by russell
From the League of Women Voters notes on a recent City Council Meeting in Salem, MA:
The motion to pass an ordinance to change the language in existing and future ordinances to remove gender bias was distracted by a long debate over the suitability of changing "manhole" to "maintenance hole." Though this linguistic change has no bearing on what anyone else calls the hole leading to sewage, six male councilors, Councilors Dibble, Dominguez, Flynn, McCarthy, Prosniewski, and Sargent, determined that “manhole” must indeed remain masculine. Those men were the majority vote, and they do get to keep their hole.
ouch.
Open thread, y'all.
I am laughing so hard….
I am laughing so hard….
they do get to keep their hole
And may they continue to have the utmost satisfaction therefrom.
You gotta hang onto whatever shreds of predominance you can, I guess.
they do get to keep their hole
And may they continue to have the utmost satisfaction therefrom.
You gotta hang onto whatever shreds of predominance you can, I guess.
At least in German it’s neutral (das Loch).
But its cover is male (der Deckel) as is the shaft below (der Schacht). And the sewers themselves are female (die Kanalisation).
[Insert bad pun about sewing].
At least in German it’s neutral (das Loch).
But its cover is male (der Deckel) as is the shaft below (der Schacht). And the sewers themselves are female (die Kanalisation).
[Insert bad pun about sewing].
Trump Republican manhole representing the League of Dead Women Voters reminds us it is important to cast your ballot(s), no matter life’s distractions.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/5/14/2030458/-Man-charged-with-wife-s-murder-admits-he-also-voted-for-Trump-with-her-absentee-ballot
I find the example of bouncing manholes from bars a highly useful metaphor, and a practical truncheon, for protecting every venue, every institution in America, especially government, from the conservative movement, and not just its fascist, vote-stealing Trumpian vanguard.
https://people.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-marjorie-taylor-greene-the-type-of-person-shed-throw-out-of-bars-all-the-time/
At least in the old days, gunholes wore masks to hold up and terrorize bartenders and their patrons with their guns.
Trump Republican manhole representing the League of Dead Women Voters reminds us it is important to cast your ballot(s), no matter life’s distractions.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/5/14/2030458/-Man-charged-with-wife-s-murder-admits-he-also-voted-for-Trump-with-her-absentee-ballot
I find the example of bouncing manholes from bars a highly useful metaphor, and a practical truncheon, for protecting every venue, every institution in America, especially government, from the conservative movement, and not just its fascist, vote-stealing Trumpian vanguard.
https://people.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-marjorie-taylor-greene-the-type-of-person-shed-throw-out-of-bars-all-the-time/
At least in the old days, gunholes wore masks to hold up and terrorize bartenders and their patrons with their guns.
Ocasio-Cortez is a Bronx homegirl. With all due respect to the people of Milledgeville, GA, I don’t think Taylor Greene has the size for this particular match.
Go home, Marjorie, you’re drunk.
Ocasio-Cortez is a Bronx homegirl. With all due respect to the people of Milledgeville, GA, I don’t think Taylor Greene has the size for this particular match.
Go home, Marjorie, you’re drunk.
What Janie said (9:58).
It’s astounding the things that people, on both sides, pick to make symbolic stands over. Personally, I’d say that “manhole” has the virtue of brevity. And I think there are far, far more important examples of gender discrimination that should be addressed. Just for openers, consider the relative (to other municipal employees) wages of elementary school teachers. Seems like a better focus for the LoWV efforts.
What Janie said (9:58).
It’s astounding the things that people, on both sides, pick to make symbolic stands over. Personally, I’d say that “manhole” has the virtue of brevity. And I think there are far, far more important examples of gender discrimination that should be addressed. Just for openers, consider the relative (to other municipal employees) wages of elementary school teachers. Seems like a better focus for the LoWV efforts.
Go home, Marjorie, you’re drunk.
I think you give her too much credit. Alcohol would provide a better excuse. In fact, she’s just delusional.
Go home, Marjorie, you’re drunk.
I think you give her too much credit. Alcohol would provide a better excuse. In fact, she’s just delusional.
Seems like a better focus for the LoWV efforts.
To be fair to the League, they do tons more than throw shade at comical local pols. The spokesperson for the League in Salem just happens to be good at that, as well.
Politics in Salem MA is famously fractious. Old school townies bump up against gentrifying ‘people from away’ who are invading the city with their swanky big city white collar job money. A small but still active coterie of old money families bump up against the blue collar rabble. There’s a big (and very very good) museum in the city that owns a ton of historical properties in town, which some folks would like to see put to uses other than garden tours. Developers looking to build in a very hot housing market bump up against people who don’t want the historical character of the city changed. Plus a significant Hispanic community and more pagans per capita (pagans of all stripes, of which there are many) than probably anyplace else on earth.
It’s a tempest in a teapot. A little slice of America.
The councilors in question make up part of a more or less reactionary wing of local governance. One was recently called out for referring to mentally disabled folks as ‘retards’ in a cable access interview, which didn’t go over particularly well.
Moderation is in fact a virtue, and it’s true, we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour. We don’t need to retain usages that exclude people, either, but I suspect retaining ‘manhole’ won’t deprive anyone of their civil rights to any significant degree.
The gentlemen do, in fact, get to keep their hole.
I just thought the comment was funny.
Seems like a better focus for the LoWV efforts.
To be fair to the League, they do tons more than throw shade at comical local pols. The spokesperson for the League in Salem just happens to be good at that, as well.
Politics in Salem MA is famously fractious. Old school townies bump up against gentrifying ‘people from away’ who are invading the city with their swanky big city white collar job money. A small but still active coterie of old money families bump up against the blue collar rabble. There’s a big (and very very good) museum in the city that owns a ton of historical properties in town, which some folks would like to see put to uses other than garden tours. Developers looking to build in a very hot housing market bump up against people who don’t want the historical character of the city changed. Plus a significant Hispanic community and more pagans per capita (pagans of all stripes, of which there are many) than probably anyplace else on earth.
It’s a tempest in a teapot. A little slice of America.
The councilors in question make up part of a more or less reactionary wing of local governance. One was recently called out for referring to mentally disabled folks as ‘retards’ in a cable access interview, which didn’t go over particularly well.
Moderation is in fact a virtue, and it’s true, we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour. We don’t need to retain usages that exclude people, either, but I suspect retaining ‘manhole’ won’t deprive anyone of their civil rights to any significant degree.
The gentlemen do, in fact, get to keep their hole.
I just thought the comment was funny.
I’ll throw an article on the talkfire:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth
Even before Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published, however, the young political scientist Elinor Ostrom had proven him wrong. While Hardin speculated that the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatisation or total government control, Ostrom had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. Over the next several decades, as a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed by cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living. Some had been deftly avoiding the tragedy of the commons for centuries; Ostrom was simply one of the first scientists to pay close attention to their traditions, and analyse how and why they worked.
Ostrom’s work is informing a shift in conservation and environmental work, and the growing opinion amongst environmental activists that environmental and socia justice must work hand in hand.
I’ll throw an article on the talkfire:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth
Even before Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published, however, the young political scientist Elinor Ostrom had proven him wrong. While Hardin speculated that the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatisation or total government control, Ostrom had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. Over the next several decades, as a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed by cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living. Some had been deftly avoiding the tragedy of the commons for centuries; Ostrom was simply one of the first scientists to pay close attention to their traditions, and analyse how and why they worked.
Ostrom’s work is informing a shift in conservation and environmental work, and the growing opinion amongst environmental activists that environmental and socia justice must work hand in hand.
…and the growing opinion amongst environmental activists that environmental and social justice must work hand in hand.
reminded me of this Kristoff opinion piece.
…and the growing opinion amongst environmental activists that environmental and social justice must work hand in hand.
reminded me of this Kristoff opinion piece.
The Kristoff piece does get to an important part of the engagement with rural white working communities, but also stuff like this from Patagonia Action Works:
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/red-lake-green-future/story-89564.html
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/district-15/video-79223.html
We can’t fix our environmental practices until we get a handle on the way that our most damaging industries externalize the harms of their practices onto disadvantaged and marginalized communities. The polluting and plundering industries need to have these harms calculated back into the cost of doing business by expanding out the notion of stakeholders.
The Kristoff piece does get to an important part of the engagement with rural white working communities, but also stuff like this from Patagonia Action Works:
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/red-lake-green-future/story-89564.html
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/district-15/video-79223.html
We can’t fix our environmental practices until we get a handle on the way that our most damaging industries externalize the harms of their practices onto disadvantaged and marginalized communities. The polluting and plundering industries need to have these harms calculated back into the cost of doing business by expanding out the notion of stakeholders.
“Politics in Salem MA is famously fractious.”
It’s because of all the massholes, isn’t it?
“Politics in Salem MA is famously fractious.”
It’s because of all the massholes, isn’t it?
and more pagans per capita (pagans of all stripes, of which there are many) than probably anyplace else on earth.
Here I am cackling again.
we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour.
The language will reinvent itself, or be reinvented (the causality is murky to me but that’s lj’s bailiwick in any case), for better and for worse, whether we will or nill.
and more pagans per capita (pagans of all stripes, of which there are many) than probably anyplace else on earth.
Here I am cackling again.
we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour.
The language will reinvent itself, or be reinvented (the causality is murky to me but that’s lj’s bailiwick in any case), for better and for worse, whether we will or nill.
I didn’t realize that Tragedy of the Commons pointed to an all or nothing solution. I just thought that if you didn’t realize the framework, you were likely to screw it up.
we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour.
For better or worse, I feel like we do re-invent the language every generation. It might not be a total overhaul, but a lot of the moving parts get changed out so it is easy to wander into problems. And when they come into contact with people talking about The Law, funny shit will happen.
An example: I’m doing an online discussion group on Task Based Learning and the leader mentioned that one example was an ‘uber task’ and shared it to get our opinions. I pointed out the ways that it fell short for me, with me taking uber as excellent example, but the leader said he was thinking of uber as less excellent and more like big ole’, not to be taken as a model. But uber is word that has that valency (uber=best of all possibilities or the thing so widespread you can’t get away from it) To go overboard on a metaphor, all those terms and phrases are like a field of varied tuning forks and when a note hits, some of them will bounce back and forth while others will look as if they aren’t ever going to move.
I better stop here…
I didn’t realize that Tragedy of the Commons pointed to an all or nothing solution. I just thought that if you didn’t realize the framework, you were likely to screw it up.
we don’t need to completely re-invent the language every generation to suit the issues du jour.
For better or worse, I feel like we do re-invent the language every generation. It might not be a total overhaul, but a lot of the moving parts get changed out so it is easy to wander into problems. And when they come into contact with people talking about The Law, funny shit will happen.
An example: I’m doing an online discussion group on Task Based Learning and the leader mentioned that one example was an ‘uber task’ and shared it to get our opinions. I pointed out the ways that it fell short for me, with me taking uber as excellent example, but the leader said he was thinking of uber as less excellent and more like big ole’, not to be taken as a model. But uber is word that has that valency (uber=best of all possibilities or the thing so widespread you can’t get away from it) To go overboard on a metaphor, all those terms and phrases are like a field of varied tuning forks and when a note hits, some of them will bounce back and forth while others will look as if they aren’t ever going to move.
I better stop here…
For better or worse, I feel like we do re-invent the language every generation. It might not be a total overhaul, but a lot of the moving parts get changed out so it is easy to wander into problems
Especially when the change is not new words/expressions, but old ones repurposed. Sometimes to the point of completely inverting the meaning. Usually, the vast majority of users have no clue anything has changed — cheerfully attributing to past writers the current meanings of their words.
For better or worse, I feel like we do re-invent the language every generation. It might not be a total overhaul, but a lot of the moving parts get changed out so it is easy to wander into problems
Especially when the change is not new words/expressions, but old ones repurposed. Sometimes to the point of completely inverting the meaning. Usually, the vast majority of users have no clue anything has changed — cheerfully attributing to past writers the current meanings of their words.
That can make old texts hilariously funny, in particular when ‘harmless’ words get a specific connotation and lose the neutral ones. What do you think for example when you read ‘she had intercourse with him’ without context?
Works in German too with the additional factor that ‘Verkehr’ also means traffic (plus ‘verkehrt’ means ‘wrong’ or ‘the wrong way around’).
That can make old texts hilariously funny, in particular when ‘harmless’ words get a specific connotation and lose the neutral ones. What do you think for example when you read ‘she had intercourse with him’ without context?
Works in German too with the additional factor that ‘Verkehr’ also means traffic (plus ‘verkehrt’ means ‘wrong’ or ‘the wrong way around’).
The meaning of “make love” changed somewhere around 1950, but not by so much as to obviate confusion.
The meaning of “make love” changed somewhere around 1950, but not by so much as to obviate confusion.
Whereas, on the other hand, I have read books from maybe late 19th or early 20th centuries, only to be brought up short when told that in the the middle of a conversation or formalish scene, someone “ejaculated”. Apparently, it used to mean something like “forcefully interjected”.
Whereas, on the other hand, I have read books from maybe late 19th or early 20th centuries, only to be brought up short when told that in the the middle of a conversation or formalish scene, someone “ejaculated”. Apparently, it used to mean something like “forcefully interjected”.
And “criminal conversation” used to be the legalese for adultery, if I remember correctly, at least by a wife.
And “criminal conversation” used to be the legalese for adultery, if I remember correctly, at least by a wife.
Ha! Since I am no longer on my phone, and can look stuff up easily, I have just discovered that “criminal conversation” still exists as a tort in certain states of the US!
Ha! Since I am no longer on my phone, and can look stuff up easily, I have just discovered that “criminal conversation” still exists as a tort in certain states of the US!
“Criminal Conversation” sounds like it should be the name of a minor hit for Hall And Oats from 1981.
“Criminal Conversation” sounds like it should be the name of a minor hit for Hall And Oats from 1981.
Oates
Oates
Alert! Alert! Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!
Alert! Alert! Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!
Hall And Oats from 1981.
Oates
Yes.
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
Hall And Oats from 1981.
Oates
Yes.
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
1972, i think.
1972, i think.
NC has dropped its mask and distancing mandates. with barely 30% vaccinated. many stores are still requiring them, thankfully.
what a ridiculous species we are.
NC has dropped its mask and distancing mandates. with barely 30% vaccinated. many stores are still requiring them, thankfully.
what a ridiculous species we are.
“Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!”
While I think that “felon disenfranchisement” is, in general, a bad thing, I also think it is absolutely the correct penalty for “messing with elections”.
“Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!”
While I think that “felon disenfranchisement” is, in general, a bad thing, I also think it is absolutely the correct penalty for “messing with elections”.
Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!
One of Trump’s characteristic behaviors has been to (baselessly) accuse others of things he has done himself. Why would anyone be surprised that his cult followers have been emulating their Dear Leader?
Someone call Donald Trump! Voter fraud found!
One of Trump’s characteristic behaviors has been to (baselessly) accuse others of things he has done himself. Why would anyone be surprised that his cult followers have been emulating their Dear Leader?
This blog entry may be the source for some of that aeon article, and it goes into more detail about what many current environmentalists find objectionable about Hardin’s paper and subsequent work on the topic:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/
The original paper is pretty noxious in its eugenic glee.
This blog entry may be the source for some of that aeon article, and it goes into more detail about what many current environmentalists find objectionable about Hardin’s paper and subsequent work on the topic:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/
The original paper is pretty noxious in its eugenic glee.
Hardin sounds like a Republican ahead of his time.
not sure anyone needs to stop using the phrase “tragedy of the commons”, though – as the article pleads. nobody who uses it as a metaphor for what happens to unmanaged resources is invoking anything about Hardin’s deplorable facsism.
Hardin sounds like a Republican ahead of his time.
not sure anyone needs to stop using the phrase “tragedy of the commons”, though – as the article pleads. nobody who uses it as a metaphor for what happens to unmanaged resources is invoking anything about Hardin’s deplorable facsism.
My reading of this is that it’s basically arguing that the “tragedy of the commons” takes up too much space in ecological thinking, and that more space should be taken up with Ostrom’s work and in looking for collaboratively managed solutions to public goods.
As an educator I can sympathize with wanting to culture jam the concept and force a more nuanced conversation. “The tragedy of the commons” is just the sort of pithy formulation that seems deep and intuitive enough to explain whole swaths of complex topics and thus relieve the need to examine the topic in any real depth.
This is especially true in environmental debates.
My reading of this is that it’s basically arguing that the “tragedy of the commons” takes up too much space in ecological thinking, and that more space should be taken up with Ostrom’s work and in looking for collaboratively managed solutions to public goods.
As an educator I can sympathize with wanting to culture jam the concept and force a more nuanced conversation. “The tragedy of the commons” is just the sort of pithy formulation that seems deep and intuitive enough to explain whole swaths of complex topics and thus relieve the need to examine the topic in any real depth.
This is especially true in environmental debates.
It’s actually possible for people to co-operate in their use of finite resources, such that everyone has fair access. That appears to be beyond the imagination of the Hardins of the world, but managing resources as a commons is a practice with a very long and generally successful history.
I’d be glad to see Hardin’s essay thrown on the trash heap. It’s ahistorical garbage, and asserts the worst of human nature as fact.
It’s actually possible for people to co-operate in their use of finite resources, such that everyone has fair access. That appears to be beyond the imagination of the Hardins of the world, but managing resources as a commons is a practice with a very long and generally successful history.
I’d be glad to see Hardin’s essay thrown on the trash heap. It’s ahistorical garbage, and asserts the worst of human nature as fact.
That appears to be beyond the imagination of the Hardins of the world, but managing resources as a commons is a practice with a very long and generally successful history.
If someone is, personally, selfish — well he is naturally going to have difficulty envisioning people behaving otherwise. At least, absent coercion of some kind.
To be fair, those who are more community-minded can have equal difficulty grasping that there are some who simply are selfish. Not necessarily from training/upbringing, just the way they are wired. Preaching virtue (as they see it) to the selfish is simply not going to work. Like preaching floating to someone with a body density well above 1; even if they grasp the theory, it just won’t happen for them.
That appears to be beyond the imagination of the Hardins of the world, but managing resources as a commons is a practice with a very long and generally successful history.
If someone is, personally, selfish — well he is naturally going to have difficulty envisioning people behaving otherwise. At least, absent coercion of some kind.
To be fair, those who are more community-minded can have equal difficulty grasping that there are some who simply are selfish. Not necessarily from training/upbringing, just the way they are wired. Preaching virtue (as they see it) to the selfish is simply not going to work. Like preaching floating to someone with a body density well above 1; even if they grasp the theory, it just won’t happen for them.
Hardin believed the rich should throw the poor from the life rafts.
You’d think there would at least be room on the dinghy towed by the support yacht shadowing the mother ship, but no, chum are never chums.
Hardin believed the rich should throw the poor from the life rafts.
You’d think there would at least be room on the dinghy towed by the support yacht shadowing the mother ship, but no, chum are never chums.
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
Sure you are not confusing them with Quaker Oates?
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
Sure you are not confusing them with Quaker Oates?
Haul en Eowts in the native tongue.
Haul en Eowts in the native tongue.
Hardin is more “Tragedy Of The Commoner”, amirite?
Hardin is more “Tragedy Of The Commoner”, amirite?
A tragedy is when the main character has a downfall. Reading the eye opening Atlantic article (thanks nous!) suggests that Hardin never thought of the lower class as main characters…
A tragedy is when the main character has a downfall. Reading the eye opening Atlantic article (thanks nous!) suggests that Hardin never thought of the lower class as main characters…
If someone is, personally, selfish — well he is naturally going to have difficulty envisioning people behaving otherwise.
