know you...
Mr. Hendler brings up a good issue regarding knowing who the other posters are...
Seeing as how we all share vicinities and schoolmarms, etc. I wuz wonderin' what, exactly, passes for protocol if you encounter, face-to-face, a person with whom you've been "blogging"? Do you go kickstart a conversation with, "Hey, remember that thing, that you said on the blog, the other day...?" Or do you slant your eyes, growl through your teeth and run the other way, back to your computer so you can post a reply much augmented by "keyboard kourage!" and a legion of links to back you up?
I'm really torn over this. Especially living with Mr. Garg... this could make dinnertime rather awkward.
Ya know?
Also, I wish this blog had some cool smilies. I can think of one in particular, with big teeth and a jester cap, that really sums up perfectly all those thoughts mossing o'er me brain...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:01 AM
-
Transit 'till we're sick of it...
I think you're right, I am giving the employers ultimate say. But aren't you trying to give unions ultimate say? The MTA can hold the city hostage, and without checks on the union there's nothing to stop the workers from striking every chance they get...
I think the right to strike has an important place in society, *but* I have never believed that unions exist for the greater good of everyone. As far as I can see, teacher unions have helped fill our schools with lazy, unmotivated teachers who have guaranteed pay increases and no accountability. Yes, I think teachers should make more, a lot more. But I don't necessarily view unions as the ultimate solution. Maybe someone can change my mind me here with a bevy of facts and arguments etc. But I'm still trying to figure what sort of compromise, if any, is possible and makes sense.
I don't have time right now to read the argument against the Taylor Law-- I'll give it a whirl at some point though. Maybe it will put in focus a thing or two.
Another question: if the workers are in fact powerless, how do they manage to have an average salary of $44,000 a year? Why doesn't the city just keep them all at minimum wage? How did the workers get this far-- regardless of whether "this far" isn't far enough.
Jon, blogging about whether blog wars are productive isn't that productive either! But yes, blog wars are regrettable. 'Recognition' largely means expending energy refutting points on other blogs, which I'd rather avoid. So I thought I'd say I kind of took your point and found a better place for my comments on observer posts. I doubt they'll mind the publicity.
P.S. I'd think 'psycho-liberals' believe power is everywhere!
To extend on Jared's thanks, I wanted to thank and let everyone know that Laura Dellatorre came up with the name of this site, which nicely echos the name of The Dartmouth Free Press, yet recognizes the distinctiveness of this blog.
Although I'm certainly in no position of authority here (do you psycho-liberals with your postmodernist leanings even recognize such a thing? : ) )...
I am of the belief that by writing so much about a student (who cannot respond here) and another blog, we are essentially using this space to create dialectic with The Observer/John Stevenson. I'm not sure if that is the most productive thing to do with it. Just my thoughts.
As for the Dartmouth Observer blog extending us 'recognition' and asking for it in return, I ask: why do such 'independent' thinkers need recognition? (Is Stevenson talking about 'recognition' like the kind that minority groups ask for under the rubric of multiculturalism he so dislikes?) Sure, there are now at least 3 blogs with people from Dartmouth posting. I'll recognize that. If he's asking for anything more that that, he'll have to be specific. (Before we exchange ambassadors, can we toss him a link, Jared?)
But Stevenson's recent comments (mentioned below) are a continuation of incoherent and confusing thought on Stevenson's part. When I read Stevenson's observer posts (at least those about political theory) I got really frustrated as he kept saying things like 'race is a social construction, and governmental policy should never involve taking into account such unreal things.' He wouldn't say, despite repeated questioning over a month or two, whether he favored getting rid of things like enforcing civil rights laws and Indian reservations, which obviously involves using the 'social construction' that is race in governmental policy. Perhaps you can agree with the conclusion that the government should be largely race-blind, but I don't see how one agrees with the flawed logic Stevenson uses to go from his premises to his absolutist stance of race-blindness. Stevenson insists on using terms like 'social construction', but does not seem to grasp the fact that, at least SOMETIMES, it is others who are the ones who socially construct our identity. Whether you agree with Stevenson's opinion, he has an opinion, not a philosophy (or at least not a philosophy that isn't laughable). When asked if Serbian nationalism is less real to its victims because it is socially constructed, Stevenson said that yes, he did believe that Bosnians in the Yugoslavia could 'transcend' their identity. The final straw for me came with this Observer post, when Stevenson finally stopped using vaguely 'postmodern' and 'constructivist' academic jargon to argue government should never base policy on race, only to use John Rawls' liberal terms!! Stevenson said something like 'my philosophy is that race is a comprehensive doctrine'. I didn't really feel like arguing with him again by going over again how he had misused Rawls' terms. (In brief: race itself is not a comprehensive doctrine, through culture and religion could be. And the veil of ignorance does not forbid taking into account the existence of comprehensive doctrines, it just does not allow those in the original position to have knowledge of their particular comprehensive doctrines. Besides, unless Stevenson somehow claims the principles of justice mean that those in the original position would all agree to be race-blind (how? Rawls didn't), race-blindness would not be a principle of justice. Once the veil of ignorance was lifted, it would be morally permissible to take race into account when formulating public policy. There is also a long tradition of criticizing the early Rawls on the issue of comprehensive doctrines, including by none other than... Rawls! ) If he wrote that in a paper, a political theory professor grading it would scribble '???' in the margins and rightly so.
A professor once told me the way to deal with the right is not to give them recognition. That has not been my philosophy. As those of you who know me know, I was fully engaged with conservatives on campus. I roomed with an editor of The Dartmouth Review, and I'm spending New Year's with some particularly morally blind posters on dartlog.net. (Some of my best friends are conservatives! ...yet I don't fail to publically critiize them in print.) But what recognition should we give Stevenson and his observer? You don't have to completely agree with Rawls of course, to use his terms, but to those with a bit of knowledge, Stevenson seems to be just spouting nonsense. I'll tell you what I won't recognize Stevenson as; a particularly special or independent thinker. I know Stevenson only by his comments on the observer. From them, he has not shown himself to be an intellectual, but full of pretention. Perhaps if I knew him personally I would not think the same way. But I don't see anything particularly original or 'special' in Stevenson's posts, certainly nothing to base an entire 'independent' way of thinking on. So I have to say that his self-applied label of 'independent' is just that: a label, and a marketing move at best.
Posted by Timothy,
12:55 AM
-
Thursday, December 19, 2002 Kind of Moot I mean, the transit strike thing. It's over. What remains, though, is just a concept I think is important to think about for next time. Some laws are in fact unjust. Here is the Taylor Law and this is a much more articulate argument as to the changes that need to be made to it (a document prepared long before the current strike). Of course laws that are unfair or, often, that have not changed with the gradual evolution of our country and society are subject to change and or scrutiny. Of course. This law does something very dangerous - it strips workers of the right of final demonstration. In the end, a strike or the threat of a strike, as airline and teachers' unions often demonstrate, is the strongest voice a group of workers can offer. By taking that away, you take away their final and most obvious card - their labor. And when labor isn't involved in negotiations about labor, you lose everything. In a more literal sense, as I suppose my hinting at it before wasn't as effective as I'd thought, you give the employer's ultimate say. This is pure unadulterated injustice because if the union goes in to the bargaining room and their employers are fully aware (as this law serves to do) that no matter what, the services will be rendered, even if the union comes out with a worse deal, then the employers can do whatever they want. This is what Stalin did when he was screwing Russia's agricultural sector for ten years. Don't cry, or I'll give you something to cry about. The point that is asked for is the point that defines the argument against this law. What other avenues exist?Because of this law, no other avenues exist. And why ask why people suffer after 9/11? Because it was argued that 9/11 was relevant to the argument. Of course, it's not. Is it worth shutting down the city, with all the havoc that entails? Is it worth it to the city to treat their workers better? It's very dangerous to argue that the workers are culpable, but somehow the city is not.
Mr. Alessandroni, you wrote: "If a law is not just, should we blindly support it? That's a precedent that's far more dangerous, and lately, it seems to have taken a firm hold on our country."
I still have a hard time understanding why this is a more dangerous precedent than overturning laws whenever we feel like it. No doubt Kenneth Lay thought that certain laws were unjust and stood in his way. Would you support him too? In his quest for world domination he was getting stepped on, ya know!
I think shutting down the city is a far more serious affair than interfering with Christmas shopping. What about ambulances that can't get through because the streets are clogged? What about social services that have to shut down for a few days... a week? What about businesses that take a major hit and have to restructure, laying off workers? What about when the city's revenue takes a major hit and the mayor starts slashing even more social programs? Seems to me that, however unjust, the Taylor Law is there for a reason. If public worker unions are free to hold the city hostage, odds are, they will. Like Mr. Eisenman said, employers need protection too.
Look, I don't think that the MTA workers should toil in misery for the rest of their life. But I'm trying to find out what other avenues exist. I'm not hankering for a revolution and skirting existing laws seems to me like a last resort only.
And as for your statement "why should THEY suffer?"... I dunno, lots of people have suffered because of September 11th. Why should certain people lose their jobs? Why did certain people have to die in the attacks? Why are certain people in New York homeless? What are you asking me anyways?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
9:33 PM
-
Re: The Virtue of Independence
I suppose I'm having a hard time wrapping my tiny brain around Mr. Stevenson's manifesto for independent thinkers. He claims that independent thinkers (the sort found on the Observer) have the theoretical upper-hand because they rely on reason and argument rather than partisan principles.
He then goes on to list his own assumptions. First, independent thinkers adopt the position of skepticism, "solving" the debate between relativism and absolutism. As far as I can interpret, he is basically saying that he's not quite so skeptical as relativists, and a bit more skeptical than those durn absolutists. Sinner that I am, I don't understand this point. All absolutists are skeptical about certain things, and all relativists eventually resort to absolutism in some form. So basically independent thinkers are somewhere around there. That's swell, it really is. Mr. Stevenson, can you tell me which things you are skeptical about, and at what point your skepticism stops? Because if you can, then you are proceeding from first principles just like us partisan folks. Or do you just sort of wing it, wielding your skepticism when you feel like it? In which case you'll have a hard time convincing me that you are undoubtedly more theoretically effective.
Second, you assert that "greater knowledge" and "superior reasoning ability" will always prevail. What constitutes "greater knowledge"? What constitutes "superior reasoning ability"? Jurgen Habermas used to say much the same thing-- that in the ideal speech situation language users are beholden only to the force of the better argument. Well, since he's not around, I'll ask you: how do we judge the force of the better argument? Do we just feel it in our bones?
Third, how does pessimism towards humanity make you more independent? How was this principle developed--through empirical survey and induction? By reading Adam Smith and admiring the cover (assuming you've read Smith by now... I believe Mr. Waligore called you on this some time ago)?
Sir, I trust you will be patient and gentle with my questions. I am but a little mind overwhelmed by the "ontological dilemma of complexity."
Posted by Brad Plumer,
9:17 PM
-
Detain, Detain, Detain....
I'll be saying hello and introducing myself at the bottom of the post, but for now, onward to the blogworthy item.
Yesterday morning over two thousand men (sixteen years of age and up) from the Middle East voluntarily complied with new federal immigration rule. Immigrants from Libya, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Iraq were required to report to Immigration and Naturalization Service centers for registration and fingerprinting.
And, of course, in Southern California the INS immediately arrested up to a full quarter of them, the majority of whom were merely waiting for green card approvals, or whose 'crimes' were actually bureaucratic errors on the part of INS.
Yes, this makes much sense as a tool to fight terrorism. Arrest a great deal of those who are the most willing to cooperate (remember, they showed up on thier own--no INS agents tracking people down, or kicking down doors). I don't think highly trained terrorists are apt to voluntarily walk into an INS center and submit to fingerprinting. As one advocate said "Terrorists most likely wouldn't come to the INS to register. It is really a bad way to go about it." I'll give points for understatement.
And I can only imagine how this will serve to increase attendance for the immigrants from 13 other countries whom will be required to report by early next month. Obey the law, and get a one in four chance of being detained, with deportation procedures to follow! (How warmly Iraqis whom may have been asylum seekers are received by beneficent leader upon their return is another question.)
The ACLU (bless them) is already on the case. A spokesperson darkly declared that "the purpose is ... to selectively arrest, detain and deport Middle Eastern and Muslim men in the United States." I don't know if that is the purpose. But it sure is a dumb idea.
__________________ So, as promised, a bit about me. I'm a sophomore at our college on the hill, and have just returned from two consecutive off terms, which I spent as paid field staff for a third party gubernatorial candidate. I'm very involved with the Dartmouth College Greens, and have just been selected to serve on the Steering Committee of the Campus Greens, a national organization that is analogous to the College Democrats or the College Republicans. I'm not as wedded to the Greens as the preceding information would imply--it's just I'm sticking with what I've done up to now, and so far nothing persuasive has come down the pipe to convince me otherwise. If I’m not online, in class, studying, eating, or some other necessary activity, you'll be likely to find me watching a DVD or video at the Jones Center, or reading in the newly revamped Periodicals Room (which the library destroyed by hanging up Fox News flat screens and hiply naming it "The News Center.") Sorry for the resume/personal ad, but with the exception of Kumar, I couldn't recognize by face a single poster to this blog. If we're going to be link swapping and debating, I'd at least like my sparing partners/readers/collaborators to know whom I am.
Posted by Clint,
6:07 PM
-
Left Handed Compliments
I have to say that I found Stevenson's congratulatory post insulting. John seems to take much intellectual satisfaction from disavowing political labels. His insinuation is that to be independant thinker is to be so idiosyncratic in one's views that no label will fit. Those of us who do attach political labels to ourselves are using an intellectual crutch; we are not coming to our conclusions on our own. Personally, I both disagree with John's thinking and think it is too self-congratulatory. Over time, as my views developed, I came to agree with the values and thinking of Liberalism. Mine is not a whole-hearted acceptance, but a questioning one. What makes you more independant of a thinker than me, John?
John Stevenson, of the Dartmouth Observer blog, wrote the following this morning on his blog:
"A hearty congradulations to my colleagues at the Free Press. As Mr. Eisenmann pointed out they have created a new blog, which has been whirring with activity. That brings the count of Dartmouth Blogs to three: two voices of the establishments of Right and Left(Review and Free Press) and the Independent Voces Deserto right here. It will be nice having someone else to disagree with other than the Review but unfortunately it will drain the Left from this site pushing it sqaurely in the center-right. Thus, we shall loose some ideological diversity. However, it will allow Laura to find her voice again (i am the lone feminist here now) and Tim can preach to the choir there. We wonder if Eisenmann will be content to agree among the Left or will he continue to taunt both of us. (He is one of the more independent voices of the Left and comes off more moderate than myself.)
Having lost the narrow Israel-like coalition of alternative bloggers (Labour just walked out), it seems that we will have to reach out to the new groups forming on campus: the Dartmouth Independent Forum, the Dartmouth Objectivist Society, and some old freinds of mine the Dartmouth Libertarians. Also we might want to reach out to the Christian group Voces Clamantium. That will bring many into the blog debate and provide much fodder for discussion and discourse. (Atleast until school starts. Blogging during a term is difficult.) I extend recognition to our sibling blog, Free Dartmouth, as we also were recognized and recognize Dartlog. We only ask that they too recognize us. Let the discussion begin.
PS (They look better than we do. Of course, they would naturally say this is because their worldview is more attractive than ours. I concur. It is difficult to be an independent thinker; it is always less attractive to take the more difficult road. Also, more criticism of the new Bush tax plan please, Free Press. I have only seen a couple entries. Lastly, ChienWen you going to have to politics now buddy.) Not really on the political spectrum: Stevenson"
Tim says some interesting things (as usual). Anyway, to the point. Tim asks:
Does anyone honestly talk like they did in that blitz from Ledyard?
I would posit that there are some people that speak in that manner, although I doubt that entire lexicon ever enters just one of their comments. Likewise, for instance, my use of the words "posit" and "lexicon" could either be seen as my legitimate speaking habits, as pretense, or as me mocking pretense (to settle any debate, I am legitimately pretentious). But anyway, the point is, by going so overboard, the blitz is clearly satirization of the culture that speaks in the way the Ledyard kids did. The question to ask is whether to do so is targeting African Americans in an unfair and cruel manner. I have claimed, previously, that it cannot be said to be targeted toward African Americans, as the terminology used has undeniably transcended that community.