I hear what you’re saying, wj, I really do.
But here’s the thing – I’m selfish. Most people are. At least to some degree, and/or about some things. But I’ve sort of been socialized enough that I generally don’t act on it.
The Hardins of the world talk as if it’s inevitable for people to behave selfishly, as if no-one had any choice in the matter. Worse, as if it’s some kind of categorical imperative.
It’s not. People can choose to not behave selfishly, and if some folks insist on behaving selfishly, the rest of us can require them not to.
This is kindergarten level ethics. Don’t take all the cookies, leave some for others.
It’s time to kick the whole “greed is good” thing to the curb. Or even the whole “greed is unfortunately a fact of life” thing. It’s not inevitable, it’s a choice, and it’s not an acceptable one.
If someone is, personally, selfish — well he is naturally going to have difficulty envisioning people behaving otherwise.
I hear what you’re saying, wj, I really do.
But here’s the thing – I’m selfish. Most people are. At least to some degree, and/or about some things. But I’ve sort of been socialized enough that I generally don’t act on it.
The Hardins of the world talk as if it’s inevitable for people to behave selfishly, as if no-one had any choice in the matter. Worse, as if it’s some kind of categorical imperative.
It’s not. People can choose to not behave selfishly, and if some folks insist on behaving selfishly, the rest of us can require them not to.
This is kindergarten level ethics. Don’t take all the cookies, leave some for others.
It’s time to kick the whole “greed is good” thing to the curb. Or even the whole “greed is unfortunately a fact of life” thing. It’s not inevitable, it’s a choice, and it’s not an acceptable one.
Preaching virtue (as they see it) to the selfish is simply not going to work.
The good thing is that most of the work being talked about by the environmental types who are taking on the Tragedy of the Commons thinking are mostly not about preaching. What they talk about mostly are management plans that have enforceable standards and palpable costs for violating those standards, which ties right back into our earlier discussion of Gimbutas and the hunter gatherers.
Preaching virtue (as they see it) to the selfish is simply not going to work.
The good thing is that most of the work being talked about by the environmental types who are taking on the Tragedy of the Commons thinking are mostly not about preaching. What they talk about mostly are management plans that have enforceable standards and palpable costs for violating those standards, which ties right back into our earlier discussion of Gimbutas and the hunter gatherers.
It’s time to kick the whole “greed is good” thing to the curb. Or even the whole “greed is unfortunately a fact of life” thing.
Absolutely agree we should junk the “selfishness is a virtue” idiocy. But, while that will let us get a substantial number of folks socialized, we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that some just can’t be. That’s all I’m saying.
It’s time to kick the whole “greed is good” thing to the curb. Or even the whole “greed is unfortunately a fact of life” thing.
Absolutely agree we should junk the “selfishness is a virtue” idiocy. But, while that will let us get a substantial number of folks socialized, we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that some just can’t be. That’s all I’m saying.
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
Sure you are not confusing them with Quaker Oates?
No, that would be Cap’n Oates.
“Hall and Oats” was a breakfast cereal in 1981, IIRC.
Sure you are not confusing them with Quaker Oates?
No, that would be Cap’n Oates.
some just can’t be.
no cookies for them. they get a time-out.
🙂
some just can’t be.
no cookies for them. they get a time-out.
🙂
we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that some just can’t be. That’s all I’m saying.
“Losing track” is one thing, but developing and adopting social policies and institutional arrangements that blunt that drive is not, ipso facto, some kind of runaway totalitarianism. Let’s not “lose track” of that, too.
That’s all I’m saying. 🙂
we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that some just can’t be. That’s all I’m saying.
“Losing track” is one thing, but developing and adopting social policies and institutional arrangements that blunt that drive is not, ipso facto, some kind of runaway totalitarianism. Let’s not “lose track” of that, too.
That’s all I’m saying. 🙂
to follow on bobbyp with a less snarky comment:
traditionally greed has been seen as a negative and anti-social tendency. everybody’s got it to some degree, and one of the requirements of living in society with other people is that we restrain our negative impulses, no matter how natural. so that we can basically all get along, more or less.
over the last 40 years at least, and probably for a lot longer than that, greed has more or less been valorized. Keynes’ ‘animal spirits’ have been re-construed to be a necessary and desirable urge to get as filthy stinking rich as possible and damn the consequences.
Hardin’s essay, and the hay that has been made of it ever since it was published, is garbage. It ignores the history of how common resources have been managed for as long as people have lived in settled communities. It assumes that people are incapable of co-operating to hold resources in common and manage their use in a fair way.
For Hardin specifically it’s a justification for pathological behavior.
I’m glad to see it being challenged.
If we can’t acquire the simple kindergarten-level discipline to consider the world’s resources as common property and manage them as such, we are going to make life a living hell for a very large number of people. And not just people. We’re going to create – we are creating – imbalances that are going to come back to bite us, for a long time.
to follow on bobbyp with a less snarky comment:
traditionally greed has been seen as a negative and anti-social tendency. everybody’s got it to some degree, and one of the requirements of living in society with other people is that we restrain our negative impulses, no matter how natural. so that we can basically all get along, more or less.
over the last 40 years at least, and probably for a lot longer than that, greed has more or less been valorized. Keynes’ ‘animal spirits’ have been re-construed to be a necessary and desirable urge to get as filthy stinking rich as possible and damn the consequences.
Hardin’s essay, and the hay that has been made of it ever since it was published, is garbage. It ignores the history of how common resources have been managed for as long as people have lived in settled communities. It assumes that people are incapable of co-operating to hold resources in common and manage their use in a fair way.
For Hardin specifically it’s a justification for pathological behavior.
I’m glad to see it being challenged.
If we can’t acquire the simple kindergarten-level discipline to consider the world’s resources as common property and manage them as such, we are going to make life a living hell for a very large number of people. And not just people. We’re going to create – we are creating – imbalances that are going to come back to bite us, for a long time.
Well, at least “greed is good” isn’t one of the many negative legacies of us Baby Boomers. Being a product of Milton Friedman, back when we were college kids.
Well, at least “greed is good” isn’t one of the many negative legacies of us Baby Boomers. Being a product of Milton Friedman, back when we were college kids.
kindergarten discipline aka enforced communist indoctrination of still malleable innocents 😉
kindergarten discipline aka enforced communist indoctrination of still malleable innocents 😉
Riiiiight. And parents applying discipline of any kind to their children is child abuse. Which would sound just incredibly silly if there weren’t (a few, I think and hope) morons out there arguing exactly that.
Riiiiight. And parents applying discipline of any kind to their children is child abuse. Which would sound just incredibly silly if there weren’t (a few, I think and hope) morons out there arguing exactly that.
i suspect there are far more of those parents in fiction and myth than in reality. they make for such a great plot device.
i suspect there are far more of those parents in fiction and myth than in reality. they make for such a great plot device.
Depends on the kind of ‘discipline’*.
And for Kristians (TM) it depends on the tool used (ye know, sparing the rod…).
Maybe just an urban legend but I have heard that some Kristian(TM) preachers recommend using the Good Book itself (probably not a paperback edition).
There ARE tips for parents on how to ‘discipline’ without leaving suspicious marks.
*i.e. including BDSM
Depends on the kind of ‘discipline’*.
And for Kristians (TM) it depends on the tool used (ye know, sparing the rod…).
Maybe just an urban legend but I have heard that some Kristian(TM) preachers recommend using the Good Book itself (probably not a paperback edition).
There ARE tips for parents on how to ‘discipline’ without leaving suspicious marks.
*i.e. including BDSM
My experience has taught me that Breyer is being economical with the actualité…
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/us/justice-breyer-retirement.html
…Justice Breyer has been particularly adamant that politics plays no role in judges’ work, and he recently suggested that it should also not figure into their decisions about when to retire.
“My experience of more than 30 years as a judge has shown me that, once men and women take the judicial oath, they take the oath to heart,” he said last month in a lecture at Harvard Law School. “They are loyal to the rule of law, not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.”…
My experience has taught me that Breyer is being economical with the actualité…
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/us/justice-breyer-retirement.html
…Justice Breyer has been particularly adamant that politics plays no role in judges’ work, and he recently suggested that it should also not figure into their decisions about when to retire.
“My experience of more than 30 years as a judge has shown me that, once men and women take the judicial oath, they take the oath to heart,” he said last month in a lecture at Harvard Law School. “They are loyal to the rule of law, not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.”…
This is why I love and hate the internet. The time sink aspect is maddening…but the topics, and the competencies of the people who write here and elsewhere, are a treasure.
The mention of Garrett Hardin rang a bell in the deep back cupboards of my brain, with dim memories of something in CoEvolution Quarterly or the Whole Earth Review. I thought they had done a take-down of Hardin at some point, quite a long time ago, which didn’t quite square with my impression from this comment thread that the pushback against him has been fairly recent. (In fairness, I’ve been reading very quickly because I’m too busy to immerse.)
So I Googled and found that CQ had actually published a piece by Hardin in issue #40, winter 1983. And Google showed me the cover, so I knew the volume was somewhere in my collection, and off to the attic I trudged.
Found #40, but there was no pushback in that issue, just the article, identifying it as having been written for the “conservative Cato Journal.
I looked through the box for the following issues, but didn’t find anything right away. Then came WER, fall 1998), where George Monbiot does the takedown of Hardin that I remembered, in an issue with the theme, “Commerce and the Common Good.”
Will read them some of it later if I have time. A walk down memory lane. Sadly, I’ve never found much from CQ or WER available online.
This is why I love and hate the internet. The time sink aspect is maddening…but the topics, and the competencies of the people who write here and elsewhere, are a treasure.
The mention of Garrett Hardin rang a bell in the deep back cupboards of my brain, with dim memories of something in CoEvolution Quarterly or the Whole Earth Review. I thought they had done a take-down of Hardin at some point, quite a long time ago, which didn’t quite square with my impression from this comment thread that the pushback against him has been fairly recent. (In fairness, I’ve been reading very quickly because I’m too busy to immerse.)
So I Googled and found that CQ had actually published a piece by Hardin in issue #40, winter 1983. And Google showed me the cover, so I knew the volume was somewhere in my collection, and off to the attic I trudged.
Found #40, but there was no pushback in that issue, just the article, identifying it as having been written for the “conservative Cato Journal.
I looked through the box for the following issues, but didn’t find anything right away. Then came WER, fall 1998), where George Monbiot does the takedown of Hardin that I remembered, in an issue with the theme, “Commerce and the Common Good.”
Will read them some of it later if I have time. A walk down memory lane. Sadly, I’ve never found much from CQ or WER available online.
Haste and multi-tasking make typos! My proofreader obviously had more important things to do today. 😉
Haste and multi-tasking make typos! My proofreader obviously had more important things to do today. 😉
I’d be interested to know whether Breyer professes to believe that the 5-4 vote in Bush v Gore was an example of judges’ loyalty to the rule of law not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.
I’d be interested to know whether Breyer professes to believe that the 5-4 vote in Bush v Gore was an example of judges’ loyalty to the rule of law not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.
(ye know, sparing the rod…)
I’ve read that this is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. The rod in the Bible is the one a shepherd uses to guide sheep, not for beating.
(ye know, sparing the rod…)
I’ve read that this is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. The rod in the Bible is the one a shepherd uses to guide sheep, not for beating.
(ye know, sparing the rod…)
I’ve read that this is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. The rod in the Bible is the one a shepherd uses to guide sheep, not for beating.
(ye know, sparing the rod…)
I’ve read that this is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. The rod in the Bible is the one a shepherd uses to guide sheep, not for beating.
Two for the price of one click…
Two for the price of one click…
The phrase “Spare the rod and spoil the child” first appeared in Samuel Butler’s poem Hudibras (Butler the 17th-century poet, not the 19th-century novelist).
The meaning is unambiguously sexual: the “child” is a couple’s love:
The phrase “Spare the rod and spoil the child” first appeared in Samuel Butler’s poem Hudibras (Butler the 17th-century poet, not the 19th-century novelist).
The meaning is unambiguously sexual: the “child” is a couple’s love:
I’d be interested to know whether Breyer professes to believe that the 5-4 vote in Bush v Gore was an example of judges’ loyalty to the rule of law not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.
An excellent question, and there are other good examples too, such as Citizens United, although the Bush v Gore one is more nakedly partisan to casual observers who aren’t prepared to get into the weeds.
I’d be interested to know whether Breyer professes to believe that the 5-4 vote in Bush v Gore was an example of judges’ loyalty to the rule of law not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.
An excellent question, and there are other good examples too, such as Citizens United, although the Bush v Gore one is more nakedly partisan to casual observers who aren’t prepared to get into the weeds.
i suspect there are far more of those parents in fiction and myth than in reality. they make for such a great plot device.
*I* suspect that most of those saying such things are not, themselves, parents. A dose of reality (trying to reason logically with a 2-year-old, for example) tends to take such nonsense out of people’s heads.
i suspect there are far more of those parents in fiction and myth than in reality. they make for such a great plot device.
*I* suspect that most of those saying such things are not, themselves, parents. A dose of reality (trying to reason logically with a 2-year-old, for example) tends to take such nonsense out of people’s heads.
I’ve lost track of exactly what we’re talking about, but I’d point out that there is a lot of space between reasoning logically with a 2-year-old and assaulting them.
Young children want to please their parents. Any expression of parental displeasure will get their attention, but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.
I’ve lost track of exactly what we’re talking about, but I’d point out that there is a lot of space between reasoning logically with a 2-year-old and assaulting them.
Young children want to please their parents. Any expression of parental displeasure will get their attention, but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.
Judge selection:
If loyalty to the “rule of law” were an overly common trait of judges, then could we not just pick them by lot? Wouldn’t that save a lot of time and political heartburn?
Or if their record were “overtly political” would that make them ineligible to appeals level courts and above?
You can stop laughing any time now.
Judge selection:
If loyalty to the “rule of law” were an overly common trait of judges, then could we not just pick them by lot? Wouldn’t that save a lot of time and political heartburn?
Or if their record were “overtly political” would that make them ineligible to appeals level courts and above?
You can stop laughing any time now.
Young children want to please their parents. Any expression of parental displeasure will get their attention, but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.
Anecdotal evidence: a 2-year-old (now in college; it was a while ago) who had acquired the habit of kicking parents and guests in the shins. Repeatedly. The parents tried repeated verbal admonishments — the “parental disapproval”, something which was quite rare for them. Efficacy: zero.
A couple light swats on the backside with a open palm, accompanied by a calm “don’t kick people.” Problem gone. Permanently.
Does that fit your definition of “asault”? I definitely know people who would see it that way. But I just don’t buy it.
Young children want to please their parents. Any expression of parental displeasure will get their attention, but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.
Anecdotal evidence: a 2-year-old (now in college; it was a while ago) who had acquired the habit of kicking parents and guests in the shins. Repeatedly. The parents tried repeated verbal admonishments — the “parental disapproval”, something which was quite rare for them. Efficacy: zero.
A couple light swats on the backside with a open palm, accompanied by a calm “don’t kick people.” Problem gone. Permanently.
Does that fit your definition of “asault”? I definitely know people who would see it that way. But I just don’t buy it.
I confess to buying a Hall and Oates album when I was 13 or something, the one with Maneater, which I loved, and sweat dripping off their faces on the cover – in my defense I was also a big Bowie fan and probably the only one in my school who listened to Los Lobos.
I confess to buying a Hall and Oates album when I was 13 or something, the one with Maneater, which I loved, and sweat dripping off their faces on the cover – in my defense I was also a big Bowie fan and probably the only one in my school who listened to Los Lobos.
my wife has Sonos set to play a song as her wake up alarm … and for the past 12 months it’s been Hall And Ohtz’ “Wait For Me”.
my wife has Sonos set to play a song as her wake up alarm … and for the past 12 months it’s been Hall And Ohtz’ “Wait For Me”.
wj, I find corporeal punishment abhorrent, it’s also been illegal in many countries for a long time and has been proven to lead to behavioral disorders and relationship issues in later life
wj, I find corporeal punishment abhorrent, it’s also been illegal in many countries for a long time and has been proven to lead to behavioral disorders and relationship issues in later life
Has the Isle of Man abolished “caning” for misdemeanor offences yet? I know that (back in the day) the UK got into some hot water with the UN/EU about that.
Seems less cruel than long-term repeated cycles of probation-violation/re-jailing.
Has the Isle of Man abolished “caning” for misdemeanor offences yet? I know that (back in the day) the UK got into some hot water with the UN/EU about that.
Seems less cruel than long-term repeated cycles of probation-violation/re-jailing.
It was birching, not caning. Yes, it’s long since been abolished.
It was birching, not caning. Yes, it’s long since been abolished.
I find corporeal punishment abhorrent, it’s also been illegal in many countries for a long time and has been proven to lead to behavioral disorders and relationship issues in later life
novakant, I certainly agree that it can, all too easily, lead to excess. Which is where those disorders generally come from. On the other hand, I think a blanket ban is misguided, at minimum.
Especially with very young (basically non-verbal) children, you need to have some way to communicate: No! As noted, trying to explain something, at that age, is not viable. And the alternative can be serious injury from the kid doing something dangerous, which your high-minded refusal to communicate effectively meant that you didn’t prevent.
I find corporeal punishment abhorrent, it’s also been illegal in many countries for a long time and has been proven to lead to behavioral disorders and relationship issues in later life
novakant, I certainly agree that it can, all too easily, lead to excess. Which is where those disorders generally come from. On the other hand, I think a blanket ban is misguided, at minimum.
Especially with very young (basically non-verbal) children, you need to have some way to communicate: No! As noted, trying to explain something, at that age, is not viable. And the alternative can be serious injury from the kid doing something dangerous, which your high-minded refusal to communicate effectively meant that you didn’t prevent.
Just to be clear, what I’m talking about is a couple of not particularly hard swats, open palm, on the butt. A sting, at most. The intention is to get a message across, not to hurt or punish or something.
Just to be clear, what I’m talking about is a couple of not particularly hard swats, open palm, on the butt. A sting, at most. The intention is to get a message across, not to hurt or punish or something.
“but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.”
This is the key. Every escalation of punishment should be in response to an identifiable(to the child)even of mis behavior. I struck my kids in anger once. No damage done. Every other interaction was a calculation vs their behavior. The highest even of pu ishment was for thi gs that truly endangered them or others.
(I’m not sure what the definition of corporeal punishment is.)
“but in inverse proportion to how often it happens. According to my observations at least.”
This is the key. Every escalation of punishment should be in response to an identifiable(to the child)even of mis behavior. I struck my kids in anger once. No damage done. Every other interaction was a calculation vs their behavior. The highest even of pu ishment was for thi gs that truly endangered them or others.
(I’m not sure what the definition of corporeal punishment is.)
Somehow my phone made level into even twice.
Somehow my phone made level into even twice.
The intention is to get a message across, not to hurt or punish or something….
Is not part of that message that if you fail to communicate, then physical means, rather than patience, are to be encouraged ?
Seems like a poor lesson for a child to learn.
And where does one draw the line ? Every patent will answer that differently; the simplest answer would seem to be no corporal punishment.
The intention is to get a message across, not to hurt or punish or something….
Is not part of that message that if you fail to communicate, then physical means, rather than patience, are to be encouraged ?
Seems like a poor lesson for a child to learn.
And where does one draw the line ? Every patent will answer that differently; the simplest answer would seem to be no corporal punishment.
…Justice Breyer has been particularly adamant that politics plays no role in judges’ work, and he recently suggested that it should also not figure into their decisions about when to retire.
I actually agree with Breyer.
The case for term limits is inescapable.
…Justice Breyer has been particularly adamant that politics plays no role in judges’ work, and he recently suggested that it should also not figure into their decisions about when to retire.
I actually agree with Breyer.
The case for term limits is inescapable.
I have no children (and have no wish to have any) and am grateful that I do not have to make such decisions. As an uninformed lay-person my feelings are more in the direction of wj and Marty here. Using any form of violence (physical or psychological) on a child should be the absolute exception but an 100% exclusion law is too blunt an instrument to deal with that. Plus, abusive parents will always find a ‘legal’ way around that or ways to avoid leaving visible telltale signs (as I noted above there are actual guidebooks for that). In other words, the laws as they currently exist criminalize behaviour that should still be within the range of the tolerable but let people get away with behaviour that clearly is outside.
I have admittedly no alternative solution to propose.
Add to all of that that the laws get applied very selectively (e.g. single moms that have to work several jobs to keep themselves and their kids from starving get charged with neglect and abuse for that while any attempt to curb the sophisticated psychological torture used by certain religious people as a matter of principle is answered with public (and successful) outcries of persecution).
I have no children (and have no wish to have any) and am grateful that I do not have to make such decisions. As an uninformed lay-person my feelings are more in the direction of wj and Marty here. Using any form of violence (physical or psychological) on a child should be the absolute exception but an 100% exclusion law is too blunt an instrument to deal with that. Plus, abusive parents will always find a ‘legal’ way around that or ways to avoid leaving visible telltale signs (as I noted above there are actual guidebooks for that). In other words, the laws as they currently exist criminalize behaviour that should still be within the range of the tolerable but let people get away with behaviour that clearly is outside.
I have admittedly no alternative solution to propose.
Add to all of that that the laws get applied very selectively (e.g. single moms that have to work several jobs to keep themselves and their kids from starving get charged with neglect and abuse for that while any attempt to curb the sophisticated psychological torture used by certain religious people as a matter of principle is answered with public (and successful) outcries of persecution).
I never did it myself, but the sort of smack envisaged by wj and Marty is not a problem I would focus on.
However, a 2-year-old is perfectly capable of understanding that kicking people is wrong.
I never did it myself, but the sort of smack envisaged by wj and Marty is not a problem I would focus on.
However, a 2-year-old is perfectly capable of understanding that kicking people is wrong.
So, there are millions of parents who believe and try to practice zero corporal punishment, depending on the child some are successful. While I never was against a swat to get a child’s attention, my kids in their thirties remarked they didn’t remember ever getting hit at all.
A 2 year old is capable of understanding consequences or the lack thereof also.
Every child is different. All of mine were. Some were quite eager to please from a very young age, some were defiantly independent at the same age.
My take is that parenting is responding appropriately to the individual child and how they learn and respond. Trying to follow a specific playbook just didn’t work.
So, there are millions of parents who believe and try to practice zero corporal punishment, depending on the child some are successful. While I never was against a swat to get a child’s attention, my kids in their thirties remarked they didn’t remember ever getting hit at all.
A 2 year old is capable of understanding consequences or the lack thereof also.
Every child is different. All of mine were. Some were quite eager to please from a very young age, some were defiantly independent at the same age.
My take is that parenting is responding appropriately to the individual child and how they learn and respond. Trying to follow a specific playbook just didn’t work.
Funny how everybody completely ignores science when it comes to parenting:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking
https://time.com/the-discipline-wars-2/
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2017/12/the-fourth-r/547583/
There are also legal, human rights (UN Convention on the Rights of The Child)and ethical issues.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
Funny how everybody completely ignores science when it comes to parenting:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking
https://time.com/the-discipline-wars-2/
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2017/12/the-fourth-r/547583/
There are also legal, human rights (UN Convention on the Rights of The Child)and ethical issues.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
any attempt to curb the sophisticated psychological torture used by certain religious people as a matter of principle is answered with public (and successful) outcries of persecution
Excellent point.
Plus, FWIW, I was enjoying the concept of “corporeal punishment”, as opposed to “incorporeal”, until I thought again and realised that what Hartmut was talking about actually qualified as the latter.
any attempt to curb the sophisticated psychological torture used by certain religious people as a matter of principle is answered with public (and successful) outcries of persecution
Excellent point.
Plus, FWIW, I was enjoying the concept of “corporeal punishment”, as opposed to “incorporeal”, until I thought again and realised that what Hartmut was talking about actually qualified as the latter.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
the ‘hit’ in all of these is quite different.
ex. adults hit each other on the ass constantly, in certain contexts, (sports). but that’s not assault.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
the ‘hit’ in all of these is quite different.
ex. adults hit each other on the ass constantly, in certain contexts, (sports). but that’s not assault.
Funny how everybody completely ignores science when it comes to parenting
a) normal parents don’t consult scientific studies on proper parenting.
b) many available education manuals for laypeople claim to be based on scientific insights but are rubbish (independent of the veracity of the claims)
c) my own experience with education science (as mandatory part of my university training on becoming a teacher) is a rather negative one. One often gets the impression that the authors never dealt with real (individual) children but only with statistic data derived from a large number of children by others*.
d) we do not usually require formal qualifications from people before they are allowed to bring up children (and most attempts in that direction had ulterior motives).
e) humans are by nature idiotic assholes and their offspring adds (hopefully temporary) wickedness into the mixture**. 😉
*and I often doubt the quality of said data in the first place.
**I think I have already mentioned around here that I believe that St.Augustine’s odious idea of original sin was born out of his own incompetence to deal with his own baby son (projecting his own inadequacies into him and interpreting it as evil).
Funny how everybody completely ignores science when it comes to parenting
a) normal parents don’t consult scientific studies on proper parenting.
b) many available education manuals for laypeople claim to be based on scientific insights but are rubbish (independent of the veracity of the claims)
c) my own experience with education science (as mandatory part of my university training on becoming a teacher) is a rather negative one. One often gets the impression that the authors never dealt with real (individual) children but only with statistic data derived from a large number of children by others*.
d) we do not usually require formal qualifications from people before they are allowed to bring up children (and most attempts in that direction had ulterior motives).
e) humans are by nature idiotic assholes and their offspring adds (hopefully temporary) wickedness into the mixture**. 😉
*and I often doubt the quality of said data in the first place.
**I think I have already mentioned around here that I believe that St.Augustine’s odious idea of original sin was born out of his own incompetence to deal with his own baby son (projecting his own inadequacies into him and interpreting it as evil).
novakant, I haven’t finished reading your links yet, but I wonder if you aren’t conflating two ideas: “punishment” and “deterrence”. It seems to me that what wj is talking about is (quite gentle) deterrence, like if a kid happened to touch something that gave them a mild electrical shock, they would be very reluctant to touch that thing again. I don’t in any way advocate giving children electric shocks, but I do think with pre-verbal children you can make a reasonable case for deterrence from dangerous activities.
novakant, I haven’t finished reading your links yet, but I wonder if you aren’t conflating two ideas: “punishment” and “deterrence”. It seems to me that what wj is talking about is (quite gentle) deterrence, like if a kid happened to touch something that gave them a mild electrical shock, they would be very reluctant to touch that thing again. I don’t in any way advocate giving children electric shocks, but I do think with pre-verbal children you can make a reasonable case for deterrence from dangerous activities.
Sorry, meant to add: I am definitely against spanking, however, and physical violence as punishment.
Sorry, meant to add: I am definitely against spanking, however, and physical violence as punishment.
humans are by nature idiotic assholes and their offspring adds (hopefully temporary) wickedness into the mixture
You can disagree with this, while still finding it extremely funny.
humans are by nature idiotic assholes and their offspring adds (hopefully temporary) wickedness into the mixture
You can disagree with this, while still finding it extremely funny.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
I haven’t finished reading this thread yet, much less the links, but this is more clever than useful. There are any number of things adults do to children that would be crimes if adults did them to each other. The first example that pops to mind is that it’s time to go home from Grandma’s house, and the two-year-old doesn’t want to go. You don’t sit around for hours doing diplomacy with the kid. You pick her up, put her jacket on her, carry her to the car, and get going.
I didn’t spank my kids, whether for punishment or persuasion. I did give my son a swat a couple of times when he was almost in his teens and his mouthiness overcame my prudence and principles. His dad spanked him on the butt one day when he was about three, for riding his Big Wheels gleefully toward the busy road in defiance of about eight adults yelling at him to stop.
Other than that — we didn’t hit the kids. But…well, more later. Like Marty’s kids, mine were very, very different from each other, and their two parents were also very difference from each other. Lots of complicated dynamics and variations.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
I haven’t finished reading this thread yet, much less the links, but this is more clever than useful. There are any number of things adults do to children that would be crimes if adults did them to each other. The first example that pops to mind is that it’s time to go home from Grandma’s house, and the two-year-old doesn’t want to go. You don’t sit around for hours doing diplomacy with the kid. You pick her up, put her jacket on her, carry her to the car, and get going.
I didn’t spank my kids, whether for punishment or persuasion. I did give my son a swat a couple of times when he was almost in his teens and his mouthiness overcame my prudence and principles. His dad spanked him on the butt one day when he was about three, for riding his Big Wheels gleefully toward the busy road in defiance of about eight adults yelling at him to stop.
Other than that — we didn’t hit the kids. But…well, more later. Like Marty’s kids, mine were very, very different from each other, and their two parents were also very difference from each other. Lots of complicated dynamics and variations.
Since this is an open thread, and recalling this previous discussion, here‘s an article putting the case that arguments against a laboratory origin for Covid-19 are much less strong than has been claimed.
Since this is an open thread, and recalling this previous discussion, here‘s an article putting the case that arguments against a laboratory origin for Covid-19 are much less strong than has been claimed.
Well, the quote is from Haim Ginott, who knew a thing or two about child psychology, trying to make point that should be pretty obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Ginott
Again, I urge everybody to read the links or google this stuff yourself – it’s not rocket science really. Though I maintain that there is a strong ethical component in all this – children have rights just like everybody else – it’s not about shaming people, it’s about understanding human behaviour and acting accordingly.
Well, the quote is from Haim Ginott, who knew a thing or two about child psychology, trying to make point that should be pretty obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Ginott
Again, I urge everybody to read the links or google this stuff yourself – it’s not rocket science really. Though I maintain that there is a strong ethical component in all this – children have rights just like everybody else – it’s not about shaming people, it’s about understanding human behaviour and acting accordingly.
Sounds all very reasonable.
I doubt that the range of opinions on the topic around here is very wide though. Afaict no one here is arguing for infliction of (physical or psychological) pain as a general method of education or adheres to the traditional view that the primary purpose of education is to break the will of the child.
Sounds all very reasonable.
I doubt that the range of opinions on the topic around here is very wide though. Afaict no one here is arguing for infliction of (physical or psychological) pain as a general method of education or adheres to the traditional view that the primary purpose of education is to break the will of the child.
Best evidence that C19 wasn’t an escapee: Trump and his party think it was, and they are never right about anything.
Until someone proves it did escape, I’m sticking with the ‘natural source’ idea.
Best evidence that C19 wasn’t an escapee: Trump and his party think it was, and they are never right about anything.
Until someone proves it did escape, I’m sticking with the ‘natural source’ idea.
Trump and his party think it was, and they are never right about anything.
I believe the traditional comment runs, approximately, “Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
I’d want to see evidence for a lab origin. But even if it turns out to be the case, I can’t see giving Trump and Co credit for accidently guessing right on zero evidence (at the time).
Trump and his party think it was, and they are never right about anything.
I believe the traditional comment runs, approximately, “Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
I’d want to see evidence for a lab origin. But even if it turns out to be the case, I can’t see giving Trump and Co credit for accidently guessing right on zero evidence (at the time).
There are also legal, human rights (UN Convention on the Rights of The Child)and ethical issues.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
Just so everyone here is aware of this lovely fact…
The US is the only UN member state who has signed, but not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Opponents to ratification argue against it because they do not want the UN to be able to rule against sentencing laws that allow children to be tried as adults, or to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion, or any international law that would deprive a parent of custody because they employ corporal punishment.
Feel free to argue over the wording of the UNCRC, but the US clearly acts as if it’s afraid that the UN will start taking custody of evangelical’s children if the child rebels against parental sovereignty.
There are also legal, human rights (UN Convention on the Rights of The Child)and ethical issues.
“When a child hits a child, we call it aggression. When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”
Just so everyone here is aware of this lovely fact…
The US is the only UN member state who has signed, but not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Opponents to ratification argue against it because they do not want the UN to be able to rule against sentencing laws that allow children to be tried as adults, or to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion, or any international law that would deprive a parent of custody because they employ corporal punishment.
Feel free to argue over the wording of the UNCRC, but the US clearly acts as if it’s afraid that the UN will start taking custody of evangelical’s children if the child rebels against parental sovereignty.
“If you want your children to improve, let them overhear the nice things you say about them to others.”
— From the Wikipedia page on Haim Ginott.
Overhearing the nice things my mother said about me to others was one of the reasons I ran as far away as I could as soon as I could.
Boiling child-raising down to formulas, failure to acknowledge distinctions like the one between a childhood that includes one or two swats on the butt inflicted in frustration, and systematic mistreatment…
I think I will leave this conversation now. No good will come of my sticking around.
“If you want your children to improve, let them overhear the nice things you say about them to others.”
— From the Wikipedia page on Haim Ginott.
Overhearing the nice things my mother said about me to others was one of the reasons I ran as far away as I could as soon as I could.
Boiling child-raising down to formulas, failure to acknowledge distinctions like the one between a childhood that includes one or two swats on the butt inflicted in frustration, and systematic mistreatment…
I think I will leave this conversation now. No good will come of my sticking around.
the US clearly acts as if it’s afraid that the UN will start taking custody of evangelical’s children if the child rebels against parental sovereignty.
don’t blame the the US for the fact that Republican white trashionalists live in a fantasy world, but thanks to clever manipulation of elections they still get a seat at the table.
the US clearly acts as if it’s afraid that the UN will start taking custody of evangelical’s children if the child rebels against parental sovereignty.
don’t blame the the US for the fact that Republican white trashionalists live in a fantasy world, but thanks to clever manipulation of elections they still get a seat at the table.
I do blame all of us in the US for allowing the sham of our UNCRC non-ratification to continue. It’s never, that I have seen, been something important enough to the Democratic Party that it’s made it into the party platform as an issue. It’s very much a bipartisan non-issue.
I’ve taught classes about the UNCRC for a decade. Nothing changes and nothing ever even comes up as an issue. The US just can’t be bothered.
I do blame all of us in the US for allowing the sham of our UNCRC non-ratification to continue. It’s never, that I have seen, been something important enough to the Democratic Party that it’s made it into the party platform as an issue. It’s very much a bipartisan non-issue.
I’ve taught classes about the UNCRC for a decade. Nothing changes and nothing ever even comes up as an issue. The US just can’t be bothered.
It’s very much a bipartisan non-issue.
I just don’t see how you can say that.
It’s true that the Democrats don’t appear to consider it a priority. But the only reason it isn’t a big deal for the GOP base is that there is no sign of anything happening. It instant, the very instant, that it got a visible push, it would abruptly become a major culture war issue.
So, not really a symmetrical situation.
It’s very much a bipartisan non-issue.
I just don’t see how you can say that.
It’s true that the Democrats don’t appear to consider it a priority. But the only reason it isn’t a big deal for the GOP base is that there is no sign of anything happening. It instant, the very instant, that it got a visible push, it would abruptly become a major culture war issue.
So, not really a symmetrical situation.
I don’t want to cede any, ANY, authority to the UN in any way over peoes personal actions. So certainly not in this area. So the wording doesn’t matter to me at all.
The concept that an international organization would have a say in how I raise my children is ludicrous.
I don’t want to cede any, ANY, authority to the UN in any way over peoes personal actions. So certainly not in this area. So the wording doesn’t matter to me at all.
The concept that an international organization would have a say in how I raise my children is ludicrous.
the very instant, that it got a visible push, it would abruptly become a major culture war issue
and everybody knows this. basically we’ve all already gamed-out what will happen if it comes up and the result is that the Deranged Paranoiac Party will kill any effort to push it, so why bother with the actual argument?
a law to tell people what they can’t do to their kids, based on something from the UN? lol. that’s dead before you can even start explaining what those words actually refer to.
the very instant, that it got a visible push, it would abruptly become a major culture war issue
and everybody knows this. basically we’ve all already gamed-out what will happen if it comes up and the result is that the Deranged Paranoiac Party will kill any effort to push it, so why bother with the actual argument?
a law to tell people what they can’t do to their kids, based on something from the UN? lol. that’s dead before you can even start explaining what those words actually refer to.
I don’t want to cede any, ANY, authority to the UN in any way over peoes personal actions.
See, this is why Marty isn’t part of today’s GOP base. For the base, any treaty, of any kind, with anybody (international organization of individual foreign country) which restricts the US in any way, is anathema.
It’s just like any public health order to wear a mask is an unconscionable infringement of their
freedomlicense to do anything they damn well please. (Decisions on abortions excepted.)I don’t want to cede any, ANY, authority to the UN in any way over peoes personal actions.
See, this is why Marty isn’t part of today’s GOP base. For the base, any treaty, of any kind, with anybody (international organization of individual foreign country) which restricts the US in any way, is anathema.
It’s just like any public health order to wear a mask is an unconscionable infringement of their
freedomlicense to do anything they damn well please. (Decisions on abortions excepted.)I’m slightly drunk, so please forgive any sloppy grammar or fact checking, but:
I just assumed this was another of those issues where the US, by virtue of being Top Nation (TM 1066 and All That) had removed itself, by virtue of American Exceptionalism, from being considered part of the world of civilised nations (e.g. International Criminal Court etc).
I’m slightly drunk, so please forgive any sloppy grammar or fact checking, but:
I just assumed this was another of those issues where the US, by virtue of being Top Nation (TM 1066 and All That) had removed itself, by virtue of American Exceptionalism, from being considered part of the world of civilised nations (e.g. International Criminal Court etc).
yep.
nobody gonna tell ‘Merca what to do! we’re #1! we’re #1!
yep.
nobody gonna tell ‘Merca what to do! we’re #1! we’re #1!
It’s funny, in this thread someone mocked the fear that the UN would act at almost the same time someone was citing the UN as the authority. You really can’t have it both ways.
And for particulars, not allowing your kid to choose their own religion is simy not the UN’s business, for example. It’s just ridiculous.
It’s funny, in this thread someone mocked the fear that the UN would act at almost the same time someone was citing the UN as the authority. You really can’t have it both ways.
And for particulars, not allowing your kid to choose their own religion is simy not the UN’s business, for example. It’s just ridiculous.
You really can’t have it both ways.
one thread, but many commenters, therefore many points of view.
You really can’t have it both ways.
one thread, but many commenters, therefore many points of view.
You really can’t have it both ways.
Why not? It is a traditional hallmark of conservative thought and action.
You really can’t have it both ways.
Why not? It is a traditional hallmark of conservative thought and action.
Which is why I say “we, the US.” Because every other country in the world sees the UNCRC as a public affirmation of the belief that children should be protected, where the US only sees this as an assault on sovereignty and screw any public affirmation of anything since the US is better than everyone else in the world with how we do everything including how we treat our children how dare you.