Now, I have seen part of Bamboozled (I fell asleep somewhere in there). Rather than take what Tim did from it (although I am not denying Tim's understanding), I would also note that the fact that Spike Lee hasn't been villified for making that movie is because it is acceptable to satirize the perception of black people that the minstrel show featured. Why? Because very, very few people would tell you that African Americans actually behave in the manner Lee's blackfaced actors portrayed them. That's the difference between seriously conducting an actual minstrel show and satirizing one. Do you think the kids at Ledyard actually think African Americans speak like that? I somehow doubt it. For that matter, you could've sent that blitz to many people in good ol' Conway, SC, and they would've taken it as satire, as well. Furthermore, African Americans have deigned it appropriate to satirize this "gangsta" element, as Tim referred to it, themselves. There was some minor hiccup in more conservative circles about what amounts to a "ghetto" party thrown at the AAm earlier this term. But there was no campus wide censure, this time. One could make the claim that this is because only whites have no right to appropriate the terminology, but I beg to differ, and I do so despite Tim's protest that "just because it's on MTV or a sitcom, it must be acceptable?" No Tim, not just because it's on MTV or a sitcom, but because it's portrayal there indicates its place in popular culture. You might make the argument that old white people control MTV, but an old white man did not get Run-DMC, Public Enemy, Hammer, Eazy E, Snoop, Dr. Dre, or even Coolio enough cultural clout to make it onto MTV in the first place. Perhaps it is a chicken-or-egg question. You can see where I fall. I think you could draw an analogy back to music-driven movements through at least the 60s, wherein older or more conservative whites were not appreciative of the influence of hippies on the popular culture. The fact that this time, it's a very small urban black culture that caused the influence should be indicative of greater racial incorporation, not discord.
Tim also says:
I don't think we should take our moral theory from television producers,
to which I respond that what I am advocating is not that at all. Television producers are giving us instantiations onto which we will map whatever theory it is that we're pursuing here. Theirs is the fodder for processing, not the morals themselves. Because of this, I am of the opinion it is useless to ask about where we were 10 years ago when shows were making fun of homosexuals, etc. Of course it was wrong then, but it happened. Criticism of the morality of history is useless, because if you realize something in the past was immoral, you've corrected it in the present, and if you do not, then you wouldn't be in position to offer moral commentary on it. Regardless, I don't think my logic excuses historical moral blunder. Rather, my logic makes it OK to have a show like Will and Grace; a show that represents an incorporation of culture, and then perhaps satirizes elements of it. This is not a show that represents homosexuality as "other" and uses identification with it as indemnifying.
But now, I'll weigh in on Tim's conclusion:
somehow we have to figure out the spirit in which we should approach claims of being justifiably offended
To a few of you, my opinion on this matter will come as no surprise. I don't think there is such a thing as "justifiably offended." I believe to conclude that there is is to claim a necessary connection between some offending instance and some person's state of mind. Personally, I find this claim distasteful, much to the chagrin of some of my uber-Left friends (a few of whom are reading this). Perhaps it's another Eisenmanism. When I was growing up, my grandmother always told me not to take offense. It really doesn't do one much good. I tend to agree. I also tend to add think that conceding the point that some things justifiably offend people robs individuals of a certain "sacred" label I put on one's control of one's own mind. These days people are either robbed of that notion of control by reductionist psychology majors who think that they know everything or by those that wish to make everyone a victim. Maybe this is the conservative streak in me (in fact, I think it is), but I think that there is sometimes a good bit of danger in pursuing this track. I, for one, will not be robbed of my good sense, sirs. That said, I cannot say I, the indomitable stoic, have proceeded never to be offended by anything. Nevertheless, I think that oftentimes a bit of reflection is all that is needed to combat that.
Now, I anticipate a response asking me something like: "so blacks shouldn't be offended when Trent Lott says America would be better off if they were still sharecroppers?" No, I am not saying that. This idea should outrage blacks, not offend them. There is a difference. Statements can be wrong or right without a criterion for offensive/inoffensive. Should blacks be offended by this statement? Well, I wouldn't be offended if Trent Lott said Jews should be made into soap. I would find the remark, even in light of recent (circa 60 years) history, to be ridiculous, misguided, and stupid, but it wouldn't offend me. Would I exercise my right to free speech in vocally resisting this idea? Yes. But it wouldn't be on the grounds that it's "offensive." It would be on the grounds that it's "wrong." So I think if someone wants to show that the adoption of speech patterns by white suburbanites is wrong, they are not doing it by showing that it is offensive. They will need to show that just the vocalization of those words causes harm (I'll take mental harm, too) to blacks. I think that many Leftists here think that they can show this, in general. I think in cases they are right. I don't think, however, that the specific instance of which we speak does will meet this criterion, and I challenge those that say it does to provide more than nebulous thought experiments to show it (i.e., no "how would you feel if..."). What is needed is to find an example of a black person who, because he or she is subjected to white appropriation of "ghetto-speak" is now physically or psychologically damaged. I think it would be easier to find a few million black Eminem fans/counterpoints to your claim.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:22 PM
-
Transit Strike Bloomberg's office sought an injunction against the strike on the grounds of the Taylor law, and then the Union fought it, hoping it wouldn't apply. Should Bloomberg have "tossed it aside"? No, it's not a salad. He actively faught it and then pushed it back, knowing that people would be more likely to oppose the strike and the workers, no matter how right they were, if it interfered with their Christmas shopping. Should public workers circumvent the law? No. If a law is not just, should be blindly support it? That's a precedent that's far more dangerous, and lately, it seems to have taken a firm hold on our country.
Transit workers (in an article you have to BUY now, as it was in September on NYTimes.com) had made less than 1.4% gains in their wages over the last five years. That's not just below, it's far below. Here is what they got in this round, which is still not going to take them back up. What's more important here, though, is the somewhat scary - to me - idea that these people should suffer because of the failed management of the state. Because Rudolph Giuliani couldn't handle the idea of a rainy day fund, and because his chosen one can't stop giving major businesses tax breaks, these people should suffer? Of course not. Even if it was JUST because of Sept. 11th, even if it wasn't at all the city's fault, even if God herself struck down the city's treasury, why should THEY suffer? Are they less important? Are they really holding the mayor hostage, that poor billionaire, by not doing what they're not paid to do? No. He's holding them, and it's not fair.
Posted by Jared,
11:25 AM
-
Dot Com It's official - we're a dot.com. Thanks so much to Laura Dellagorgeous and Matt someguy for setting the Blog up and getting us a domain, and of course for Kumar for buggin'. Freedartmouth.com. Freedartmouth.com. Also, didn't realize until I was off campus that the pictures didn't show up off campus. :) Why did no one tell? As an aside, on a hint from Jon E, I am taking all e-mail addy's off for now - let me know if that's cool or not - I think it definitely makes sense for now.
Does anyone honestly talk like they did in that blitz from Ledyard? I find the 'ho' references offensive, whatever its 'cultural authenticity. Often, so called 'jive' talk is just what people imagine 'gangstas' talk like. I think this whole topic is a very interesting debate. To those of you who question Kumar's point, where do you draw the line? Would you think that minstrel shows, watermelon patches, black face and the like would be a good thing? I hope not, but I challenge those who would defend such an absolutist stance. I'm not speaking of what should be 'banned' or anything like that, but what we should, in our speech and actions, condemn as egregiously offensive.
Have you all seen seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled? In it, a black television producer is told to come up with something 'urban' and 'hip' by his white producer, so he comes up with something so shocking he thinks it will get him fired: a modern day minstrel show. But the producers go for it and blackface becomes a hit. When I saw it, I thought the movie was trying to say this isn't so far from the reality of some of today's TV shows. I mean, would all you really say just because it's on MTV or a sitcom, it must be acceptable? If so, think back at some of the shows 20 or 30 (or even 10) years ago, on topics like race and homosexuality. I don't think we should take our moral theory from television producers. So if it is true that just because something is in the culture, that doesn't automatically mean it's not offensive, what standards and whose standards do we judge it by? How do we take claims by groups that say something is offensive?
I don't think we say someone finds it offensive, and therefore it should not be on TV. The Catholic League, for example, is constantly condemning things that are really far out there. Should the Sapranos be taken off the air because italian americans worry it may reinforce the stereotypes that all italians are in the mafia? What about South Park???