We want to insist that we believe things, but not put ourselves in a position where we are committed to actually doing any of those things (not that any of these things are particularly enforceable in the first place). And the very idea that we actually be held responsible for what we claim to believe is enough to get Marty and the rest of the squishy middle to nope out on the public commitment.
So no, the majority of us believe no such thing. Gamed out just means that we actually don’t have a commitment, but want to appear sympathetic.
Which is why I say “we, the US.” Because every other country in the world sees the UNCRC as a public affirmation of the belief that children should be protected, where the US only sees this as an assault on sovereignty and screw any public affirmation of anything since the US is better than everyone else in the world with how we do everything including how we treat our children how dare you.
We want to insist that we believe things, but not put ourselves in a position where we are committed to actually doing any of those things (not that any of these things are particularly enforceable in the first place). And the very idea that we actually be held responsible for what we claim to believe is enough to get Marty and the rest of the squishy middle to nope out on the public commitment.
So no, the majority of us believe no such thing. Gamed out just means that we actually don’t have a commitment, but want to appear sympathetic.
where the US only sees this…
i’m really not sure why you keep insisting “the US” is united in the way it sees the issue. it’s clearly not. there’s a wide range of opinions about the issues among the little sample we have here, for example. no, there hasn’t been any governmental action on it, and it’s not something that gets a lot of discussion in the US. that could be changed. make noise.
and, well, i don’t think i remember the issue ever being discussed here before – googling “site:obsidianwings.blogs.com UNCRC” shows zero hits. Google could be mistaken, of course.
but, if it’s such a big deal …
where the US only sees this…
i’m really not sure why you keep insisting “the US” is united in the way it sees the issue. it’s clearly not. there’s a wide range of opinions about the issues among the little sample we have here, for example. no, there hasn’t been any governmental action on it, and it’s not something that gets a lot of discussion in the US. that could be changed. make noise.
and, well, i don’t think i remember the issue ever being discussed here before – googling “site:obsidianwings.blogs.com UNCRC” shows zero hits. Google could be mistaken, of course.
but, if it’s such a big deal …
Appear sympathetic to who? Children? We have pretty good laws protecting children, in some places so strict as to likely be detrimental to the child.
Appear sympathetic to who? Children? We have pretty good laws protecting children, in some places so strict as to likely be detrimental to the child.
Be held responsible by who? Just had to add, sorry.
Be held responsible by who? Just had to add, sorry.
Well, I could say “the US government,” but since we are a representative republic, that would be the US government acting on our behalf. As a nation state, we do not support ratification of the UNCRC.
And Marty’s questions apply to every other civilized country in the world as well. I guess none of them care about freedom or sovereignty or whatever since they are willing to ratify.
If we all agree that the US is not going to ratify, then I don’t see why anyone balks at my assertion that we collectively don’t have the political will to stand behind the principles outlined in the convention. The public record is right there. We are the *only* UN state to balk.
Well, I could say “the US government,” but since we are a representative republic, that would be the US government acting on our behalf. As a nation state, we do not support ratification of the UNCRC.
And Marty’s questions apply to every other civilized country in the world as well. I guess none of them care about freedom or sovereignty or whatever since they are willing to ratify.
If we all agree that the US is not going to ratify, then I don’t see why anyone balks at my assertion that we collectively don’t have the political will to stand behind the principles outlined in the convention. The public record is right there. We are the *only* UN state to balk.
I’m so confused, and I don’t think I’m that drunk!
wj @02.52: doesn’t that put Marty squarely (on this subject at least) with the GOP base, given his intervention @02.29?
Marty @03.21 above: who has suggested anything that could lead you to say “not allowing your kid to choose their own religion is simy [I assume “simply”] not the UN’s business, for example.”?
Am I going mad? Any clarification, from anyone, no matter how personally insulting, would be welcome!
I’m so confused, and I don’t think I’m that drunk!
wj @02.52: doesn’t that put Marty squarely (on this subject at least) with the GOP base, given his intervention @02.29?
Marty @03.21 above: who has suggested anything that could lead you to say “not allowing your kid to choose their own religion is simy [I assume “simply”] not the UN’s business, for example.”?
Am I going mad? Any clarification, from anyone, no matter how personally insulting, would be welcome!
Do we not think that part of our allies’ mistrust of the US when it comes to foreign policy and multilateral negotiations comes down to crap like not being willing to commit to any shared principles if it means limiting our own unilateral action?
We are not trustworthy allies.
Do we not think that part of our allies’ mistrust of the US when it comes to foreign policy and multilateral negotiations comes down to crap like not being willing to commit to any shared principles if it means limiting our own unilateral action?
We are not trustworthy allies.
Personally insulting *about me*, I should have said. Not inviting any insults for anybody else…
Personally insulting *about me*, I should have said. Not inviting any insults for anybody else…
and, well, i don’t think i remember the issue ever being discussed here before – googling “site:obsidianwings.blogs.com UNCRC” shows zero hits.
I found two:
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNCRC
and, well, i don’t think i remember the issue ever being discussed here before – googling “site:obsidianwings.blogs.com UNCRC” shows zero hits.
I found two:
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNCRC
Opponents to ratification argue against it because they do not want the UN to be able to rule against sentencing laws that allow children to be tried as adults, or to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion
Ah, I see. But Marty, it seems to me you have misunderstood. This means, I think, that “they do not want the UN to be able to rule…..to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion”. Or do you actually think that children should not be allowed to choose which religion they should be able to follow?
Opponents to ratification argue against it because they do not want the UN to be able to rule against sentencing laws that allow children to be tried as adults, or to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion
Ah, I see. But Marty, it seems to me you have misunderstood. This means, I think, that “they do not want the UN to be able to rule…..to support a child’s right to demand that they be allowed to practice a different religion”. Or do you actually think that children should not be allowed to choose which religion they should be able to follow?
Am I going mad? Any clarification, from anyone, no matter how personally insulting, would be welcome!
I’d go with the excess (or enough? 😉 wine theory.
What I was saying was that Marty is NOT like much of the GOP base. That is, while he does object to the UN treaty speaking to how children are treated, he doesn’t (as I understand it; feel free to correct me) categorically reject the idea of the US entering into a treaty, even a multilateral treaty, which would constrain our actions. Which, of course, pretty much any treaty does.
Am I going mad? Any clarification, from anyone, no matter how personally insulting, would be welcome!
I’d go with the excess (or enough? 😉 wine theory.
What I was saying was that Marty is NOT like much of the GOP base. That is, while he does object to the UN treaty speaking to how children are treated, he doesn’t (as I understand it; feel free to correct me) categorically reject the idea of the US entering into a treaty, even a multilateral treaty, which would constrain our actions. Which, of course, pretty much any treaty does.
Marty also seems to believe that the UN might somehow file suit against individual parents in the US to force them to allow their children to convert to another religion (or no religion).
I don’t remember ever seeing any parent from any of those other countries up on charges at the Hague for having smacked a child or for forcing them to go to temple.
Marty also seems to believe that the UN might somehow file suit against individual parents in the US to force them to allow their children to convert to another religion (or no religion).
I don’t remember ever seeing any parent from any of those other countries up on charges at the Hague for having smacked a child or for forcing them to go to temple.
I found two:
a) how’d you do that?!
b) twice in the last 12 years!
c) on that second one, i actually wrote “yeah, gotta agree with Marty on this.” lol.
I found two:
a) how’d you do that?!
b) twice in the last 12 years!
c) on that second one, i actually wrote “yeah, gotta agree with Marty on this.” lol.
I’d go with the excess (or enough? 😉 wine theory.
What I was saying was that Marty is NOT like much of the GOP base.
Absolutely fair enough, wj, but I understood you to be saying just that. However, I was under the impression that Marty does reject the idea of the US entering into an international or multilateral treaty which would constrain its actions, and that his objection to this was just an example of that. I could easily be wrong, however.
a) how’d you do that?!
I never succeed in searching for old comments!
I’d go with the excess (or enough? 😉 wine theory.
What I was saying was that Marty is NOT like much of the GOP base.
Absolutely fair enough, wj, but I understood you to be saying just that. However, I was under the impression that Marty does reject the idea of the US entering into an international or multilateral treaty which would constrain its actions, and that his objection to this was just an example of that. I could easily be wrong, however.
a) how’d you do that?!
I never succeed in searching for old comments!
a) how’d you do that?!
Don’t know. Your search should have found one. My search appears to be the same as yours with an additional term.
site:obsidianwings.blogs.com “United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” OR UNCRC
a) how’d you do that?!
Don’t know. Your search should have found one. My search appears to be the same as yours with an additional term.
site:obsidianwings.blogs.com “United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” OR UNCRC
A broader search under “rights of the child” turned up one more in which jesurgislac argued a lot of the same points we are going over here:
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/06/kennedy-v-louis.html
A broader search under “rights of the child” turned up one more in which jesurgislac argued a lot of the same points we are going over here:
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/06/kennedy-v-louis.html
ok. three in 13 years.
point is: even here, it’s not a big topic. does that mean all of us here are squishy and uncommitted and trying to avoid responsibility on this?
i’ll admit i haven’t given it much thought. i don’t have kids so their rights don’t cross my mind much. doesn’t mean i don’t care when the topic does come up.
Do we not think that part of our allies’ mistrust of the US when it comes to foreign policy and multilateral negotiations comes down to crap like not being willing to commit to any shared principles if it means limiting our own unilateral action?
we’re big enough that we haven’t had to care? with great power comes great disdain for responsibility. that’ll change, i suspect.
ok. three in 13 years.
point is: even here, it’s not a big topic. does that mean all of us here are squishy and uncommitted and trying to avoid responsibility on this?
i’ll admit i haven’t given it much thought. i don’t have kids so their rights don’t cross my mind much. doesn’t mean i don’t care when the topic does come up.
Do we not think that part of our allies’ mistrust of the US when it comes to foreign policy and multilateral negotiations comes down to crap like not being willing to commit to any shared principles if it means limiting our own unilateral action?
we’re big enough that we haven’t had to care? with great power comes great disdain for responsibility. that’ll change, i suspect.
does that mean all of us here are squishy and uncommitted and trying to avoid responsibility on this?
No, just that enough people who claim to support human rights are squishy enough on it to prevent us collectively doing anything meaningful about it on a policy level. (And I suspect that may be true at the party level for Democrats as well as soon as the people in competitive districts start to hedge.)
does that mean all of us here are squishy and uncommitted and trying to avoid responsibility on this?
No, just that enough people who claim to support human rights are squishy enough on it to prevent us collectively doing anything meaningful about it on a policy level. (And I suspect that may be true at the party level for Democrats as well as soon as the people in competitive districts start to hedge.)
We have pretty good laws protecting children, in some places so strict as to likely be detrimental to the child.
State and local governments have a less than exemplary record of harassing, vilifying, arresting, and jailing good parents while managing to overlook egregious cases of abuse.
We have pretty good laws protecting children, in some places so strict as to likely be detrimental to the child.
State and local governments have a less than exemplary record of harassing, vilifying, arresting, and jailing good parents while managing to overlook egregious cases of abuse.
“meaningful about it on a policy level”
Meaningful about what? Signing the treaty? I’m trying to understand a need to be met.
Upthread you said that one might argue with the wording, or you could just not ratify it. Since everyone else liked it why argue about it. The presumption that not supporting ratification equates to not supporting human rights is a completely false equivalence.
“meaningful about it on a policy level”
Meaningful about what? Signing the treaty? I’m trying to understand a need to be met.
Upthread you said that one might argue with the wording, or you could just not ratify it. Since everyone else liked it why argue about it. The presumption that not supporting ratification equates to not supporting human rights is a completely false equivalence.
The presumption that not supporting ratification equates to not supporting human rights is a completely false equivalence.
Not a false equivalence at all. It’s about wanting to be able to throw the US’s military and economic might around in the name of human rights while categorically refusing to let the US be pinned down on anything just in case we might disagree with everyone else.
That’s not false equivalence, that’s just exceptionalism. Again.
The presumption that not supporting ratification equates to not supporting human rights is a completely false equivalence.
Not a false equivalence at all. It’s about wanting to be able to throw the US’s military and economic might around in the name of human rights while categorically refusing to let the US be pinned down on anything just in case we might disagree with everyone else.
That’s not false equivalence, that’s just exceptionalism. Again.
And yet, the Convention Against Torture WAS ratified; the one that requires signatories to hold torturers accountable by “judicial, administrative, or other means”
By my not-an-international-lawyer reading, that means that we are all fully justified in scragging Dubya and his whole torturing crew.
And yet, the Convention Against Torture WAS ratified; the one that requires signatories to hold torturers accountable by “judicial, administrative, or other means”
By my not-an-international-lawyer reading, that means that we are all fully justified in scragging Dubya and his whole torturing crew.
By my not-an-international-lawyer reading, that means that we are all fully justified in scragging Dubya and his whole torturing crew.
Only if you, personally, are a signatory. Which I’m betting you aren’t.
Although it could be read as the US agreeing that othet *countries* would be justified in doing so.
By my not-an-international-lawyer reading, that means that we are all fully justified in scragging Dubya and his whole torturing crew.
Only if you, personally, are a signatory. Which I’m betting you aren’t.
Although it could be read as the US agreeing that othet *countries* would be justified in doing so.
I always thought that the UNCRC less aimed at stopping spanked bottoms and more at things like this
https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
this
https://www.tdh.ch/en/news/child-labour-automotive-and-electronic-industry
and this
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/06/malaysia-forced-labor-electronics/563873/
And the opposition to the US signing it is a case of Americans with conservative tendencies getting played. Again.
I always thought that the UNCRC less aimed at stopping spanked bottoms and more at things like this
https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
this
https://www.tdh.ch/en/news/child-labour-automotive-and-electronic-industry
and this
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/06/malaysia-forced-labor-electronics/563873/
And the opposition to the US signing it is a case of Americans with conservative tendencies getting played. Again.
“Or do you actually think that children should not be allowed to choose which religion they should be able to follow?”
How old is the child, what religion are they trying to choose, what is the local group of that religion like, is Jim Jones in charge, who defines what is a religion and what is a cult, how mature is the child, does the child have the emotional and mental capacity to weigh all those questions?
So, no I don’t think children get to choose without parental approval.
“Or do you actually think that children should not be allowed to choose which religion they should be able to follow?”
How old is the child, what religion are they trying to choose, what is the local group of that religion like, is Jim Jones in charge, who defines what is a religion and what is a cult, how mature is the child, does the child have the emotional and mental capacity to weigh all those questions?
So, no I don’t think children get to choose without parental approval.
And if it is the parent who is in a cult and the child is in their teens and trying to opt out?
And if it is the parent who is in a cult and the child is in their teens and trying to opt out?
The UN doesn’t get to decide in either case.
But we do have laws that allow the teen to petition the court in that case.
The question is, again, what problem for the child are we trying to solve? The state already oversteps its bounds regularly, while facing in other cases. WTF, does the UN have to add?
The UN doesn’t get to decide in either case.
But we do have laws that allow the teen to petition the court in that case.
The question is, again, what problem for the child are we trying to solve? The state already oversteps its bounds regularly, while facing in other cases. WTF, does the UN have to add?
Failing in other cases
Failing in other cases
We have federal civil rights laws that provide a backstop/additional venue for people who believe their rights have been violated, and the (US) state has failed in their duty to pursue justice. This kind of treaty would seem to provide an additional legal protection if a nation-state fails to live up to its’ obligations. That is a crude description, but I think it bears a more accurate description than “the UN telling people what to do “. A multi-national Civil Rights Act. Any action would be unnecessary if the subsidiary jurisdiction was doing what it should to protect individuals.
We have federal civil rights laws that provide a backstop/additional venue for people who believe their rights have been violated, and the (US) state has failed in their duty to pursue justice. This kind of treaty would seem to provide an additional legal protection if a nation-state fails to live up to its’ obligations. That is a crude description, but I think it bears a more accurate description than “the UN telling people what to do “. A multi-national Civil Rights Act. Any action would be unnecessary if the subsidiary jurisdiction was doing what it should to protect individuals.
I suppose you could go spend a few hours on the UNICEF page looking at what they have been doing and trying to understand how the UNCRC actually functions and what purpose it serves. That might actually answer your questions better than I’m going to be able to do in my spare time, going to those pages to do the research for you just so that you have someone to argue with as you bounce between disdain and paranoia where the UN is concerned.
I suppose you could go spend a few hours on the UNICEF page looking at what they have been doing and trying to understand how the UNCRC actually functions and what purpose it serves. That might actually answer your questions better than I’m going to be able to do in my spare time, going to those pages to do the research for you just so that you have someone to argue with as you bounce between disdain and paranoia where the UN is concerned.
Or I’ll just let Priest take the baton here while I find another windmill to tilt at.
Or I’ll just let Priest take the baton here while I find another windmill to tilt at.
What would that legal protection be? Upthread someone noted that no one has yet to be charged at the Hague. So is it just virtue signing on a problem we don’t have?
Sure nous I will go do the research, but didn’t you say you teach this?
What would that legal protection be? Upthread someone noted that no one has yet to be charged at the Hague. So is it just virtue signing on a problem we don’t have?
Sure nous I will go do the research, but didn’t you say you teach this?
I would use contempt and leave out the paranoia. Engaging with other countries makes tons of sense, engaging in a world governing body is ludicrous and dangerous. That’s not paranoia, that’s simple common sense.
200 years ago, and with every state added since, the rights of states and limitations on federal authority were made clear in the US. But that sovereignty is eroded away every year, in fact most Democrats would like to do away with it entirely.
The UN is just another step in that slippery slope. Once the mechanism is in place to wield power, the escalating exercise of it is inevitable and something to be fought at every opportunity.
And no one has yet come up with a problem the US needs the treaty to solve, it just codes authority with no purpose.
I would use contempt and leave out the paranoia. Engaging with other countries makes tons of sense, engaging in a world governing body is ludicrous and dangerous. That’s not paranoia, that’s simple common sense.
200 years ago, and with every state added since, the rights of states and limitations on federal authority were made clear in the US. But that sovereignty is eroded away every year, in fact most Democrats would like to do away with it entirely.
The UN is just another step in that slippery slope. Once the mechanism is in place to wield power, the escalating exercise of it is inevitable and something to be fought at every opportunity.
And no one has yet come up with a problem the US needs the treaty to solve, it just codes authority with no purpose.
Cedes
Sorry about my autocorrect typos.
Cedes
Sorry about my autocorrect typos.
Sure nous I will go do the research, but didn’t you say you teach this?
Sure, but you’ve missed your tuition deadline by a few decades 😉
I teach a research class about children in armed conflict. What you are worried about is a bit far afield of what I usually look at.
At least until some yahoo starts a civil war.
Sure nous I will go do the research, but didn’t you say you teach this?
Sure, but you’ve missed your tuition deadline by a few decades 😉
I teach a research class about children in armed conflict. What you are worried about is a bit far afield of what I usually look at.
At least until some yahoo starts a civil war.
perhaps another autotype error, but just in case
So is it just virtue signing
virtue signaling
Marty, I believe nous teaches composition and rhetoric at the university level. As such, he could probably teach you how to craft your arguments better, but a student needs to take suggestions on board, and you’ve not really given any indication that you are willing to take advice on this. I’d also point out, if you get your facts wrong, sarcasm doesn’t really work so well. You might as well confuse Alabama and Atlanta.