Talking about literature, what about offending religions? Salmon Rushdie, for example? Or Tom Paine, for example, who condemned Christianity with great virulence (saying it would be better that a thousand devils go forth and preach their doctrines than one believer in the Bible go forth and preach his lies?) The Enlightenment was founded in part on mockery of established traditions and religions like Christianity.
A preliminary thought: somehow we have to figure out the spirit in which we should approach claims of being justifiably offended. No one has the 'right' not to be offended, but when we say or do something that others find offensive, we should ask why we are doing it, and do we need to cause this offense? In the case of theme parties, there seems little point to having them themed like that, except whatever 'fun' is gained through the stereotype. What I object to most is not that people would ultimately reject the point of view of people and groups who say 'please stop', but that people don't even really consider their claims in the first place. They often do not need to, and feel no need to understand other cultures. they say I didn't intend to cause offense. Well sure, that means it wasn't intentional, and that's important to remember, but we should also think about what kind of culture exists in America that makes it so people are ignorant and the priviledged can remain so until someone protests. Why needlessly offend? Perhaps there are 'whys' and 'needs' to offend sometimes. But I would say part of the spirit we should approach claims, particularly by minority groups who have been stereotyped in the past, is that 'we' do always know everything and should not presume we do so: we often are not aware of the legitimate reasons why people are offended, and the lack of listening and assuming your current state of knowledge means you should not simply judge without hearing the other side. We should be open to hearing reasons and presume in the first case that the concerns are sincere (which they likely are) and legitimate. But I think this needs to be worked out through examples and counterexamples, so I welcome a continuing dialogue on this.
So should Bloomberg have tossed aside the law? Should public workers be able to circumvent the law and hold the mayor hostage just because they feel they deserve it? Seems like it sets a bad precedent... yes? no?
And on what are you basing your assertion that these people have "been getting raises that were lower than the cost of living for several years"? The only facts I've seen said that these workers make an average of $44,000 a year. That's not luxurious by any means, but you can survive in New York for a lot less. Are they really the only public workers with limited health insurance, etc.? Maybe I am "facile and ignorant," but there's only one thing that will change that... fill me in.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:05 AM
-
Striking Observation
I was inclined, until yesterday, to think of unionization as the purest manifestation of free-market capitalism. I tend to think of "free-market" as maximizing the freedoms market participants have to function within that market in buying and selling. Consequently, when I think of laborers as selling their labor, the more freedom they have to do so through unionization, the better. Indeed, this seems to touch upon a fundamental right to organize that people seem to appreciate. However, I realized that if consumers are protected (ostensibly) from collusion by producers, the same protection from collusion should, to some extent, apply to all venues functioning on a producer/consumer model. Thus, if labor are producers and industry the consumers, should industry not receive some protection from collusion by producers? I would bet that this is a gross oversimplification, but I like those. The question is, what's wrong with it? If nothing, then I will add this to my corpus of simplistic yet compelling Eisenmanisms.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:58 AM
-
Few Things Just got a chance to look on the Blog - it's been so active! I'm really stoked.
1. Administrative - Do we want to show, as we are now, "The Last 7 Days" on the Blog main page, or last 10 posts, or something else?
2. Administrative - Format - I don't know why sometimes it shows as a break and sometimes it treats spaces [you can look at the code if you get bored] as paragraph divides, but, either way, it seems to look fine in general with spacing.
3. Democracy, fight for freedom, liberalism - I don't know what people know about or don't about the transit strike that was "averted" in New York, but as for how sympathetic it is, I think that it's sort of a perversion of sense to argue that the union was in the wrong because the strike was illegal. What in Hell would justify making strikes illegal? I don't know if some people read some of the more one-sided arguments like this on MSN, but they revolve around the fact that the city would be crippled by a strike of the transit workers, business halted, traffic unmanageable. They refer to the Taylor Law, which makes it illegal for public workers to strike, and in fact fines them TWICE their wages per day if they do. While it is true that New York would be thus crippled, this is only a potent demonstration of the importance of these workers. As for the law, it's what many could easily describe as a travesty of justice. It is a choke hold, preventing thousands of workers from speaking their voice in the only way it will likely be heard.
And the concept of taking advantage of Bloomberg is laughable. This is a man who could solve the budget problem with his own pocket-book whose only Mayoral qualifications were his ability to use a database and a wink and nod recommendation from Rudolph the hide-the-poor happened-to-be-there hero of September 11th. Taking advantage of this man, or the ailing economy and financial situation of the city, might be the aim of a few. But it would be ignorant and facile to pretend that this is some pleasurable revenge or planned legal robbery on behalf of the Union. These are people with limited health insurance, few benefits, little to no retirement plans, and, more importantly, who have been getting raises that were lower than the cost of living for several years. They demanded some sort of catch up, safer work environments, and better wages. To call them opportunistic would be as inane as calling a starving Indian child an opportunist because of the flawed Indian Economic Model.
The rookie mayor and his budget problems are a problem that New York voted for blindly as he held the tail end of the flag waving parade. He is a business-first people last kind of man who has no experience at all in government, so the people, perhaps some of the same who are fighting him and his sadistic use of the Taylor Law, deserve it. That's Democracy. As for the economy, that's noone's fault. But the transit workers were stepped on, have been for a long time, and when they tried to get up, their strike was called illegal. They should have held on, maybe, crippled the city. The city has to learn that the people who hold its shiny marble floor up with shaky hands are down there in the basement living lives that no one in Bloomberg's office would comprehend. But, in this season, and we'll note that it was the Mayor's office that postponed the negotiations until the Christmas Season, in this season, with the Taylor Law upheld, no one can afford to win on principle, so what's left over wins.
Ah, Mr. Plumer, even if Mr. West is right, I adopted my title, verbatim, from a line spoken by a large African-American gentleman to Eddie Murphy in the fine film Trading Places. We could use Mr. Murphy as an early example of the exportation of the type of the culture of which we speak. Chris Rock continues in this tradition, and his largely racially mixed audience seems to have little concern. The problem is that the few people that are inclined to be sensitive to this are also the few people that are inclined to scream the loudest.
Cornel West claimed once that white folks originally invented this "jive-talking" as a racial insult. If that's true, then Mr. Eisenman, your "export" theory is wrong, alas. But I think your point stands, or at least pops a sturdy squat...
Kumar, you haven't clarified whether you think a form of speech can detach itself from its cultural origin and become just a form of speech, part of popular culture. Because seemingly, if you grant that, then it's possible that the blitz was simply parodying a pop cultural phenomenon rather than an entire culture, no? Does "Disco Inferno" parody the actual culture of disco-goers or the perception of disco culture that has become "common currency"? (Assuming there's a difference).
I don't know if I necessarily believe all that... but I think it's an interesting debate nonetheless.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:39 AM
-
Don't Be No Jive Turkey
I'd like to extend Plumer on this. The language used in the Ledyard blitz is part of popular culture. It is no longer "black" language, accessible only to African-Americans. Members of urban black communities exported it to suburban white country, from whence I would bet every member of Ledyard to a man/woman/transgendered individual (or mascot animal that has rights, too) hails. Once it hits MTV, it's a done deal. The culture becomes anyone's to satirize. In fact, I would date this availability for mockery back to before the original, ill-fated "Ghetto Party" and would use this logic to defend that. The same would be the case for Apu if there were desis on MTV doing their best to make it "cool" to speak with a South Asian accent and jockey a convenience store counter. As this is not the case, faux-desispeak could be deemed offensive, while the mockbonics could not.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:07 AM
-
Wednesday, December 18, 2002 Apu From the Brown Light
I don't know when attempts at ethnic humor suddenly stop sounding funny. We all draw the line at different places. While I may laugh at/with Apu most of the time, I am sometimes very bothered by the character. It is uncomfortable (and maybe even painful) to have one's culture simplified and mocked. Usually, I remind myself that it all in good fun, that no meaness sits behind the joke.
This is why I think the teller of the joke is critical. You can say things about your own that others cannot. I can make fun on my parents, you cannot. Ultimately, I love them. I don't know if you do. This analogy applies to this case. I was unnerved by the Ledyard email because I did not if the sender was poking light fun or displaying their social attitudes.
So in light of the upcoming debates on Bush's new tax reforms, I thought of something today that hopefully someone can gun down.