I’m not sure why you didn’t click the links I gave, not that you have to, but I do believe those problems are ones that need to be addressed not bilaterally, but thru a large coalition of nations. (I’m thinking that a Republican president argued the need for coalitions, but to paraphrase Marlowe, that was in another country; and besides, that party is dead.) That the US signs on to a treaty does not mean that it cedes authority, it accepts that there needs to be a more international approach to dealing with the problem.
I don’t want to claim that you don’t give a shit about kids if they aren’t the right color, but I hope you can see that failing to acknowledge that what those links describe leaves you open to that line of attack.
perhaps another autotype error, but just in case
So is it just virtue signing
virtue signaling
Marty, I believe nous teaches composition and rhetoric at the university level. As such, he could probably teach you how to craft your arguments better, but a student needs to take suggestions on board, and you’ve not really given any indication that you are willing to take advice on this. I’d also point out, if you get your facts wrong, sarcasm doesn’t really work so well. You might as well confuse Alabama and Atlanta.
I’m not sure why you didn’t click the links I gave, not that you have to, but I do believe those problems are ones that need to be addressed not bilaterally, but thru a large coalition of nations. (I’m thinking that a Republican president argued the need for coalitions, but to paraphrase Marlowe, that was in another country; and besides, that party is dead.) That the US signs on to a treaty does not mean that it cedes authority, it accepts that there needs to be a more international approach to dealing with the problem.
I don’t want to claim that you don’t give a shit about kids if they aren’t the right color, but I hope you can see that failing to acknowledge that what those links describe leaves you open to that line of attack.
If I were Marty, I would ask LJ and Nous what value, based on LJ’s links, the UN is to anyone as a practical matter?
When the UN deals effectively with the PRC and its use of ethnic slave labor, maybe arguments by proponents of UN jurisdiction will have more force.
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
If I were Marty, I would ask LJ and Nous what value, based on LJ’s links, the UN is to anyone as a practical matter?
When the UN deals effectively with the PRC and its use of ethnic slave labor, maybe arguments by proponents of UN jurisdiction will have more force.
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
Summary of the UNCRC.
There are things in there which would probably be problematic to enforce. And there are things in there which seem, at best, aspirational.
All of that said, I’m not sure why an aspirational statement of rights for kids is a bad thing. I continue to be puzzled by why ‘virtue signaling’ in pretty much any form is a bad thing.
Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. Right? At least somebody, somewhere, has articulated what ‘good’ means, even if pretty much everybody everywhere falls short.
As a practical matter, IMO the UN helps to keep us all from killing each other. It does so through the inevitably hypocritical and kabuki-esque process of diplomatic conversation. I’m sure it all seems ridiculous at times, even to the folks engaged in it. It’s less ridiculous than blowing sh*t up. IMVHO.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, as they say.
Summary of the UNCRC.
There are things in there which would probably be problematic to enforce. And there are things in there which seem, at best, aspirational.
All of that said, I’m not sure why an aspirational statement of rights for kids is a bad thing. I continue to be puzzled by why ‘virtue signaling’ in pretty much any form is a bad thing.
Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. Right? At least somebody, somewhere, has articulated what ‘good’ means, even if pretty much everybody everywhere falls short.
As a practical matter, IMO the UN helps to keep us all from killing each other. It does so through the inevitably hypocritical and kabuki-esque process of diplomatic conversation. I’m sure it all seems ridiculous at times, even to the folks engaged in it. It’s less ridiculous than blowing sh*t up. IMVHO.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, as they say.
On the ‘children choose their own religion’ thing, the UNCRC summary has this, in Article 14:
There are a number of similar articles where the interests and rights of the family structure are specifically called out for protection.
Mostly the document appears to outline the responsibility of governments towards children and their families. No doubt there are cases where enforcement of the treaty could result in government intervening in family business, but as far as I can see that would only be in cases where the child’s own safety and health were at risk.
Whether and when a government – any government – should do that is a question that is pretty much always on the table. As McK points out, the actual enforcement power of the UN is not particularly great. By which I mean, minimal to non-existent. So as a practical matter, it’s highly unlikely that agents of the UN are going to be coming to anybody’s house and preventing families from requiring their kids to go to Sunday school, or whatever.
It seems to me that the point of stuff like this is to articulate a standard – an aspirational bar. It’s a moral lever, and has no more or less force than any other moral lever. Folks who can be motivated by things like that, may be. Folks who can’t, won’t be.
The UN is limited in what it can do. That’s probably a good thing. But that’s different than saying it has no value.
On the ‘children choose their own religion’ thing, the UNCRC summary has this, in Article 14:
There are a number of similar articles where the interests and rights of the family structure are specifically called out for protection.
Mostly the document appears to outline the responsibility of governments towards children and their families. No doubt there are cases where enforcement of the treaty could result in government intervening in family business, but as far as I can see that would only be in cases where the child’s own safety and health were at risk.
Whether and when a government – any government – should do that is a question that is pretty much always on the table. As McK points out, the actual enforcement power of the UN is not particularly great. By which I mean, minimal to non-existent. So as a practical matter, it’s highly unlikely that agents of the UN are going to be coming to anybody’s house and preventing families from requiring their kids to go to Sunday school, or whatever.
It seems to me that the point of stuff like this is to articulate a standard – an aspirational bar. It’s a moral lever, and has no more or less force than any other moral lever. Folks who can be motivated by things like that, may be. Folks who can’t, won’t be.
The UN is limited in what it can do. That’s probably a good thing. But that’s different than saying it has no value.
I continue to be puzzled by why ‘virtue signaling’ in pretty much any form is a bad thing.
in “conservative” mythology, no liberals actually believe in any of the things they want to ‘impose’ on society – it’s all virtue signalling to make themselves look pious in order to keep “conservatives” down.
I continue to be puzzled by why ‘virtue signaling’ in pretty much any form is a bad thing.
in “conservative” mythology, no liberals actually believe in any of the things they want to ‘impose’ on society – it’s all virtue signalling to make themselves look pious in order to keep “conservatives” down.
Damn, I forgot the tuition, again.
Damn, I forgot the tuition, again.
Every other country in the world has ratified the UNCRC, so US Republicans are the only people left not signalling virtue.
So far as I know, there’s no enforcement mechanism for the UNCRC, just a Committee which tells governments to do better. The law in England (but not in Scotland or Wales) retains a “reasonable punishment” exemption which allows parents to hit their children so long as there’s no visible damage, and there’s no sign that the UN proposes to do anything about it.
However, the US couldn’t meaningfully ratify the Convention unless it’s willing to abandon imprisonment without parole for offences committed under the age of 18.
Every other country in the world has ratified the UNCRC, so US Republicans are the only people left not signalling virtue.
So far as I know, there’s no enforcement mechanism for the UNCRC, just a Committee which tells governments to do better. The law in England (but not in Scotland or Wales) retains a “reasonable punishment” exemption which allows parents to hit their children so long as there’s no visible damage, and there’s no sign that the UN proposes to do anything about it.
However, the US couldn’t meaningfully ratify the Convention unless it’s willing to abandon imprisonment without parole for offences committed under the age of 18.
I don’t really have much more to add, but I believe that there are some US Democrats not interested in ratifying it.
I don’t really have much more to add, but I believe that there are some US Democrats not interested in ratifying it.
in Not Surprising News, McConnell is going to kill the Jan 6 investigation.
thanks, “conservatives”, you’re the fucking best.
in Not Surprising News, McConnell is going to kill the Jan 6 investigation.
thanks, “conservatives”, you’re the fucking best.
2024 is gonna be a mess. Just a heads up.
2024 is gonna be a mess. Just a heads up.
2022 will be a prelim…
2022 will be a prelim…
and Mark McCloskey is running for Senate.
the GOP is a sham.
and Mark McCloskey is running for Senate.
the GOP is a sham.
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
And they aren’t even, IIRC, the worst actors who have been on it at one point or another. Nonetheless, the fact that the institution is imperfect, even massively imperfect at times, doesn’t mean it has no value.
I would also note this. The US regularly exhorts other countries to improve their behavior, on a variety of issues. I’m not sure how generally effective it is. But our government, under both parties, has long taken the position that it is worth doing.
But then we have a situation like this. On one hand, we have a treaty which is widely honored in the breach. On the other, we have hysteria here about giving the UN some kind of power over us — how that could work is not clear, but oh well. So we don’t ratify it.
What we actually have, in us being the only nation to refuse to ratify the treaty, is lack of virtue signaling. If we can’t even bring ourselves to ratify a dead letter, why should anybody pay any attention to our calls for virtuous behavior on anything?
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
And they aren’t even, IIRC, the worst actors who have been on it at one point or another. Nonetheless, the fact that the institution is imperfect, even massively imperfect at times, doesn’t mean it has no value.
I would also note this. The US regularly exhorts other countries to improve their behavior, on a variety of issues. I’m not sure how generally effective it is. But our government, under both parties, has long taken the position that it is worth doing.
But then we have a situation like this. On one hand, we have a treaty which is widely honored in the breach. On the other, we have hysteria here about giving the UN some kind of power over us — how that could work is not clear, but oh well. So we don’t ratify it.
What we actually have, in us being the only nation to refuse to ratify the treaty, is lack of virtue signaling. If we can’t even bring ourselves to ratify a dead letter, why should anybody pay any attention to our calls for virtuous behavior on anything?
On the lack of virtue signaling bright side, had we ratified the convention, we’d probably have had to suffer through Tyrannosaurus Rump publicly withdrawing from it the same way he did the Paris Accord. Virtue disdaining is somewhat less dickish behavior than virtue ass waving.
On the lack of virtue signaling bright side, had we ratified the convention, we’d probably have had to suffer through Tyrannosaurus Rump publicly withdrawing from it the same way he did the Paris Accord. Virtue disdaining is somewhat less dickish behavior than virtue ass waving.
I don’t really have much more to add, but I believe that there are some US Democrats not interested in ratifying it.
I have no doubts that this statement is true (even if we limit it to elected officials). I also assume that there are some elected Republicans that would have no personal objection (although they might be reluctant to be open about it).
There is of course nuance in ‘not interested’. It can be understood as ‘it does not matter to me, so I will not do anything unless forced to’ or ‘I am strongly interested in the opposite’. But imo it would not matter as to the validity of the cited statement (although the numbers would look a bit different).
I don’t really have much more to add, but I believe that there are some US Democrats not interested in ratifying it.
I have no doubts that this statement is true (even if we limit it to elected officials). I also assume that there are some elected Republicans that would have no personal objection (although they might be reluctant to be open about it).
There is of course nuance in ‘not interested’. It can be understood as ‘it does not matter to me, so I will not do anything unless forced to’ or ‘I am strongly interested in the opposite’. But imo it would not matter as to the validity of the cited statement (although the numbers would look a bit different).
thanks, “conservatives”, you’re the fucking best.
1. Just a reminder: under the last GOP POTUS before Trump, we had the GOP being fine with torture as long as you called it something else.
2. Then we had Trump. And in his aftermath, we have the vast majority of GOP supporters (and their elected reps) at least tolerant of sedition, and certainly believing in the subversion of American democracy.
wj’s excellent formulation “lack of virtue” signalling relating to the UNCRC, while highly regrettable (but unsurprising), seems small beer compared.
As far as the PRC’s actions against Hong Kong, and against the Uyghurs, are concerned, while horrifying this is hardly surprising in the case of an authoritarian dictatorship: it’s what you would expect.
1 and 2 above, however, are not what you expect of a nation which has portrayed itself (for decades) as an exemplar of a modern democracy and upholder of human rights. I leave it to everybody else to make their own judgement about which of the two major parties has been loudest in this self-portrayal
thanks, “conservatives”, you’re the fucking best.
1. Just a reminder: under the last GOP POTUS before Trump, we had the GOP being fine with torture as long as you called it something else.
2. Then we had Trump. And in his aftermath, we have the vast majority of GOP supporters (and their elected reps) at least tolerant of sedition, and certainly believing in the subversion of American democracy.
wj’s excellent formulation “lack of virtue” signalling relating to the UNCRC, while highly regrettable (but unsurprising), seems small beer compared.
As far as the PRC’s actions against Hong Kong, and against the Uyghurs, are concerned, while horrifying this is hardly surprising in the case of an authoritarian dictatorship: it’s what you would expect.
1 and 2 above, however, are not what you expect of a nation which has portrayed itself (for decades) as an exemplar of a modern democracy and upholder of human rights. I leave it to everybody else to make their own judgement about which of the two major parties has been loudest in this self-portrayal
the entire GOP is a virtue signal. they think they’re telling us what great honorable patriots they are.
the entire GOP is a virtue signal. they think they’re telling us what great honorable patriots they are.
well said, wj 1:46 abv
well said, wj 1:46 abv
open thread, eh. OK. Read this.
open thread, eh. OK. Read this.
A group of United States Capitol Police officers signaled their “profound disappointment” that Republican congressional leadership has refused to support the proposed bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot in an open letter published Wednesday.
…
A spokesperson from the office of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the letter ― which is written on USCP letterhead but left unsigned ― represents about 40 to 50 officers. It was sent to House chiefs Wednesday afternoon.
“Unfortunately this letter comes to you anonymously, because as U.S. Capitol Police Officers, we are expected to remain neutral and do our jobs with honor and integrity,” it reads. “It’s unfortunate that our ‘bosses’ (Congress) are not held to the same standard that we, the USCP, are.”
The Jan. 6 rioting followed a rally held by President Donald Trump to contest the results of the 2020 election. On that day, the officers wrote, they “were subjected to hours and hours of physical trauma which has led to months of mental anguish.” The attack left five people dead; two officers died by suicide in the days afterward.
“If you look around the Capitol building, you still have doors that are broken, windows still smashed and in some cases missing,” it continues. “Officers are forced to go to work with the daily reminder of what happened that dreadful day.”
The USCP said in a statement that the letter does not represent the agency’s official position, nor would the agency comment on who had written it.
The party of law and order.
A group of United States Capitol Police officers signaled their “profound disappointment” that Republican congressional leadership has refused to support the proposed bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot in an open letter published Wednesday.
…
A spokesperson from the office of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the letter ― which is written on USCP letterhead but left unsigned ― represents about 40 to 50 officers. It was sent to House chiefs Wednesday afternoon.
“Unfortunately this letter comes to you anonymously, because as U.S. Capitol Police Officers, we are expected to remain neutral and do our jobs with honor and integrity,” it reads. “It’s unfortunate that our ‘bosses’ (Congress) are not held to the same standard that we, the USCP, are.”
The Jan. 6 rioting followed a rally held by President Donald Trump to contest the results of the 2020 election. On that day, the officers wrote, they “were subjected to hours and hours of physical trauma which has led to months of mental anguish.” The attack left five people dead; two officers died by suicide in the days afterward.
“If you look around the Capitol building, you still have doors that are broken, windows still smashed and in some cases missing,” it continues. “Officers are forced to go to work with the daily reminder of what happened that dreadful day.”
The USCP said in a statement that the letter does not represent the agency’s official position, nor would the agency comment on who had written it.
The party of law and order.
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
Yep, gotta get Cuba in there.
The idea that every country has things they can do better in regards to human rights really offends the exceptionalists in the group.
Surely the irony of the PRC, Russian Federation and Cuba being on the UN Human Rights Council is not lost on everyone.
Yep, gotta get Cuba in there.
The idea that every country has things they can do better in regards to human rights really offends the exceptionalists in the group.
USCP is probably code for US Communist Party. Ha, take that libz!!!
USCP is probably code for US Communist Party. Ha, take that libz!!!
Ah, ha!!!
Since this is an open thread, here is the history behind WHY we got such muddled guidance on masks vs hand washing as preventative measures for covid.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Turns out that, half a century ago, somebody conflated two studies of airborne particles. And we’ve been getting it wrong ever since. Until, during the covid efforts, somebody noticed that the conventional wisdom’s physics were wrong.
Ah, ha!!!
Since this is an open thread, here is the history behind WHY we got such muddled guidance on masks vs hand washing as preventative measures for covid.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Turns out that, half a century ago, somebody conflated two studies of airborne particles. And we’ve been getting it wrong ever since. Until, during the covid efforts, somebody noticed that the conventional wisdom’s physics were wrong.
And one more contrarian log on the fire from Teen Vogue:
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/campus-cancel-culture-university-boards
And one more contrarian log on the fire from Teen Vogue:
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/campus-cancel-culture-university-boards
nous, I note that the article goes on at length about how critical union organizing is to fixing the problems of the university.
But what the history that the article includes actually shows is that the root cause of the problems was (in state colleges and universities) slashing of state financial support. Every problem laid out in the article stems, directly or indirectly, from that.
Which means that the solution will have to start with rebuilding public support. Until the legislatures are willing to increase funding, nothing will change because nothing can change. Any proposal to fix the problems has to start, like it or not, with asking “Will this action, this tactic, help build broad public support for more funding? Not should it, but will it do so in the real world?” Too much of the article’s preferred solutions simply ignore the question.
nous, I note that the article goes on at length about how critical union organizing is to fixing the problems of the university.
But what the history that the article includes actually shows is that the root cause of the problems was (in state colleges and universities) slashing of state financial support. Every problem laid out in the article stems, directly or indirectly, from that.
Which means that the solution will have to start with rebuilding public support. Until the legislatures are willing to increase funding, nothing will change because nothing can change. Any proposal to fix the problems has to start, like it or not, with asking “Will this action, this tactic, help build broad public support for more funding? Not should it, but will it do so in the real world?” Too much of the article’s preferred solutions simply ignore the question.
But what the history that the article includes actually shows is that the root cause of the problems was (in state colleges and universities) slashing of state financial support. Every problem laid out in the article stems, directly or indirectly, from that.
For public universities, yes, but not for private institutions. And even the big public university systems like the University of California are sitting on huge reserves that the Office of the President and the Regents are using to prop up the bond ratings to fund capital projects that advance the prestige of the institution and keep it competitive with the elite privates, but that really offer little added value to the majority of undergrads beyond the value of a high ranking in US News. The elite privates and the big R1 publics could charge less in tuition and could pay their faculty more and could offer more job security, but the disaster capitalism model allows the regents and the professional administration to burnish their own reputations and secure their own power. They really have no loyalty to the educational quality of the institution, only to the perception of elite status. And that, at the private elites, has nothing to do with state financial support at all.
Any proposal to fix the problems has to start, like it or not, with asking “Will this action, this tactic, help build broad public support for more funding? Not should it, but will it do so in the real world?” Too much of the article’s preferred solutions simply ignore the question.
Adding funding is not going to right the ship. It will help some things, and it might temporarily reduce the pressure on tuition, but it won’t change the fundamental problems with institutional priorities.
I will admit that my view on this is colored by the fact that my faculty union is currently out-of-contract and fighting for some very basic job security against university (read regents and administrative) resistance. But the university keeps insisting that they are trying to serve the academic departments by giving them more hiring flexibility when what the departments really want is reliable, excellent teachers for their courses. And what the students want are excellent teachers who can pay attention to their students, who can mentor them in their projects, and who will still be there when they graduate to write an actual, personal letter of recommendation.
You can’t have that, even with more money in the budget, when the people making the staffing decisions have no experience in, or regard for, the teaching mission of the university – especially at the undergraduate level at which most of the teaching takes place.
Non-tenure faculty like me are no different from other workers who are being pressured by the gig-worker model. The only power we have is in collective action. Without that, the institutions keep the current model and just sock away more for capital projects.
The focus needs to be on undergraduate education. Funding can make that path smoother, but fixing the funding problem won’t fix the priority problem.
But what the history that the article includes actually shows is that the root cause of the problems was (in state colleges and universities) slashing of state financial support. Every problem laid out in the article stems, directly or indirectly, from that.