I don't know if this has ever been brought up before (no doubt it has, and by someone with actual "knowledge" to boot! but i digress...). Is a progressive tax structure inherently more unstable? Let's say that 10 percent of Americans are paying 40 percent of the taxes (or however the numbers come out). Those ten percent presumably have their income closely tied to the fortunes of the economy-- in stocks, dividends, etc. Thus, their incomes fluctuate far more wildly than the other 90 percent, amount-wise. If the US goes into recession, Bill Gates' piggy bank takes a major dip-- somewhere in the billions, say, which makes a huge difference on what the government takes in. And that's just one person. So the more the government depends on the wealthy for taxes, the less dependable the government's income becomes.
Is that actually true? Does it even make sense? Is there a way to counter this effect?
Edit: Wow, I kind of feel like a dolt. Does anyone know of any good introductory books that will give me a nice in-depth discussion on how economics works? Length is no concern, so long as the pictures are pretty...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
11:27 PM
-
Oh look, they talk funny...
Kumar-- why??
My sister was watching "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" today, and at one point Will Smith began talking in (what I perceived to be) the same manner found in that blitz. That style of speech seems to be common currency, and endures endless parody. One of the new Jacko cartoons played with many of those mannerisms, no? (I'm thinking of the "Chetto" strip...) Do you find those instances offensive too? What makes the Ledyard blitz different? If someone sent out a blitz parodying the speech of Apu from the Simpsons, would you be offended? What about Mayor Quinby? (And do either of those characters offend you?)
Clarify yo'self. I mean... yourself.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
11:06 PM
-
Race Consciousness at Dartmouth: Ghetto Party II?
The following was an email I was forwaded this past term. It was an invitation to a Dartmouth party this past term. The theme was eventually changed and apologies submitted (they are below). The authors names have been removed. Take the emails as you will. Maybe I am being politically correct, but I found it offensive.
>Date: 06 Nov 2002 21:44:56 EST >From: >Reply-To: >Subject: Fry 2 da dizzay >To: (Recipient list suppressed)
"Yo I'm comin at ya hard bein' a thug And I aint givin up till I get that gangsta love"
yo wassup?
me and my homies was thinkin dat we need to have us a big azz partay dis friday. y'alls invited.
and yall needs to dress right. I ain't havin none of dis I-ain't-got-me-no-good-threads bull sheet. if youz a pimp, youz gonna wear your gator boots wit da pimped out gucci suits. if you is a ho, youz gonna dress like a ho. if youz a thug, you is gonna sport yo wife-beater and bangin tan with yo baggy azz jeans.
but I ain't rich, so if youz all gonna knock back dee refreshments, ya needz to show the love and slap over some dirty money. bling-bling playa.
so biz-ounce to my hizzouse at 9 on Friday fo my Gangsta Lovin partay. its gonna be OFF DA HOOK! holla.
bag up. get crunk. word John-Boi Ledyard
ledyard 9pm THIS friday night, November 8 GANGSTA LOVIN bring $
--- Forwarded message from Ledyard Canoe Club ---
>Date: 06 Nov 2002 22:14:29 EST >From: Ledyard Canoe Club >Subject: >To: DOC-Ledyard-Hartlands@Mac, DOC-Ski-Patrol@Mac, doc-snowboard-council@Mac
Just in case there was any confusion/misinterpretation of our party invite, we wanted to clarify. "Gansta Lovin" has no racist comments or connotations in it - it's just a song by Eve and Alicia Keys that we're basing a party off of. We hope no one is offended by the blitz; we do not intend to deride or mock any people or group. Hope to see you all there Friday in your best lookin' outfits!
Posted by Kumar,
10:37 PM
-
Why Republicans are bad
Perhaps this post should go to the other blog in which I participate, since it is likely to garner a more pleasant response there. It's really quite simple though. I will start from the premise that no matter what the policy calculus one utilizes, the results can never be bad. The second premise is that failing to utilizes one's policy calculus is always bad. Thirdly, we will note that the Republican calculus emphasizes devolution of power from Federal to State governments, and a hands-off approach from the Federal government to powers assumed by the States. Therefore, our conclusion is that the Republican Party always does good by acting upon a doctrine of non-interference with local decisions. Now we inject these little premises into the argument, and see if our conclusion still follows. The Republican DOJ is currently up California's ass on its medicinal marijuana policy. The Republican Party in general, and the DOJ specifically, is chock full of people who devalue individual privacy rights. The Republican Party seeks Federal legislation to preempt States from setting their own laws, vis-a-vis abortion. It goes on and on. The point is, the conclusion no longer follows from the premises. The Republicans are hypocrites. We already knew that on this blog, though. The real question is how to get Democrats to beat them out for office.
Posted by Jonathan,
9:25 PM
-
Can you guess who said this?
"How many Palestinians were on those airplanes on September 9th? None."
Posted by Timothy,
6:24 PM
-
Clinton calls out the GOP on race hypocrisy:
At least some Democrats are speaking loudly about this and getting the point across: "How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" Clinton told CNN outside a business luncheon he was attending. "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy." He added: "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it."
Posted by Timothy,
6:06 PM
-
Senator Bill Frist is often touted as Bush's favored replacement for Trent Lott, but he seems to have his own issues when it comes to his signature issue, health care. Seems he might have earned a fortune helping to start a company that earned its money by buying out small non-profits and dumping their poor customers.
Posted by Timothy,
4:39 PM
-
Does anyone have any thoughts on what is going on Venezuela?
Posted by Timothy,
4:01 PM
-
Rebellion Against U.S. News rankings?
Seems there are plans to thwart U.S. News and World Report's efforts to rank law schools:
Under a concept being developed by the Law School Admission Council, a nonprofit organization of 185 U.S. law schools and 15 in Canada that administers the Law School Admission Test, member schools would no longer be told the actual LSAT scores of their applicants -- and so couldn't provide schoolwide scores to the magazine. Under the proposed change, when a law school asks the council for an applicant's LSAT score, the council would disclose only how that student's score ranks among all the school's applicants.
The Democrats need a leader who is willing to fight against the Republicans. And Daschle doesn't fit the bill. If this wasn't clear after the disasterous midterm elections, it should be now be clear that Daschle has been so accommodating on the Lott issue. (Turns out he may leave the leadership to run for President; successors like Senate Whip Harry Reid and Chris Dodd are already "The Note", which first reported the comments Lott made at Strom's birthday party, had this summary (via altercation):
“No one seems to have noticed that pre-Hannity, Tom Daschle had to serve up as many statements as Lott.”
In Notey paraphrase, a brief review of the Leaders’ Minuet:
Round #2: Lott: “It was a poor choice of words.” Daschle: “Yes, it was a poor choice of words.”
Round #3: Lott: “I am sooo sorry.” Daschle: “You should be.”
But here's Daschle's defense, from National Journal's Hotline: On why he seemed to defend Lott in the first days after Thurmond's birthday: "I had just spoken to Senator Lott and he had apologized to me profusely and asked me to extend the apology to anyone that might have been offended ... Secondly, I didn't know at the time that this was part of a larger pattern, that he said something almost identically almost twenty years ago ... Once I understood the context, it made it all the more outrageous." On Rep. Maxine Waters' (D-CA) criticism that he should have taken a stronger stand against Lott: "She's right. There's no question. If I had known then what I know today I would have take a much harder stance right away. ... I feel much differently about it now that I have all the facts" ("Capital Report," CNBC, 12/17).
Yet, Andrew Sullivan and The National Review condemned Lott before this 'pattern' emerged and before Daschle even made his first comments on the matter. (But don't buy the myth that right wing bloggers and columnists started this; Gore and members of the Congressional Black Caucus criticized Lott long before Bush, and bloggers like atrios and Josh Marshall were first on the story.) It's sad the Democrats have such spineless leadership.
Posted by Timothy,
3:34 PM
-
Slavery and Statistics
Do you all remember the study on slavery and free blacks by Dartmouth Economics Professor Bruce Sacerdote? The Dartmouth had an article on it that I heard caused controversy. (They also ran a pretentious column in which the writer said: "I was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying....") I had a chance to read the actual paper earlier, but I want to talk about it now that I've finally finished my last assignment due this year (ironically, three statistics papers).
The abstract says that Sacerdote compared "outcomes for former slaves and their children to outcomes for free balcks (pre-1865), and their children and grandchildren... I find that it took roughly two generations for the descendants of slaves to 'catch up' to descendants of free black men and women." Those quotes around 'catch up' are rather key, because it is not clear to me that 'convergence' between these two groups is evidence that descedents of slaves 'caught up' rather than free blacks 'fell back' relative to whites. The report makes major qualifications to its claims in the text of the paper, but the image that people get of the report is based on how the author, Dartmouth College's official press release, and The Dartmouth present what can be concluded from the study (note the similarities between the latter two sources). Sacerdote seems to be arguing that slavery's effects ended a generation of two after slavery and that is what is interesting about his study, namely that slavery doesn't have lingering economic effects for Blacks (and hence reparations advocates have no basis for their claim). In the conclusion of the paper, Sacerdote notes that "A major topic for future research is whether or not convergence within two generations is a common phenomenon observed after social barriers between groups are removed....If poltical changes in the 1960s and 1970s freed black workers from institutionalized discrimination, then perhaps black-white convergence might occur within one or two generations from now." One might just as well conclude that one type of discrimination is replaced with another (less malign?) version.
But in the study itself, there are major qualifications to the claim in the abstract.. First Sacerdote says "I classify blacks as being born into slavery if they are born in a slave state before 1865." Sacerdote says this is "a reasonable assumption" as "94% of blacks in the South were slaves." So he compares Blacks who move out of the South to those whose families were already in the North, yet he notes in a footnte that "Clearly families that move are different than ones that stay and so I offer the various estimates of the effect of slavery not as perfect estimates, but rather as the best estimates i can devise." He later says another of his estimates should be taken "with a pound of salt.". (And of course, there is the obvious problem that measures like census data and literacy do not capture the full extent of position of Blacks in 19th century America). One could respond: well, there are difficulties with statistics, and this is a pretty good study given the limitations of statistics. Maybe, but I would respond we should acknowledge their limitations and not base our knowledge only on what can be (mis)measured. Someone who studied African American studies could probably critique the part of Sacerdote's study that relies on the testimony of 19th century Black intellectuals. We should be careful about statistical studies, as they are not completely objective and 'neutral': they makes assumption and draw unwarrented conclusions My friend Unai sent me this quote, supposedly from a Nixon advisor:
statistics are like bikinis what they reveal is enticing what they conceal essential
Posted by Timothy,
4:10 AM
-
What to do with all the fudge...
I really like the distinction between principled arguments and pragmatic considerations... *fishes for notebook. no luck. writes on hand.*
On the fudge issue, I definitely had in mind the patterns you mentioned. A kid who pulled off a 1400 SAT because his/her parents paid through the orifice for Kaplan and the like strikes me as no more valid an Ivy Leaguer than a minority whose application got a boost because of diversity concerns. Heck, I feel lucky that in the beginning of high school I moved from a horrid public school in New York back to my old private school in Tokyo. Had I stayed in the public school, I almost certainly would not be at Dartmouth right now. Maybe I exaggerate by calling all of thus fudging. But I could never honestly say that I've earned a spot at Dartmouth all by myself, and this or that minority hasn't, because of diversity considerations.
But that brings up another question... the difference between affirmative action towards minority races vs. towards the economic lower class? Colleges nowadays seem to make a real effort to search out students who probably have as much brains, etc. as anyone, but lack the financial wherewithal that can help a student in very tangible ways. I think this approach is entirely fair and non-discriminatory. If colleges continue this trend is affirmative action really necessary? If minorities are concerned that they have social and financial disadvantages that keep them out of elite universities, won't an "economically aware" admissions office that tries to see past these disadvantages help level the playing field?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:32 AM
-
Suppression of Votes In South Dakota
Some of you may have heard conservatives parroting the line that there was voter fraud in South Dakota. Lots of times this is simply an attempt to suppress votes from groups that are not registered and are likely to vote for democrats, apparently, like Native Americans. Josh Marshall has been all over this one; he notes that the Republican Attourney General has said there is no widespread fraud, and it turns out that some of the affidavits alleging fraud may have been forged.
Posted by Timothy,
3:15 AM
-
Fudging your way into the Ivy League
Brad, you said people fudge their way into the Ivy League. Well, how exactly do people do that? I don't mean the odd person, but are there patterns (eg. use of test prep? elite private schools? alum preferences? athletic slots?) I think it is fair to say that in the past rich white males have best been able to do that. Hence the need for affirmative action to 'level the playing field', that is, if these resources have been disproptionally unavailable to historically disadvantaged groups.
But I think you're right when you mention the myth that is the the image of the superbly qualified white being denied over the unqualified minority. I remember reading a newsweek article two years ago or so, about this white woman student who applied to the University of Michigan and was suing for being denied. The article began by saying something like 'she was the kind of student every college wants.' Their evidence? She had a 4.0 G.P.A. Wahoo. Dime a dozen these days. She obviously wasn't better than all the other white students were let in, so she wasn't 'superbly qualified' or at least not anymore so than everyone else that was denied. It's interesting that in the 1978 Bakke decision, the guy who sued and was ordered to be admitted, probably wouldn't have made it in had there not been racial quotas.
One more thing on the argument that affirmative action promotes the view to others and to minorities themselves that they are undeserving. First, this is not a principled argument against affirmative action. I don't mean that it is unprincipled, but that it is a pragmatic consideration that depends on an empirical claim: it is a (potential) cost to be weighed against the benefits. On a pragmatic basis, I would say that those who promote this argument more often exacerbate and fan the very feelings they are claiming they wish were not there. This alone doesn't mean the argument is wrong, but it does show the danger of promoting that view, and frustrates those of us who see affirmative action framed in arguments and in the media in the terms Brad mentioned.
Posted by Timothy,
2:51 AM
-
Tuesday, December 17, 2002 Re: Diversity in Admissions
Thanks, that was really helpful...
Just briefly... (since I haven't thought overly much about affirmative action and probably need time to hash out a whopping stance and the like...)
I've heard two arguments against affirmative action that sound nifty, but I have no idea if they sound nifty to people "in the know". One is that minorities that benefit from affirmative action are stigmatized by their peers, not respected nearly as much because they haven't "earned" their position. The other is that minorities actually feel inadequate because they received a free ride (I think D'Souza brings this one up... others too).
The first seems to me a product of framing the affirmative action debate with a particular and frequent example. We always hear about the supremely well-qualified white guy who gets passed over in favor of the much lesser qualified minority. This probably very rarely happens. Yes, I've met some minorities at Dartmouth who I don't respect intellectually. I've also met plenty of white people towards whom I feel the exact same way. And I'm sure I've provoked more than a few people to think that of me... LOTS of people fudge their way into elite institutions. I don't see why affirmative action is special in that regards.
As for the second... no idea. Is this a problem? No one I know feels this way, but I don't know everyone, and my personal anecdotes probably don't pass off as solid arguments, alas...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
8:10 PM
-
A kinder, gentler GOP?
Bryan Preston strategizes in the National Review Online today about how the Republicans can win the hearts of black voters. Step one, drag the Dems into a national debate over school vouchers. Step two, highlight the military's role in promoting and benefitting thousands of minority youngsters. Step three, show strong support for enterprise zones, or tax free zones to lure industry back into the inner city.
Ummm... what?
Now I like the school voucher idea (though Kumar can probably rake me over the coals on that one), and I think our soldiers should have benefits coming out their ears for what they do. But at least from personal experience I think the Republicans have sorely deluded themselves if they think these enterprise zones enjoy strong support among black voters.
I saw one of these enterprise zones in action this summer, on 125th street in West Harlem (I lived on 135th). A sparkling new HMV, a Gap, a glitzy movie theater, some impressive fast food chains lined the streets. The whole thing looked swell, it really did, and during the daytime affluent white shoppers and teenagers flowed like wine. What was once a rather gritty part of town now seemed as vibrant as 42nd street.
Now the downside. Rent and property prices were flying through the roof. Plenty of people were forced to pack up and leave. The woman I lived with had to rent out a room in her apartment just to make ends meet. She was not on welfare. She was not a crackwhore. She worked for Verizon and read countless books on how to save money and get ahead (alright, she was more complex than that... I'm just trying to give a picture of a hardworking, honest citzen here...). I don't think her problems were unique. On every street corner on any given day you could find a speaker angry about the current state of affairs, and plenty of people congregating to listen. Every wall and fence was plastered with signs complaining that the people of Harlem were being pushed further and further uptown.