For public universities, yes, but not for private institutions. And even the big public university systems like the University of California are sitting on huge reserves that the Office of the President and the Regents are using to prop up the bond ratings to fund capital projects that advance the prestige of the institution and keep it competitive with the elite privates, but that really offer little added value to the majority of undergrads beyond the value of a high ranking in US News. The elite privates and the big R1 publics could charge less in tuition and could pay their faculty more and could offer more job security, but the disaster capitalism model allows the regents and the professional administration to burnish their own reputations and secure their own power. They really have no loyalty to the educational quality of the institution, only to the perception of elite status. And that, at the private elites, has nothing to do with state financial support at all.
Any proposal to fix the problems has to start, like it or not, with asking “Will this action, this tactic, help build broad public support for more funding? Not should it, but will it do so in the real world?” Too much of the article’s preferred solutions simply ignore the question.
Adding funding is not going to right the ship. It will help some things, and it might temporarily reduce the pressure on tuition, but it won’t change the fundamental problems with institutional priorities.
I will admit that my view on this is colored by the fact that my faculty union is currently out-of-contract and fighting for some very basic job security against university (read regents and administrative) resistance. But the university keeps insisting that they are trying to serve the academic departments by giving them more hiring flexibility when what the departments really want is reliable, excellent teachers for their courses. And what the students want are excellent teachers who can pay attention to their students, who can mentor them in their projects, and who will still be there when they graduate to write an actual, personal letter of recommendation.
You can’t have that, even with more money in the budget, when the people making the staffing decisions have no experience in, or regard for, the teaching mission of the university – especially at the undergraduate level at which most of the teaching takes place.
Non-tenure faculty like me are no different from other workers who are being pressured by the gig-worker model. The only power we have is in collective action. Without that, the institutions keep the current model and just sock away more for capital projects.
The focus needs to be on undergraduate education. Funding can make that path smoother, but fixing the funding problem won’t fix the priority problem.
here is the history behind WHY we got such muddled guidance on masks vs hand washing as preventative measures for covid…
Thing is, it was pretty obvious from quite early on in the pandemic that a quite large proportion of transmission was airborne. And that masks would have a degree of efficacy.
Medical/scientific dogma coupled with credentialism is nowhere near as bad as outright science denial, but it does have considerable negative consequences.
here is the history behind WHY we got such muddled guidance on masks vs hand washing as preventative measures for covid…
Thing is, it was pretty obvious from quite early on in the pandemic that a quite large proportion of transmission was airborne. And that masks would have a degree of efficacy.
Medical/scientific dogma coupled with credentialism is nowhere near as bad as outright science denial, but it does have considerable negative consequences.
in Not Surprising News, McConnell is going to kill the Jan 6 investigation.
Another example of the general case.
When Republicans refuse to take ‘yes’ for an answer
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-republicans-refuse-take-yes-answer-n1267901
in Not Surprising News, McConnell is going to kill the Jan 6 investigation.
Another example of the general case.
When Republicans refuse to take ‘yes’ for an answer
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-republicans-refuse-take-yes-answer-n1267901
“Turns out that, half a century ago, somebody conflated two studies of airborne particles. And we’ve been getting it wrong ever since.”
Aerodynamics is hard.
The Wright brothers made a mistake measuring the drag of “wires”, which resulted in several decades of slow aircraft festooned with wire bracing (think WWI ‘biplane’).
“Turns out that, half a century ago, somebody conflated two studies of airborne particles. And we’ve been getting it wrong ever since.”
Aerodynamics is hard.
The Wright brothers made a mistake measuring the drag of “wires”, which resulted in several decades of slow aircraft festooned with wire bracing (think WWI ‘biplane’).
When Republicans refuse to take ‘yes’ for an answer
must be noted that several (35!) House Republicans did vote for the bill, despite McCarthy’s predictable flip-flop. that probably says something about McCarthy’s leadership.
it won’t get through the Senate, though.
When Republicans refuse to take ‘yes’ for an answer
must be noted that several (35!) House Republicans did vote for the bill, despite McCarthy’s predictable flip-flop. that probably says something about McCarthy’s leadership.
it won’t get through the Senate, though.
Nunes’ family chose a really terrible lawyer. tee hee.
Nunes’ family chose a really terrible lawyer. tee hee.
Open thread, so I thought you might like to see this picture, captioned Meanwhile…in West Texas, storm chaser Laura Rowe captured the picture of a lifetime May 17, 2021.
https://twitter.com/LarsJohanL/status/1394886497321603073/photo/1
Open thread, so I thought you might like to see this picture, captioned Meanwhile…in West Texas, storm chaser Laura Rowe captured the picture of a lifetime May 17, 2021.
https://twitter.com/LarsJohanL/status/1394886497321603073/photo/1
Well what did you expect Nunes’ family to do? Trump already had Giuliani tied up.
And, after all, nuisance suits have been working for the Dear Leader for decades. So why not follow in his Glorious footsteps?
Well what did you expect Nunes’ family to do? Trump already had Giuliani tied up.
And, after all, nuisance suits have been working for the Dear Leader for decades. So why not follow in his Glorious footsteps?
thought you might like to see this picture
that’s amazing.
the photographer posted a video of that, too. while it’s not as dramatic, it shows that the colors in the photo were all there in real life.
thought you might like to see this picture
that’s amazing.
the photographer posted a video of that, too. while it’s not as dramatic, it shows that the colors in the photo were all there in real life.
I saw that photo on fb last night. I assumed it was at least fake-ish.
I saw that photo on fb last night. I assumed it was at least fake-ish.
Laura Rowe has copyrighted it, and is selling prints etc. Good luck to her.
She also tweeted:
@ all the people that think it’s photoshopped or something, don’t you think i would’ve photoshopped the electricity poles and stuff out? lol
(although personally, I think they add).
Laura Rowe has copyrighted it, and is selling prints etc. Good luck to her.
She also tweeted:
@ all the people that think it’s photoshopped or something, don’t you think i would’ve photoshopped the electricity poles and stuff out? lol
(although personally, I think they add).
I don’t think the photo is faked in PS (like 80% of the pics of aurora borealis), but I do think that she has likely done a lot in processing to enhance and accentuate the drama.
The internet seems to have an endless appetite for highly accentuated drama and little patience for well composed naturalism.
It’s a striking photo, whatever the case.
I don’t think the photo is faked in PS (like 80% of the pics of aurora borealis), but I do think that she has likely done a lot in processing to enhance and accentuate the drama.
The internet seems to have an endless appetite for highly accentuated drama and little patience for well composed naturalism.
It’s a striking photo, whatever the case.
At least the photo is not an obvious composite of multiple photos like so many of the nighttime photos with an improbably huge moon or a vivid milky way and a perfectly exposed foreground like I see passed around so much on the web.
At least the photo is not an obvious composite of multiple photos like so many of the nighttime photos with an improbably huge moon or a vivid milky way and a perfectly exposed foreground like I see passed around so much on the web.
One of the better-known landscape photoshoppings.
The French alps look straight out of Lord of the Rings
One of the better-known landscape photoshoppings.
The French alps look straight out of Lord of the Rings
here’s the video she took. https://twitter.com/lauralouu30/status/1394436141047111682?fbclid=IwAR3thrFKpb7foPeh0f1fSIJjNbwMs2oStNFt8VFj7w-8ry-Evc1qgKig0BM
but i’d bet a modern HDR-capable smart phone and some light post-exposure contrast tweaking could get that finished shot.
here’s the video she took. https://twitter.com/lauralouu30/status/1394436141047111682?fbclid=IwAR3thrFKpb7foPeh0f1fSIJjNbwMs2oStNFt8VFj7w-8ry-Evc1qgKig0BM
but i’d bet a modern HDR-capable smart phone and some light post-exposure contrast tweaking could get that finished shot.
One of the better-known landscape photoshoppings.
that’s hilarious, if the creator was trying to pass it off as anything but a Frankenstein.
One of the better-known landscape photoshoppings.
that’s hilarious, if the creator was trying to pass it off as anything but a Frankenstein.
but i’d bet a modern HDR-capable smart phone and some light post-exposure contrast tweaking could get that finished shot.
The modern camera phone has a lot of that extensive post processing built into its image processing algorithms such that further tweaking seems minimal. Most people never see what their phone actually saw before it made a lot of the processing decisions for them. The software bakes the processing trends right into the automated flow.
I’m one of those who prefers shooting in RAW and making conscious choices in the processing.
YMMV.
but i’d bet a modern HDR-capable smart phone and some light post-exposure contrast tweaking could get that finished shot.
The modern camera phone has a lot of that extensive post processing built into its image processing algorithms such that further tweaking seems minimal. Most people never see what their phone actually saw before it made a lot of the processing decisions for them. The software bakes the processing trends right into the automated flow.
I’m one of those who prefers shooting in RAW and making conscious choices in the processing.
YMMV.
i don’t think about it much, but when i do, i think of something like : the phone’s camera and app take the pictures they were designed to take.
if i want to get detailed about things, i’ve got an SLR that lets me get into it. but of course i can’t carry that (and all the lenses, and a laptop with Photoshop) with me everywhere i go. so it doesn’t get much use these days.
i do miss the days of waiting for slides to get back from the processing lab.
life goes on.
i don’t think about it much, but when i do, i think of something like : the phone’s camera and app take the pictures they were designed to take.
if i want to get detailed about things, i’ve got an SLR that lets me get into it. but of course i can’t carry that (and all the lenses, and a laptop with Photoshop) with me everywhere i go. so it doesn’t get much use these days.
i do miss the days of waiting for slides to get back from the processing lab.
life goes on.
Yeah. Cameras are a pain, but they are an engaging pain.
My proper camera is a m4/3 mirrorless and I like to shoot with either manual focus or adapted old manual lenses. I like the feel of the old stuff and being able to see what I’m getting as I adjust things. I shoot in RAW format and process in DXO Photo Lab.
Carrying a m4/3 is still a hassle, but everything being 2/3 weight and size makes it less of a logistical challenge.
Yeah. Cameras are a pain, but they are an engaging pain.
My proper camera is a m4/3 mirrorless and I like to shoot with either manual focus or adapted old manual lenses. I like the feel of the old stuff and being able to see what I’m getting as I adjust things. I shoot in RAW format and process in DXO Photo Lab.
Carrying a m4/3 is still a hassle, but everything being 2/3 weight and size makes it less of a logistical challenge.
The elite privates and the big R1 publics could charge less in tuition and could pay their faculty more and could offer more job security, but the disaster capitalism model allows the regents and the professional administration to burnish their own reputations and secure their own power. They really have no loyalty to the educational quality of the institution, only to the perception of elite status.
Note, however, who appoints them. For example, a majority of the UC Regents get appointed by the governor. (And another 4 are elected state officials, i.e. politicians.) So if you get public demand for change (voting public, not employee union members), it will happen. Not instantly, given they serve 12 year terms, but it will. That’s where you need to focus efforts for change.
The elite privates and the big R1 publics could charge less in tuition and could pay their faculty more and could offer more job security, but the disaster capitalism model allows the regents and the professional administration to burnish their own reputations and secure their own power. They really have no loyalty to the educational quality of the institution, only to the perception of elite status.
Note, however, who appoints them. For example, a majority of the UC Regents get appointed by the governor. (And another 4 are elected state officials, i.e. politicians.) So if you get public demand for change (voting public, not employee union members), it will happen. Not instantly, given they serve 12 year terms, but it will. That’s where you need to focus efforts for change.
Note, however, who appoints them. For example, a majority of the UC Regents get appointed by the governor.
But that only affects the public universities and has no effect on the privates and their boards of trustees. And it is clear that the driving force in all of this has been the Ivies and Stanford and MIT and the like.
Which is not to say that we don’t need to push for a public demand for change. We do. But the voices that make that case must come from within higher education because, frankly, the public really has no idea how universities actually function. Most voters are on this the way that most voters are on politics. They have a vague idea of principles, but no understanding of policy.
While most university faculty are gig workers the voice that speaks for higher education is the voice of the administration. Give the faculty back a meaningful voice in the conversation and the public will hear a very different articulation of what matters, and one that is much less tied to the US News model of elite institutions competing for our best and brightest and needing flexibility.
Screw that BS. Colleges and universities are catalysts for economic mobility when they facilitate in all graduates an ability to respond to change in more productive ways through versatile and resilient habits of mind. It should not be top-down, but bottom-up.
If you want that, then you need to empower your non-tenured faculty, because they are the ones that, more often than not, actually fulfill that mission in higher education.
No slight to tenured faculty. I’m just looking at the people who most often touch the lives of the students not in the running for grad school, and who teach the people who don’t make it to a degree.
Note, however, who appoints them. For example, a majority of the UC Regents get appointed by the governor.
But that only affects the public universities and has no effect on the privates and their boards of trustees. And it is clear that the driving force in all of this has been the Ivies and Stanford and MIT and the like.
Which is not to say that we don’t need to push for a public demand for change. We do. But the voices that make that case must come from within higher education because, frankly, the public really has no idea how universities actually function. Most voters are on this the way that most voters are on politics. They have a vague idea of principles, but no understanding of policy.
While most university faculty are gig workers the voice that speaks for higher education is the voice of the administration. Give the faculty back a meaningful voice in the conversation and the public will hear a very different articulation of what matters, and one that is much less tied to the US News model of elite institutions competing for our best and brightest and needing flexibility.
Screw that BS. Colleges and universities are catalysts for economic mobility when they facilitate in all graduates an ability to respond to change in more productive ways through versatile and resilient habits of mind. It should not be top-down, but bottom-up.
If you want that, then you need to empower your non-tenured faculty, because they are the ones that, more often than not, actually fulfill that mission in higher education.
No slight to tenured faculty. I’m just looking at the people who most often touch the lives of the students not in the running for grad school, and who teach the people who don’t make it to a degree.
But that only affects the public universities and has no effect on the privates and their boards of trustees. And it is clear that the driving force in all of this has been the Ivies and Stanford and MIT and the like.
I’m not so sure. The Ivies, etc. were always expensive. Their faculty structure may have changed, but they never were “affordable” in any meaningful sense. You had rich parents, or a acholarship, or took out loans (if you could). Or you went elsewhere. If you want to change their faculty structure, you may, indeed, have to try something like labor strikes.
But, back when I was attending UC, it was entirely possible to work your way thru school on 15-20 hours a week at minimum wage (washing dishes, typing and filing, etc.) I know because I did it. No chance of that now. The same changes which will be required to get back to something like that are the ones which will be needed to address the faculty problems you suffer under: You need different people, different kinds of people, on the Board of Regents. And for that, the last thing you want is the parents of students (voters) seeing their children’s education disrupted by a strike — and screaming at their political leaders about it. Doesn’t matter how virtuous your justification is, if you go down that road you lose.
The good news is, the universities are, to some degree, competing for the same limited pool of talent for teachers. If you break the “gig economy” approach at one group, the other probably can’t stand alone.
But that only affects the public universities and has no effect on the privates and their boards of trustees. And it is clear that the driving force in all of this has been the Ivies and Stanford and MIT and the like.
I’m not so sure. The Ivies, etc. were always expensive. Their faculty structure may have changed, but they never were “affordable” in any meaningful sense. You had rich parents, or a acholarship, or took out loans (if you could). Or you went elsewhere. If you want to change their faculty structure, you may, indeed, have to try something like labor strikes.
But, back when I was attending UC, it was entirely possible to work your way thru school on 15-20 hours a week at minimum wage (washing dishes, typing and filing, etc.) I know because I did it. No chance of that now. The same changes which will be required to get back to something like that are the ones which will be needed to address the faculty problems you suffer under: You need different people, different kinds of people, on the Board of Regents. And for that, the last thing you want is the parents of students (voters) seeing their children’s education disrupted by a strike — and screaming at their political leaders about it. Doesn’t matter how virtuous your justification is, if you go down that road you lose.
The good news is, the universities are, to some degree, competing for the same limited pool of talent for teachers. If you break the “gig economy” approach at one group, the other probably can’t stand alone.
I’m not so sure. The Ivies, etc. were always expensive. Their faculty structure may have changed, but they never were “affordable” in any meaningful sense. You had rich parents, or a acholarship, or took out loans (if you could). Or you went elsewhere. If you want to change their faculty structure, you may, indeed, have to try something like labor strikes.
This underestimates the degree to which the race for rankings and status as an elite university has shaped institutional management over the last 30 years. As university funding has tightened, the competition for students has increased, and the biggest way to build a brand as an elite institution worth all that increased tuition has been to try to offer amenities like the elite privates. Same with administrative positions. Presidents and senior administrators are all oriented towards maximizing fundraising for the purpose of increasing recruitment and alumni giving.
If you are not an elite, you have to compete with the for-profits who offer low-overhead credentialing. The for-profits are a crap shoot and many have horrible completion and retention rates, but they stay afloat on predatory lending practices and a steady stream of students. Small colleges and universities are folding up like lawn chairs from this competition.
So the elite privates at the top and the for-profits at the bottom really are driving the conversation and pushing the big public systems to have to compete with amenities while the small schools and community colleges are facing a race to the bottom.
As for the union thing, I don’t think Teen Vogue is saying that non-tenure faculty should strike. Most of them cannot because their positions are not unionized. I think Teen Vogue is saying that non-tenured faculty need to organize. I’m one of the fortunate few who has the right to collectively bargain, and even with that, it’s a very contingent situation. Most non-tenure faculty haven’t a hope in hell of a living wage.
I’m not so sure. The Ivies, etc. were always expensive. Their faculty structure may have changed, but they never were “affordable” in any meaningful sense. You had rich parents, or a acholarship, or took out loans (if you could). Or you went elsewhere. If you want to change their faculty structure, you may, indeed, have to try something like labor strikes.
This underestimates the degree to which the race for rankings and status as an elite university has shaped institutional management over the last 30 years. As university funding has tightened, the competition for students has increased, and the biggest way to build a brand as an elite institution worth all that increased tuition has been to try to offer amenities like the elite privates. Same with administrative positions. Presidents and senior administrators are all oriented towards maximizing fundraising for the purpose of increasing recruitment and alumni giving.
If you are not an elite, you have to compete with the for-profits who offer low-overhead credentialing. The for-profits are a crap shoot and many have horrible completion and retention rates, but they stay afloat on predatory lending practices and a steady stream of students. Small colleges and universities are folding up like lawn chairs from this competition.
So the elite privates at the top and the for-profits at the bottom really are driving the conversation and pushing the big public systems to have to compete with amenities while the small schools and community colleges are facing a race to the bottom.
As for the union thing, I don’t think Teen Vogue is saying that non-tenure faculty should strike. Most of them cannot because their positions are not unionized. I think Teen Vogue is saying that non-tenured faculty need to organize. I’m one of the fortunate few who has the right to collectively bargain, and even with that, it’s a very contingent situation. Most non-tenure faculty haven’t a hope in hell of a living wage.
You want to understand higher-ed finances? Start with basic economics: supply and demand.
Demand is large and inelastic: no college degree = bad life outcomes.
Supply is limited*, so the only thing that constrains ‘price’ (tuition) is what that other college down the road is charging. Competition is slowing down price increases (otherwise some colleges would ratchet up tuition on a near-daily basis). (*not so much overall, but in ‘degree-equivalent’ institutions; so ‘Ivies’+Stanford, MIT/CMU/etc, Enormous State University…)
The “public option” of state-funded colleges has been kneecapped by generations of GOP legislatures, plus the infestation of upper-admin with professional management and their MBA culture, so that the publics *act* like privates.