And did the Gap and HMV actually make the area nicer? Well, 125th street was nice, but even five blocks up the neighborhood got dirty and dangerous real fast. That Harlem has improved in that respect is probably owing more to Giuliani's policing system rather than the Gap. And just because the area isn't overflowing with poor people anymore doesn't mean those poor people have suddenly disappeared. They get pushed uptown, or even out of Manhattan (the woman I lived with finally moved out at the end of the summer). And while it may surprise many in the GOP, law abiding citzens compromise the overwhelming majority of Harlem.
I have a feeling every urban center subject to "free enterprise zones" expriences this turn of events. And I have a very hard time believing that these zones enjoy strong support from black voters.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
7:26 PM
-
Transit strike in NYC
Jared, you mentioned yesterday: "As an aside, I don't know if anyone's chillin' in NY City, but dood, there SO should have been a strike. It's insane how much they're letting themselves get stepped on."
What exactly makes the transit union such a sympathetic cause? If anything, it sounded like they were trying to take advantage of a rookie mayor facing major budget problems ($4 billion over at last count) and a city still recovering from a major catastrophe. Inflation is nearly zero in New York right now and the transit workers made an average of $44,000 a year pre-negotiations, so I have a hard time understanding what pressing needs drove them to threaten an illegal strike in a time when the city can barely afford it. What am I missing? I know nothing about the disciplinary/safety conditions (they rarely get mentioned), so maybe that could shed some light on the situation...
I also have a hard time understanding why the MTA is running a deficit... didn't they cry deficit once before to get the upper hand in negotiations only to "discover" that things weren't so bad?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
6:55 PM
-
I'm Reasonably Sure About Lott
Mickey Kaus says that former Clintonite Sidney Blumenthal might have gotten the ball rolling on Lott's Thurmond comments. He gets his revenge! Drudge has a link saying Lott is rumored to be leaving soon. But I want to question Nick when he says (in a post I think was accidently deleted) that: "it's not unreasonable to argue that Lott was praising Thurmond as a an ultra-rightist in general, not as a 1948 segregationist in particular."
I'm curious to hear this "not unreasonable" argument. Sure, maybe Lott had on in mind that Thurmond was very conservative. But what Lott said on several occasions is that it would have been better if Thurmond won in 1948. In 1948, what exactly what was Thurmond 'ultra-right' about EXCEPT on race? Let me put it another way: if Truman and Democrats hadn't advanced civil rights and had been the same on every other issue, Thurmond would have never run as a 'dixiecrat'. And Lott told Sean Hannity last week that he isn't sure that Truman made a better president than Thrumond. Does anyone want to defend that? Either he's lying or he does not know history at all. Are we to believe that Lott is a moral and intellectual idiot, or that he knew what he was doing? Both great defenses. Trent said on BET that he wished he had voted for the Martin Luther King Holiday. The BET interviewer noted the vote was in the early 80s, and Lott says he still learning... Great.
UPDATE: MSNBC is saying that on a third occasion (this time in 2000), Lott also said Thurmond should have been President (via Thismodernworld):
MSNBC has uncovered a third instance of Sen. Trent Lott saying Sen. Thurmond "should have been President" in 1948, when he ran for President on a segregationist platform. In the video obtained by MSNBC, Sen. Lott is emceeing the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 19, 2000. As Sen. Thurmond signs the bill, Sen. Lott can be heard saying, "Now this is a famous signature right here. He should have been President in 1947 (sic), I think it was." MSNBC contacted Sen. Lott's press secretary, Ron Bonjean, who did not deny that Lott made the comments at the event. Bonjean insists that the fact Lott made the statement at the signing of the defense act makes their case that this is not about race and that it has nothing to do with race. Bonjean told MSNBC it proves that Lott meant Thurmond would have been tougher on defense, fighting Communism and best for the economy.
Posted by Timothy,
6:55 PM
-
Diversity in Admissions
Affirmative action was initially and sometimes still is defended on the grounds that it is compensation for past discrimination, that is, for helping groups that in the past have been systematically discriminated against. That rationale has been criticized as 'backwards looking'. This may help explain the popularity and attraction of the diversity argument, which is 'forward looking' in that is relies for its justification on a desired end of a diverse group of students, not for wronging a past right. I was reading a philosophy article by George Sher, who said that all arguments for diversity in college admissions implicitly rely on the initial 'compensatory' argument for affirmative action. The groups that constitute 'diversity' also are largely the ones that have systematically discriminated against in the past, Sher says. Sher notes the one plausible justification for affirmative action is that it upholds the specific values of the University, if it can be shown (he does not think it has been) that have a racially diverse background improves scholarship. For example, if race is a proxy for having experienced discrimination, this is valuable in adding new perspectives that change the way we look at issues. (Kumar had an article on D'Souza in the free press two years ago, which I wish I could find the link for). Critical race theorists have called affirmative action a majoritarian device, because it seeks to take the elite Blacks in order to stablize society. I don't think racial diversity equals intellectual diversity, but I think any talk of 'diversity' can't exclude race. More to say later (and there's a lot more to be said), but I'm curious what Brad has to say...
Posted by Timothy,
6:50 PM
-
Re: Is Lott the same as Byrd?
Well... let's not forget that the Grand Kleegle Robert "Sheets" Byrd is third in line for president at the moment...
Anyways, Lott is boring. If we're talking about race, why not talk about the upcoming Supreme Court case on affirmative action? Personally, I have the legal background of a fruit fly, so if anyone can supply that aspect of the debate, I'll send you a lock of my hair in gratitude. Seriously, though, I've read what the high kulterkritikers (Chien Wen, John Stevenson, et. al.) mutter about "diversity" and the like. Not much from the progressive corner though (maybe I hang out in the wrong corners?). So what gives? Does racial diversity equal intellectual diversity? Does affirmative action accomplish either of these? Does it push the light of liberalism a little further against Lott and the forces of darkness?
Oh, and after all that I'm not actually going to post anything now. Lots of work (er... haven't *quite* finished up fall term yet) and little sleep make for corny jokes and not much "substance." So I'll post/respond tomorrow morn, crack of dawn. (ie: i'm secretly hoping that someone whose brain moves at a more rapid and coherent rate might kick off this debate.)
edit: techie question. how come sometimes when i look at this thing there are no spaces between paragraphs, and sometimes there are? i added that "br" tag of pure nift, so my posts might look massively spacey. might say the same of my thoughts... :( uh oh, making frowny-faces. should had logged out.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:34 AM
-
Monday, December 16, 2002 Lott on BET:
What did you mean when you say 'those problems'?" Gordon said. "I was talking about the problems of defense, of communism, and budget, of a government that sometimes didn't do its job," Lott said. "But again I understand that was interpreted by people the way it was and I should have been sensitive to that. I obviously made a mistake and I'm doing everything I can to admit that and deal with it and correct it. And I'm hope that people will give me a chance to do so."
He's STILL lying (or just utterly stupid). Thurmond ran on racial segregration in 1948. How would Thurmond have done so much better at shrinking government, etc.? And even if Thurmond had been marginally better at these issues, how could that possibly outweigh racial justice? Trent Lott may not regret the civil rights movement, but he certainly doesn't value it. Thurmond certainly didn't split from the Democrats for the reasons Lott mentioned. Those were the reasons that later Republicans ran successfully on. So if we can't trust Lott to get right what Thurmond was about, how do we believe him today when he claims all Republicans are about is state's rights and smaller government? If he can't tell that Thurmond's platform was racist, how would he know if his own party was not?
Posted by Timothy,
8:52 PM
-
Is Lott the same as Byrd?
One key difference: Trent Lott is the leader of his party in the Senate. Republicans said during the Homeland Security and Iraq debates that no one listens to Byrd. Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now to equate the power of Byrd and Lott? (Of course, Byrd is a powerful Senator on appropriations and the 'elder statesman' of the Democrats.)
Does anyone know exactly what Byrd said then? Well based on the little I know, some food for thought: Byrd's racial record is autrocious (you don't get much worse that having been a member of the KKK), but this shows how tied up both parties, and hence the entire political structure is, in politely ignoring this. I don't buy the excuse that because so many are guilty of living in the past, we should not go after those who we can when their racism comes to light.
Raise your hand if you know what Lott's comments meant. But does anyone know what the hell Byrd was trying to say? I had never heard that phrase before. My guess is that Byrd was trying to say that white people can be as bad as black people, which shows how warped Byrd's mind is and what is considered progress within his worldview. Whatever Byrd meant, it was not a comment repudiating the entire politics of civil rights of the past half century. This doesn't mean Byrd is not racist, but he didn't show a nostalgia for segregation (I don't think). What he showed is that he is still trapped in the racist mentality with which he grew up, even if he's (maybe) tried to outgrow it.
And even if Byrd's comment is equivilent to Lott's, and you want Byrd to go, great! Racists be gone. But how would we do that? I disagree with people who say because Byrds and Lott's comments are equivilent, it hypocritical to call for Lott's resignation. Among other things, holding Lott accountable is pretty clear: get him to step down. How do we hold Byrd accountable? Are Republicans who want to Lott to step down saying Lott should resign from his seat as well? But if this opens up a look at how both political parties have racists, I'm for that. Maybe then conservatives will stop saying racism doesn't exist.
Posted by Timothy,
7:27 PM
-
Game Theory and Lott Ok, I'm glad I can finally put to use some of the game theory I was required to take last year, and address Nick's claim that a decision-tree would lead the Republican party to believe that Lott's threat is not credible. Nick is right that after Lott is no longer majority leader, he has no additional incentive to carry through with his threat to leave. But spite can be very powerful! Nick is assuming all actors are rational, or at least he's not factoring in psychic costs and benefits. It is possible that Lott is a type of actor who is bluffing, or will back down. But it is possible that Lott is a type of person who is spiteful, non-rational, and/or will quit without going through all the rational calculations. Or he might think that most of the benefit from being in the Senate comes from being the leader, and whatever he has left as losing that is not worth as much as the psychic benefit he gets from spiting the party. But here's the larger point: The Republican party cannot be sure what type of actor Lott or how he will make his decision if he loses his post. Therefore, they have to take into account the risk they might lose the Senate against the risk that Lott's being leader will hurt Bush and the Republicans. Without Lott's threat, Republicans have very little to lose by dumping him. With that threat, their calculations of expected utility change, and hence the power of the threat to at least slow down calls for him to be dumped (so he can ride it out...) Nick is right that Lott cannot credibly signal what type of actor he is, or what his preferences are. But this asssumes Lott is entirely rational and that the GOP knows Lott's preference structure: do Republicans really want to risk it to find out if Lott is bluffing?
Posted by Timothy,
6:35 PM
-
Caption Ettiquette Glad to see so many faces here! First, it's customary to try to begin each blog post with a title. You can make it bold by highlighting the word and clicking 'B' on the Blogger editor. That way, if someone is referring to a post, or looking for one, they will be able to do so easily. Oh Jeff, humor is absolutely expected.
Posted by Timothy,
6:26 PM
-
I have to say that in the last issue of the Free Press, I was shocked to find students defending the ban on gay blood. Given that all blood is tested for HIV, it seems paranoid to label whole communties as "at-risk" when clearer distinctions can be made. Its a hard line to draw and it seems a rush to judgement to draw it at the gay community. What if individuals who have been in more than five relationships were prohibited? What if women, who have a higher risk of contracting AIDS, were prohibited? What if people who have ever practiced unsafe sex were prohibited? Most people would say that testing the blood of such people would be enough. Why does such thinking not also apply to gay blood?
Posted by Kumar,
3:20 PM
-
(1) Why would Lott resign if he is voted out of the leadership position? I must have missed that, but come on -- he's already humiliated and marginalized, whether he quits his job or not. His threat to quit should be irrelevant. I'll draw a decision tree for the Republican Party... (2) Byrd is different Lott because Byrd's scholarship fund is paying off thousands of dollars in my student loans, whereas Lott has nothing in his favor except a smile that vaguely reminds me of William H. Macy shortly before he goes off to hire those hit men in Fargo.
Posted by Nic,
1:45 PM
-
Hi everybody! Good to see you again on the web. I wonder what you guys think the Republicans will do about Trent Lott. There are two alternatives, the way I see it. (1) They could allow him to remain Majority Leader, which means he doesnt leave the Senate altogether. However, I think it would make the Republicans look bad for 2004. The Democrats could turn Lott into the devil when turning out the black vote. Since Bush never called on Lott to resign - an implicit endorsement of the man... we could easily associate Lott and Bush. Another possible problem is that keeping Lott as leader MAY convince certain moderate Republicans to switch parties, especially ones that care about courting the votes of minorities. (2) They could force him out of the leadership post. That would remove Lott as a liability and show the Republicans' supposed commitment to civil rights. At worst it will only stop the bleeding. However, if Lott is forced out, he has threatened to resign from the senate altogether. That would mean that Ronnie Musgrove, MS's Democratic governor, would name the replacement. My wild, uneducated guess is that it would be Former Rep. Ronnie Shows, an african-american who lost to Rep. Chip Pickering in 2002 in a newly combined district. With the replacement, the senate would again be 50-50, setting the stage for another Jeffords.
Posted by Timothy,
12:31 PM
-
Jeff, we don't pretend that we always have thoughtful discussions. Kumar, you're right. As an aside, I don't know if anyone's chillin' in NY City, but dood, there SO should have been a strike. It's insane how much they're letting themselves get stepped on. And, Gore's official. Check out the NY Times Article on it. I'm not really interested in any of the Democrats, though I guess I could see supporting Kerry. And, I guess, it's two years away...
Posted by Jared,
11:24 AM
-
How is Sen. Byrd Different? If Lott's comments have created a time of reflection about America's sordid past, Democrats probably need to some soul searching of their own. Senator Byrd, championed by many as the sole voice of reason in the homeland security debate, has a history of race politics that can be considered just as bad as Lott's. As a former Klansman, Byrd tried to fillibuster 1964 Civil Rights Act and continues to use the phrase "white nigger" in television appearances. Byrd's racist comments are usually written off as "he comes from a different time". As the Lott controversy shows, that is no excuse.
Posted by Kumar,
10:16 AM
-
Clearly, this whole scenario (what with Gore ducking out of the '04 race and making fun of Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards on SNL) was designed to sweep Howard Dean into power in 2004. I think we can all get behind that (Sorry if I'm violating the "thoughtful discussion and debate" guideline. We can pretend I'm serious if that makes it better.).
Interesting commentary on how Gore could never had gotten away with what he did on Saturday Night Live if was running for President:
Gore spent the entire evening poking fun at his presumed frustration at not being president. But this wasn't the performance of a man who wants the job—not even candidate Clinton could have gotten away with making homoerotic jokes and impersonating senators (some boundaries were observed, and cannily so: George Bush wasn't mentioned even once). So, it wasn't surprising when the news arrived today that Gore won't run in 2004. Last night was his kiss-off, and you've got to admire that he delivered it sitting in a hot tub and wearing a silly wig.
Posted by Timothy,
5:37 AM
-
Just read the article Tim put up. The most striking thing in it is, to me, the idea of Gore losing the presidency after "winning more votes than any presidential candidate in American history except Ronald Reagan in 1984." I wonder if a SNL appearance is cathartic enough to compensate for having a fair victory stolen by a man who, though functionally illiterate, will likely have the most negative effect on our freedoms, our environment, our economy, our social welfare programs, our educational systems, and our foreign policy ever. At least he didn't vote for Nader, 'cause then it would have been more his fault.
Posted by Jared,
4:03 AM
-
Welcome to Dartmouth's First Progressive Blog I would like to welcome Dartmouth campus, and anyone else who is interested, to Dartmouth's first progressive blog. Although started and run by former editors and staffers of the Dartmouth Free Press, this blog has a diverse set of progressive writers. They include alumni, students, policy debaters, free press writers, aspiring democrats, green activists and more. We hope this will be a forum for thoughtful discussion and debate within a rather vast, vibrant and diverse liberal community.
Posted by Kumar,
2:25 AM
-
SNL prophecy? Al Gore sure didn't seem too presidential on Saturday Night Live, but he was funny, impersonating Trent Lott on a sketch parodying Chris Matthew's Hardball. Here's what The New York Times has to say.