That sets the price; as for where the money goes, just look at the rate of increase of tuition (price), with the rate of increase in faculty salaries (cost), over DECADES. It’s clear that the money is going somewhere other than ‘instruction’, and no it isn’t fancy dorms, because (a) room & board is on top of tuition, and (b) it’s a small percentage overall.
Higher-ed is non-profit, otherwise that extra money would be going into dividends and stock options; so instead it goes into admin empire-building and bloat to reward upper-admin.
Reinvigorating state-support will help with more price competition, but since all the higher-eds are non-profit by grace of the tax laws, a change in the tax law could do a lot: 70%+ of “tuition+fees income MUST be spent on ‘instruction’, otherwise loss of non-profit status retroactive 10 years, with punitive taxes levied on C-level admin”
The whining will be heard in nearby galaxies.
You want to understand higher-ed finances? Start with basic economics: supply and demand.
Demand is large and inelastic: no college degree = bad life outcomes.
Supply is limited*, so the only thing that constrains ‘price’ (tuition) is what that other college down the road is charging. Competition is slowing down price increases (otherwise some colleges would ratchet up tuition on a near-daily basis). (*not so much overall, but in ‘degree-equivalent’ institutions; so ‘Ivies’+Stanford, MIT/CMU/etc, Enormous State University…)
The “public option” of state-funded colleges has been kneecapped by generations of GOP legislatures, plus the infestation of upper-admin with professional management and their MBA culture, so that the publics *act* like privates.
That sets the price; as for where the money goes, just look at the rate of increase of tuition (price), with the rate of increase in faculty salaries (cost), over DECADES. It’s clear that the money is going somewhere other than ‘instruction’, and no it isn’t fancy dorms, because (a) room & board is on top of tuition, and (b) it’s a small percentage overall.
Higher-ed is non-profit, otherwise that extra money would be going into dividends and stock options; so instead it goes into admin empire-building and bloat to reward upper-admin.
Reinvigorating state-support will help with more price competition, but since all the higher-eds are non-profit by grace of the tax laws, a change in the tax law could do a lot: 70%+ of “tuition+fees income MUST be spent on ‘instruction’, otherwise loss of non-profit status retroactive 10 years, with punitive taxes levied on C-level admin”
The whining will be heard in nearby galaxies.
I offer this anecdote for commentary from those of you with more background than I on current trends in higher education.
This fall my son will be attending what was our typical, local, 2-year, community/county college, but that affiliated with a nearby public university several years ago. The nearby university used to be a small, local, 4-year college that the teachers at my high school would joke about being 13th grade, even though a number of them got their degrees there (it started as a teachers college), partly because so many kids from our high school would go there, and partly because it was so small and easy to get into.
The 4-year school got a large donation nearly 30 years ago, was named after the donor, and became a university several years later. It has been growing rapidly ever since, both in size and reputation. In turn, the 2-year college has been doing the same since affiliating, and now also bears the name of the donor who started the university’s transformation.
My son will be attending tuition free under a merit-based program offered by the state. If he gets good enough grades at the 2-year college, he can qualify for reduced-tuition attendance at the affiliated university (or any other participating 4-year public college or university) for his last 2 years to receive his bachelor’s.
One advantage of attending the affiliated university is that every credit is guaranteed to transfer. Another is that, should they want to, students at the 2-year college can live on campus at the university. There’s also the possibility of doing the first 3 years tuition free at the college, depending on the program of study, and only having to attend the affiliated university for the final year of undergrad. That would couple the merit-based scholarship with the “3-plus-1” option that is also available separately from the scholarship, but that also offers significant savings with 3 of the 4 years of undergrad at community college costs.
Is this a model that anyone else has seen elsewhere? Is it model anyone else would like to see elsewhere?
I offer this anecdote for commentary from those of you with more background than I on current trends in higher education.
This fall my son will be attending what was our typical, local, 2-year, community/county college, but that affiliated with a nearby public university several years ago. The nearby university used to be a small, local, 4-year college that the teachers at my high school would joke about being 13th grade, even though a number of them got their degrees there (it started as a teachers college), partly because so many kids from our high school would go there, and partly because it was so small and easy to get into.
The 4-year school got a large donation nearly 30 years ago, was named after the donor, and became a university several years later. It has been growing rapidly ever since, both in size and reputation. In turn, the 2-year college has been doing the same since affiliating, and now also bears the name of the donor who started the university’s transformation.
My son will be attending tuition free under a merit-based program offered by the state. If he gets good enough grades at the 2-year college, he can qualify for reduced-tuition attendance at the affiliated university (or any other participating 4-year public college or university) for his last 2 years to receive his bachelor’s.
One advantage of attending the affiliated university is that every credit is guaranteed to transfer. Another is that, should they want to, students at the 2-year college can live on campus at the university. There’s also the possibility of doing the first 3 years tuition free at the college, depending on the program of study, and only having to attend the affiliated university for the final year of undergrad. That would couple the merit-based scholarship with the “3-plus-1” option that is also available separately from the scholarship, but that also offers significant savings with 3 of the 4 years of undergrad at community college costs.
Is this a model that anyone else has seen elsewhere? Is it model anyone else would like to see elsewhere?
Thing is, it was pretty obvious from quite early on in the pandemic that a quite large proportion of transmission was airborne. And that masks would have a degree of efficacy.
Even if the experts knew masks were a good thing from the beginning, should they have said anything? At least in hindsight, the mask crisis/shortage would have been much worse: the civilians would have bought everything in sight, the supply chain runs through countries that abruptly stopped exporting, and the front line medical providers would have been in even worse shape than actually happened.
Thing is, it was pretty obvious from quite early on in the pandemic that a quite large proportion of transmission was airborne. And that masks would have a degree of efficacy.
Even if the experts knew masks were a good thing from the beginning, should they have said anything? At least in hindsight, the mask crisis/shortage would have been much worse: the civilians would have bought everything in sight, the supply chain runs through countries that abruptly stopped exporting, and the front line medical providers would have been in even worse shape than actually happened.
At least in hindsight, the mask crisis/shortage would have been much worse: the civilians would have bought everything in sight, the supply chain runs through countries that abruptly stopped exporting, and the front line medical providers would have been in even worse shape than actually happened.
I recall Fauci saying almost exactly this a few months into the pandemic when questioned about the change in mask recommendations. Maybe the push for cloth/homemade masks, as opposed to N95 masks and the like, could have happened earlier. But even that could have pushed people to seek out something they considered to be more effective.
It’s difficult to convey the right message to the public because you have consider not only the best science available but how people will receive it and react to it. For instance, you try to tell people to be cautious, but they then panic, making things worse. It’s not always predictable.
At least in hindsight, the mask crisis/shortage would have been much worse: the civilians would have bought everything in sight, the supply chain runs through countries that abruptly stopped exporting, and the front line medical providers would have been in even worse shape than actually happened.
I recall Fauci saying almost exactly this a few months into the pandemic when questioned about the change in mask recommendations. Maybe the push for cloth/homemade masks, as opposed to N95 masks and the like, could have happened earlier. But even that could have pushed people to seek out something they considered to be more effective.
It’s difficult to convey the right message to the public because you have consider not only the best science available but how people will receive it and react to it. For instance, you try to tell people to be cautious, but they then panic, making things worse. It’s not always predictable.
right, the CDC initially didn’t want to tell people to go get N95s because those were needed by health care workers, and it wasn’t clear what lesser grades would do.
i’m sure it’s a coincidence that much of this “there was message confusion!!” stuff comes from people who don’t want to wear masks or get vaccinated or not go to bars. it can’t be nothing more than flailing around to find post-hoc justifications for selfishness.
right, the CDC initially didn’t want to tell people to go get N95s because those were needed by health care workers, and it wasn’t clear what lesser grades would do.
i’m sure it’s a coincidence that much of this “there was message confusion!!” stuff comes from people who don’t want to wear masks or get vaccinated or not go to bars. it can’t be nothing more than flailing around to find post-hoc justifications for selfishness.
It’s better to tell people the truth as best as it’s known rather than lie to them. And let the chips fall where they may. Supposedly that was one of the guidelines at the CDC when dealing with a health emergency like a pandemic. That quickly went by the wayside.
It’s better to tell people the truth as best as it’s known rather than lie to them. And let the chips fall where they may. Supposedly that was one of the guidelines at the CDC when dealing with a health emergency like a pandemic. That quickly went by the wayside.
in a mass medical emergency, you protect the people who can save lives.
in a mass medical emergency, you protect the people who can save lives.
This article reads like something from The Onion.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999020140/its-now-legal-to-practice-yoga-in-alabamas-public-schools
This article reads like something from The Onion.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999020140/its-now-legal-to-practice-yoga-in-alabamas-public-schools
To consider a somewhat analogous situation to messaging during a public-health emergency, how many gas stations would have run dry if no one knew that the Colonial Pipeline had been shut down?
To consider a somewhat analogous situation to messaging during a public-health emergency, how many gas stations would have run dry if no one knew that the Colonial Pipeline had been shut down?
won’t anyone think of The Market?
who will grease the palm of the invisible hand if we don’t let irrational hoarding run amok?
won’t anyone think of The Market?
who will grease the palm of the invisible hand if we don’t let irrational hoarding run amok?
shortly after the pandemic started, I paid $70 for two 8-oz bottles of Purell. that’s what was available.
so maybe not telling everyone to run out and buy N95 masks was a good call, at least at that time.
I like free markets as much as anybody else. Probably as much as Charles. I think they’re great.
There’s a difference between favoring and supporting free markets, and blindly submitting to whatever outcomes they create.
shortly after the pandemic started, I paid $70 for two 8-oz bottles of Purell. that’s what was available.
so maybe not telling everyone to run out and buy N95 masks was a good call, at least at that time.
I like free markets as much as anybody else. Probably as much as Charles. I think they’re great.
There’s a difference between favoring and supporting free markets, and blindly submitting to whatever outcomes they create.
This article reads like something from The Onion.
First they came for the downward facing dog….
This article reads like something from The Onion.
First they came for the downward facing dog….
Haven’t read the article yet, but I knew somebody who years ago was dating an American Christian (I don’t know what kind) who was very worried indeed when he found out she was going to a yoga retreat and spa in the Caribbean. If I recall correctly, he said yoga was demonic! Nobody to whom she told this story had ever heard of anything like it – we all thought he was certifiable.
Haven’t read the article yet, but I knew somebody who years ago was dating an American Christian (I don’t know what kind) who was very worried indeed when he found out she was going to a yoga retreat and spa in the Caribbean. If I recall correctly, he said yoga was demonic! Nobody to whom she told this story had ever heard of anything like it – we all thought he was certifiable.
we all thought he was certifiable.
Fear of yoga is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
we all thought he was certifiable.
Fear of yoga is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
I’m not surprised at the restrictions on yoga in Alabama. One of my friends is a dialect instructor in the theater department. Parts of what he does for the Physiological training and awareness required for vocalization are exercises adapted from yoga to teach body awareness. He’s had students who requested accommodations based on religion whose intent was to skip the required labs entirely because yoga was against their religion.
No chanting of mantras, no Sanskrit, no anything except vocalization, breathing exercises, and light stretching and relaxation techniques. It’s entirely practical and scientific. My friend is an atheist and wants no part of any spirituality exercises. He’s just trying to give his students tools to be able to take on roles that require speaking in dialect (and to be able to project better and more safely).
Nope. Too dangerous. Demons.
So far, at least, he has had to make no accommodations. It’s an elective class.
I’m not surprised at the restrictions on yoga in Alabama. One of my friends is a dialect instructor in the theater department. Parts of what he does for the Physiological training and awareness required for vocalization are exercises adapted from yoga to teach body awareness. He’s had students who requested accommodations based on religion whose intent was to skip the required labs entirely because yoga was against their religion.
No chanting of mantras, no Sanskrit, no anything except vocalization, breathing exercises, and light stretching and relaxation techniques. It’s entirely practical and scientific. My friend is an atheist and wants no part of any spirituality exercises. He’s just trying to give his students tools to be able to take on roles that require speaking in dialect (and to be able to project better and more safely).
Nope. Too dangerous. Demons.
So far, at least, he has had to make no accommodations. It’s an elective class.
same for tai chi. all the subtle energy talk sounds too much like demon possession.
a lotta people walk around with a lotta weird stuff in their head. it makes life a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
same for tai chi. all the subtle energy talk sounds too much like demon possession.
a lotta people walk around with a lotta weird stuff in their head. it makes life a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
It’s really quite sad how little faith they have in their faith. Any exposure of their children to another faith will, apparently, immediately cause said children to abandon the faith of their fathers. For that matter, the fathers aren’t very secure in their own ability to resist any and every other faith that might come along.
Sad, to see someone who considers their religion that unattractive.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
It’s really quite sad how little faith they have in their faith. Any exposure of their children to another faith will, apparently, immediately cause said children to abandon the faith of their fathers. For that matter, the fathers aren’t very secure in their own ability to resist any and every other faith that might come along.
Sad, to see someone who considers their religion that unattractive.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
And yet, as I understand it, they say that perfect love casteth out fear.
I wouldn’t know, of course, neither claiming nor aspiring to any kind of perfection. But then, I am that most dangerous of animals (h/t Monty Python as recently explained) an atheist jew.
Fear of a great many things is not uncommon in American evangelical circles.
And yet, as I understand it, they say that perfect love casteth out fear.
I wouldn’t know, of course, neither claiming nor aspiring to any kind of perfection. But then, I am that most dangerous of animals (h/t Monty Python as recently explained) an atheist jew.
my MiL in Alabama thinks yoga is satanic. she thinks that about Harry Potter, too.
she’s 80+ and knows nothing about either.
my MiL in Alabama thinks yoga is satanic. she thinks that about Harry Potter, too.
she’s 80+ and knows nothing about either.
Cripes! And we thought the Melanesian cargo cult and the tribe that worshipped Prince Philip were exotic!
Cripes! And we thought the Melanesian cargo cult and the tribe that worshipped Prince Philip were exotic!
hsh – Is this a model that anyone else has seen elsewhere? Is it model anyone else would like to see elsewhere?
Sounds like a lot of things working together, hopefully with enough flexibility to not gum up the works in the notoriously kludgy budgeting processes and legacy software that shape the experience at the bursars office.
I’d like to see all college made more accessible and less expensive. I think that it is a huge driver of upward mobility. I’d say the same for vocational programs.
I think if these sorts of programs were embraced by the public as a general principle that we could get rid of the two problematic categories of tuition discounts (need and merit) and just subsidize education and training across the board for public non-profits (and offer some level of the same to qualifying private non-profits).
Of course I’d also prefer that we do away with grades at the same time and just go with a system of P/NP for classes, with an added Passed with Distinction as a possible award. Anyone who is actually doing the work and making sufficient progress should be allowed to continue with no stigma, and people who are not making progress should be given reasonable chances to redo.
Last thing, I’d want to keep this open to non-traditional students so that there was less pressure to go right away, and also make the process more flexible for leaving and returning to a course of study.
Think I may have written similar here before.
I’m a utopian. I’m also a pragmatist, but those thing can both coexist.
hsh – Is this a model that anyone else has seen elsewhere? Is it model anyone else would like to see elsewhere?
Sounds like a lot of things working together, hopefully with enough flexibility to not gum up the works in the notoriously kludgy budgeting processes and legacy software that shape the experience at the bursars office.
I’d like to see all college made more accessible and less expensive. I think that it is a huge driver of upward mobility. I’d say the same for vocational programs.
I think if these sorts of programs were embraced by the public as a general principle that we could get rid of the two problematic categories of tuition discounts (need and merit) and just subsidize education and training across the board for public non-profits (and offer some level of the same to qualifying private non-profits).
Of course I’d also prefer that we do away with grades at the same time and just go with a system of P/NP for classes, with an added Passed with Distinction as a possible award. Anyone who is actually doing the work and making sufficient progress should be allowed to continue with no stigma, and people who are not making progress should be given reasonable chances to redo.
Last thing, I’d want to keep this open to non-traditional students so that there was less pressure to go right away, and also make the process more flexible for leaving and returning to a course of study.
Think I may have written similar here before.
I’m a utopian. I’m also a pragmatist, but those thing can both coexist.
I’d like to see all college made more accessible and less expensive. I think that it is a huge driver of upward mobility. I’d say the same for vocational programs.
I’d like to see at least 2 years of JC** made free. And routine. Sort of like happened a century ago with high school. (Total aside: has 8th grade “graduation” finally died out? Or does it linger yet?)
Then we work on making college thru a bachelor’s degree available dirt cheap. As in, something anyone can fund on 20 hours work a week. We, as a nation, need all the educated people we can get. And while I’m fine with importing any who want to come, I’d like to build here as well.
** Or vocational training. Whichever better fits the kid’s needs and wants.
I’d like to see all college made more accessible and less expensive. I think that it is a huge driver of upward mobility. I’d say the same for vocational programs.
I’d like to see at least 2 years of JC** made free. And routine. Sort of like happened a century ago with high school. (Total aside: has 8th grade “graduation” finally died out? Or does it linger yet?)
Then we work on making college thru a bachelor’s degree available dirt cheap. As in, something anyone can fund on 20 hours work a week. We, as a nation, need all the educated people we can get. And while I’m fine with importing any who want to come, I’d like to build here as well.
** Or vocational training. Whichever better fits the kid’s needs and wants.
Great to see that the Moral Majority’s behavior is as rock solid as ever.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/21/romeo-juliet-anthony-bouchard-wyoming/
(Do they recruit people like this deliberately? Because it seems statistically unlikely they could end up with so many just by chance….)
Great to see that the Moral Majority’s behavior is as rock solid as ever.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/21/romeo-juliet-anthony-bouchard-wyoming/
(Do they recruit people like this deliberately? Because it seems statistically unlikely they could end up with so many just by chance….)
wj – The scum are all that remains. The less-scummy GQP pols are all retiring. The new crop are all Trump-types.
wj – The scum are all that remains. The less-scummy GQP pols are all retiring. The new crop are all Trump-types.
scum floats to the top.
It is known.
scum floats to the top.
It is known.
Total aside: has 8th grade “graduation” finally died out? Or does it linger yet?
I haven’t been paying attention in recent years, but last I knew, not only had 8th grade graduation not disappeared (or some equivalent), but kindergarten “graduation” was a thing. In a species that accepts death as a reasonable trade-off for the sake of “gender reveals,” you’re not going to find anything like logic on this issue.
Vaguely elated pet peeve: people calling a high school diploma a “degree.” Maybe they only do that around here…. Or maybe they’re the same ones who say people “graduated college,” though I know that one is definitely used in other places besides Maine.
Total aside: has 8th grade “graduation” finally died out? Or does it linger yet?
I haven’t been paying attention in recent years, but last I knew, not only had 8th grade graduation not disappeared (or some equivalent), but kindergarten “graduation” was a thing. In a species that accepts death as a reasonable trade-off for the sake of “gender reveals,” you’re not going to find anything like logic on this issue.
Vaguely elated pet peeve: people calling a high school diploma a “degree.” Maybe they only do that around here…. Or maybe they’re the same ones who say people “graduated college,” though I know that one is definitely used in other places besides Maine.
Last thing, I’d want to keep this open to non-traditional students so that there was less pressure to go right away, and also make the process more flexible for leaving and returning to a course of study.
One of my talking points (more often, writing points) back when I was homeschooling was that school should be more “voluntary” and that lifelong learning should be supported and taken for granted. I don’t know how it should work, but yes, definitely, “non-traditional” students should not have to be called that anymore.
I’m sure this was mentioned (by me, maybe among others) in this thread, which I know I have linked here before.
Last thing, I’d want to keep this open to non-traditional students so that there was less pressure to go right away, and also make the process more flexible for leaving and returning to a course of study.
One of my talking points (more often, writing points) back when I was homeschooling was that school should be more “voluntary” and that lifelong learning should be supported and taken for granted. I don’t know how it should work, but yes, definitely, “non-traditional” students should not have to be called that anymore.
I’m sure this was mentioned (by me, maybe among others) in this thread, which I know I have linked here before.
in my 8:43: elated->related
time for tea
in my 8:43: elated->related
time for tea
College should be free – full stop. It is free or nearly free in many countries.
The detrimental effects and perverse nature of college exclusivity are very well depicted in the recent Netflix doc “Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admissions Scandal”. (It also stars Matthew Modine, lol)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/operation_varsity_blues_the_college_admissions_scandal
And that’s just showing the tip of the iceberg.
College should be free – full stop. It is free or nearly free in many countries.
The detrimental effects and perverse nature of college exclusivity are very well depicted in the recent Netflix doc “Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admissions Scandal”. (It also stars Matthew Modine, lol)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/operation_varsity_blues_the_college_admissions_scandal
And that’s just showing the tip of the iceberg.
Do they recruit people like this deliberately?
the GOP has completely given up on the idea of governance. now they just else those who can best recite the latest Carlson-approved anti-Democrat chants and phrases. it’s all about signalling their “conservative” identity – project the identity, elect the identity, wallow in it for all to see.
Do they recruit people like this deliberately?
the GOP has completely given up on the idea of governance. now they just else those who can best recite the latest Carlson-approved anti-Democrat chants and phrases. it’s all about signalling their “conservative” identity – project the identity, elect the identity, wallow in it for all to see.
‘It’s like the Romeo and Juliet story’
Yup, just like.
‘It’s like the Romeo and Juliet story’
Yup, just like.
just else those
…elect those…
just else those
…elect those…
Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) apparently thought it’d be a good idea to argue that if Socrates were alive today, “he would be canceled real quick” in contemporary society. I have a strong hunch the Republican legislator doesn’t know how Socrates died.
[Source: Maddowblog referring to: https://www.thewrap.com/anthony-sabatini-socrates/)
My guess is that they, if they actually knew, would claim that it was the Democrats (not the oligarchs) that killed him off. And that Sabatini put an ‘again’ at the end of the sentence that got maliciously removed.
Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) apparently thought it’d be a good idea to argue that if Socrates were alive today, “he would be canceled real quick” in contemporary society. I have a strong hunch the Republican legislator doesn’t know how Socrates died.
[Source: Maddowblog referring to: https://www.thewrap.com/anthony-sabatini-socrates/)
My guess is that they, if they actually knew, would claim that it was the Democrats (not the oligarchs) that killed him off. And that Sabatini put an ‘again’ at the end of the sentence that got maliciously removed.
what’s awesome is that Sabatini has a degree in philosophy and history (and a law degree). so he should know what happened to Socrates.
what’s awesome is that Sabatini has a degree in philosophy and history (and a law degree). so he should know what happened to Socrates.
so he should know what happened to Socrates
He probably does, he just assumes the suckers he’s trying to impress don’t.
so he should know what happened to Socrates
He probably does, he just assumes the suckers he’s trying to impress don’t.
He probably does, he just assumes the suckers he’s trying to impress don’t.
While today’s GOP national office holders include a depressing number of morons** (e.g. Greene, Boebert), there are an awful lot more who are bright enough to know that they are feeding nonsense to suckers. I’m still naive enough to think that a significant part of a Congressman’s job should be educating his constituents. But that’s not the world today, alas.
** I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats have their share of idiot office holders as well. But they don’t seem to be anywhere near as high profile.
He probably does, he just assumes the suckers he’s trying to impress don’t.
While today’s GOP national office holders include a depressing number of morons** (e.g. Greene, Boebert), there are an awful lot more who are bright enough to know that they are feeding nonsense to suckers. I’m still naive enough to think that a significant part of a Congressman’s job should be educating his constituents. But that’s not the world today, alas.
** I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats have their share of idiot office holders as well. But they don’t seem to be anywhere near as high profile.
It is my understanding that Socrates was killed not so much by the oligarchs but by the orthodox. They had to get him out of their polis because his teachings were a source of miasma that ran the risk of offending the gods.
One of my talking points (more often, writing points) back when I was homeschooling was that school should be more “voluntary” and that lifelong learning should be supported and taken for granted. I don’t know how it should work, but yes, definitely, “non-traditional” students should not have to be called that anymore.
My first year of undergraduate enrollment was 1986. I earned my BA in 2004. Trying to gather all my transcripts for application to get back into university in 2002 was quite the logistical undertaking (which gave me a lot of sympathy for what people have to go through to get their approved voter IDs – so many byzantine requirements).
I noticed, while applying to one of the colleges in the interim years, that almost all scholarships were aimed explicitly at high school graduates and based on the signs of academic promise. There is very little help for the many who take on debt to try to better their prospects, struggle in their early years and have to drop out. I was exceedingly fortunate to not just complete my BA, but to do so with no debt and then go on to complete a Ph.D. also with no debt.
A big part of why I teach is to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds the benefit of my experience and a voice of support telling them that early struggles do not have to mark the end of their ambitions, and that returning to college later often transforms the experience and leads to greater satisfaction.
If you are fortunate enough to make it through.
It is my understanding that Socrates was killed not so much by the oligarchs but by the orthodox. They had to get him out of their polis because his teachings were a source of miasma that ran the risk of offending the gods.
One of my talking points (more often, writing points) back when I was homeschooling was that school should be more “voluntary” and that lifelong learning should be supported and taken for granted. I don’t know how it should work, but yes, definitely, “non-traditional” students should not have to be called that anymore.
My first year of undergraduate enrollment was 1986. I earned my BA in 2004. Trying to gather all my transcripts for application to get back into university in 2002 was quite the logistical undertaking (which gave me a lot of sympathy for what people have to go through to get their approved voter IDs – so many byzantine requirements).
I noticed, while applying to one of the colleges in the interim years, that almost all scholarships were aimed explicitly at high school graduates and based on the signs of academic promise. There is very little help for the many who take on debt to try to better their prospects, struggle in their early years and have to drop out. I was exceedingly fortunate to not just complete my BA, but to do so with no debt and then go on to complete a Ph.D. also with no debt.
A big part of why I teach is to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds the benefit of my experience and a voice of support telling them that early struggles do not have to mark the end of their ambitions, and that returning to college later often transforms the experience and leads to greater satisfaction.
If you are fortunate enough to make it through.
The trial of Socrates (as far as we can tell from the highly biased sources) was at least two-pronged and it came from the at the time dominant democratic faction. One of the accusers was a leading politician. There are strong indications that Socrates (and many of his pupils) were sympathetic to the oligarchs. Xenophon made some remarks left out of Platon’ version of events that Socrates used highly selective verses from Homer etc. to discredit the idea of democracy (in favor of a rule by the enlightened few).
On the religious part the sources are quite murky. It is likely that charges of asebeia and potential creation of miasma played a role but we can’t know how much of that was pretense to avoid the impression of political partisanship. Quotes of Athenian politicians many years later justifying the trial and execution of Socrates hint at mainly political reasons.
Unfortunately we have no contemporary sources on Socrates’ Daimonion except from his followers, and the major piece of discussion of this we have is from half a millenium later in a surviving speech by Apuleius (‘de deo Socratis’) which has its own agenda (distinctly different from Platon, although Apuleius considered himself to be a true Platonist)
The trial of Socrates (as far as we can tell from the highly biased sources) was at least two-pronged and it came from the at the time dominant democratic faction. One of the accusers was a leading politician. There are strong indications that Socrates (and many of his pupils) were sympathetic to the oligarchs. Xenophon made some remarks left out of Platon’ version of events that Socrates used highly selective verses from Homer etc. to discredit the idea of democracy (in favor of a rule by the enlightened few).
On the religious part the sources are quite murky. It is likely that charges of asebeia and potential creation of miasma played a role but we can’t know how much of that was pretense to avoid the impression of political partisanship. Quotes of Athenian politicians many years later justifying the trial and execution of Socrates hint at mainly political reasons.
Unfortunately we have no contemporary sources on Socrates’ Daimonion except from his followers, and the major piece of discussion of this we have is from half a millenium later in a surviving speech by Apuleius (‘de deo Socratis’) which has its own agenda (distinctly different from Platon, although Apuleius considered himself to be a true Platonist)
Well, there is Aristophanes. In The Clouds the core of Socrates caricature is built on portraying him as a wild eyed Pythagorean. And the plays were part of a religious festival, and deeply concerned with issues of miasma. This has always put Socrates trial in affinity with The Bacchae for my readings.
Well, there is Aristophanes. In The Clouds the core of Socrates caricature is built on portraying him as a wild eyed Pythagorean. And the plays were part of a religious festival, and deeply concerned with issues of miasma. This has always put Socrates trial in affinity with The Bacchae for my readings.
I noticed, while applying to one of the colleges in the interim years, that almost all scholarships were aimed explicitly at high school graduates and based on the signs of academic promise.
Four-year universities are organized around the goal of producing faculty for four-year universities. Earning a Bachelors prepares one to be a graduate student. Graduate school prepares one to be a junior faculty member. Success as a junior faculty member during the five-year “publish or perish” initial stretch earns one tenure. Granted, that the university system has produced a glut of PhDs looking for faculty positions is changing that last part dramatically (ie, adjunct positions). Note that in a very real sense, Bachelors and Masters degrees are consolation prizes for the “losers”. That those people are valued for jobs outside the academia is almost incidental, and certainly not a big factor in how the universities are organized.
With that as the goal, assistance goes to the young, who will finish — if they finish — while young enough to have a career. When I went back to graduate school at age 49 in a PhD track, one of the professors told me, “Keep in mind, Mike, that you can write the most brilliant dissertation seen in the last 50 years, but it will not get you more than courtesy interviews. No one is going to hire a shiny new PhD who’s going to be looking to retire in ten years.”
I noticed, while applying to one of the colleges in the interim years, that almost all scholarships were aimed explicitly at high school graduates and based on the signs of academic promise.
Four-year universities are organized around the goal of producing faculty for four-year universities. Earning a Bachelors prepares one to be a graduate student. Graduate school prepares one to be a junior faculty member. Success as a junior faculty member during the five-year “publish or perish” initial stretch earns one tenure. Granted, that the university system has produced a glut of PhDs looking for faculty positions is changing that last part dramatically (ie, adjunct positions). Note that in a very real sense, Bachelors and Masters degrees are consolation prizes for the “losers”. That those people are valued for jobs outside the academia is almost incidental, and certainly not a big factor in how the universities are organized.
With that as the goal, assistance goes to the young, who will finish — if they finish — while young enough to have a career. When I went back to graduate school at age 49 in a PhD track, one of the professors told me, “Keep in mind, Mike, that you can write the most brilliant dissertation seen in the last 50 years, but it will not get you more than courtesy interviews. No one is going to hire a shiny new PhD who’s going to be looking to retire in ten years.”
When I took linguistics classes in my mid-fifties, I considered going to grad school. The department head pointed out that it’s a long slog to a PhD, and then another long slog to a tenure-track position… I was sitting there thinking: hey, I’m just having fun studying linguistics. Isn’t that the point?
Naive me!
When I took linguistics classes in my mid-fifties, I considered going to grad school. The department head pointed out that it’s a long slog to a PhD, and then another long slog to a tenure-track position… I was sitting there thinking: hey, I’m just having fun studying linguistics. Isn’t that the point?
Naive me!
in a very real sense, Bachelors and Masters degrees are consolation prizes for the “losers”. That those people are valued for jobs outside the academia is almost incidental, and certainly not a big factor in how the universities are organized.
In some fields, that may well be true. But my experience as an Engineering major was very much otherwise. Classes routinely talked about how the material could be used in industry. And there was a fairly extensive program (which I admit I skipped) for upper division students to spend a year working in industry — to help them hone down what classes they wanted to focus on in their final year or two.
Perhaps it is a matter of what non-academic jobs make use of the specific expertise taught in a particular major.
in a very real sense, Bachelors and Masters degrees are consolation prizes for the “losers”. That those people are valued for jobs outside the academia is almost incidental, and certainly not a big factor in how the universities are organized.
In some fields, that may well be true. But my experience as an Engineering major was very much otherwise. Classes routinely talked about how the material could be used in industry. And there was a fairly extensive program (which I admit I skipped) for upper division students to spend a year working in industry — to help them hone down what classes they wanted to focus on in their final year or two.
Perhaps it is a matter of what non-academic jobs make use of the specific expertise taught in a particular major.
Four-year universities are organized around the goal of producing faculty for four-year universities. Earning a Bachelors prepares one to be a graduate student. Graduate school prepares one to be a junior faculty member. Success as a junior faculty member during the five-year “publish or perish” initial stretch earns one tenure.
An idea that still holds sway among many tenure track professors, but one that is under a lot of pressure. I saw explicit criticism of this model coming from within the professoriat when I started to consider grad school in the early 2000s. The precarious financial situation of many not-for-profit institutions of higher education under the austerity rule of the MBA-minded administration has made for a particularly dire academic job market. Professors are retiring, but not being replaced with another tenured professor. Instead they are being replaced by adjuncts.
I don’t think the old model can survive much longer. More importantly, tenure track faculty are starting to think this as well. The full professors are hanging on to the old ways, but the assistants and associates that made it through the market in the 21st C. see that it is unsustainable and are much more oriented towards their undergraduate teaching.
Which is good, because it’s hard to convince the public to support higher education when the average student’s experience of it is shaped by having professors who don’t even notice them or care about their goals unless they seem like they could become a brag line on a CV.
As an adjunct, my teaching is entirely build around the idea that my research only matters to the degree that it becomes a part of what my undergraduate students take with them as tools to shape our shared future. That’s the way to make higher education matter again.
Four-year universities are organized around the goal of producing faculty for four-year universities. Earning a Bachelors prepares one to be a graduate student. Graduate school prepares one to be a junior faculty member. Success as a junior faculty member during the five-year “publish or perish” initial stretch earns one tenure.
An idea that still holds sway among many tenure track professors, but one that is under a lot of pressure. I saw explicit criticism of this model coming from within the professoriat when I started to consider grad school in the early 2000s. The precarious financial situation of many not-for-profit institutions of higher education under the austerity rule of the MBA-minded administration has made for a particularly dire academic job market. Professors are retiring, but not being replaced with another tenured professor. Instead they are being replaced by adjuncts.
I don’t think the old model can survive much longer. More importantly, tenure track faculty are starting to think this as well. The full professors are hanging on to the old ways, but the assistants and associates that made it through the market in the 21st C. see that it is unsustainable and are much more oriented towards their undergraduate teaching.
Which is good, because it’s hard to convince the public to support higher education when the average student’s experience of it is shaped by having professors who don’t even notice them or care about their goals unless they seem like they could become a brag line on a CV.
As an adjunct, my teaching is entirely build around the idea that my research only matters to the degree that it becomes a part of what my undergraduate students take with them as tools to shape our shared future. That’s the way to make higher education matter again.
As an adjunct, my teaching is entirely build around the idea that my research only matters to the degree that it becomes a part of what my undergraduate students take with them as tools to shape our shared future. That’s the way to make higher education matter again.
A couple of questions:
1. What do you mean by “tools to shape our shared future”? A couple of concrete examples would be helpful.
2. When was the time (rough date range) when “higher education matter[ed]”?
I admit to being out of touch with current college and grad school level experiences are. Our youngest graduated in ’04 and got her grad degree in ’09. Both our our children have done well with what they learned in undergraduate as well as graduate school. My wife and I both have done well with what we learned as undergrads and, in my case, law school. These observations hold true for most of the people I know of my general age range (60-70) and their many, many children who finished college and in many cases got graduate degrees. So, I would be interested in finding out why my fairly extensive observed experience from 1972 to the 2015 or thereabouts is no longer apparently the outcome college and grad school offers today.
And, I may not be phrasing the background for my questions as clearly as I would like, and that could be that I’m not understanding your points and the underlying context. So, feel free-as if you wouldn’t–to redirect my questions to conform to your intent. Thanks.
As an adjunct, my teaching is entirely build around the idea that my research only matters to the degree that it becomes a part of what my undergraduate students take with them as tools to shape our shared future. That’s the way to make higher education matter again.
A couple of questions:
1. What do you mean by “tools to shape our shared future”? A couple of concrete examples would be helpful.
2. When was the time (rough date range) when “higher education matter[ed]”?
I admit to being out of touch with current college and grad school level experiences are. Our youngest graduated in ’04 and got her grad degree in ’09. Both our our children have done well with what they learned in undergraduate as well as graduate school. My wife and I both have done well with what we learned as undergrads and, in my case, law school. These observations hold true for most of the people I know of my general age range (60-70) and their many, many children who finished college and in many cases got graduate degrees. So, I would be interested in finding out why my fairly extensive observed experience from 1972 to the 2015 or thereabouts is no longer apparently the outcome college and grad school offers today.
And, I may not be phrasing the background for my questions as clearly as I would like, and that could be that I’m not understanding your points and the underlying context. So, feel free-as if you wouldn’t–to redirect my questions to conform to your intent. Thanks.
What wj said about engineering degrees.
Let me add: a Masters in engineering gives a career boost, a PhD should be left off of a Resume, unless it’s for a university job, because it labels one as an “ivory tower” type, unfit for working in industry.
For other fields, yes, a masters is what students get if they wash out of the PhD program, and one MUST have a PhD to make a career in the field.
Your motivations are admirable, nous, but I have to add that, regarding ‘non-Trad’ students, “youth is wasted on the young”, part the infinity.
get offa my lawn, whippersnappers also, too.
What wj said about engineering degrees.
Let me add: a Masters in engineering gives a career boost, a PhD should be left off of a Resume, unless it’s for a university job, because it labels one as an “ivory tower” type, unfit for working in industry.
For other fields, yes, a masters is what students get if they wash out of the PhD program, and one MUST have a PhD to make a career in the field.
Your motivations are admirable, nous, but I have to add that, regarding ‘non-Trad’ students, “youth is wasted on the young”, part the infinity.
get offa my lawn, whippersnappers also, too.
My sense is college (bachelor’s) degrees fall into two groups.
First, those which mean you have learned information useful in a particular field. Engineering, physical and biological sciences, to some degree social sciences.
Second, those which basically say: This person has a demonstrated ability to learn new material.
There are degrees of applicability, and exceptions, of course. But if you want to talk about what college gets you, and about what college faculty are focused on, I think you need to look at those two groups separately.
My sense is college (bachelor’s) degrees fall into two groups.
First, those which mean you have learned information useful in a particular field. Engineering, physical and biological sciences, to some degree social sciences.
Second, those which basically say: This person has a demonstrated ability to learn new material.
There are degrees of applicability, and exceptions, of course. But if you want to talk about what college gets you, and about what college faculty are focused on, I think you need to look at those two groups separately.
1. What do you mean by “tools to shape our shared future”? A couple of concrete examples would be helpful.
What I mean here is that when I plan a topic and readings for one of my writing classes, I try to find some current issue that my students come in already caring about. I try to design my assignments in such a way that they develop the ability to write and speak about those topics to more than just a college audience, and that they think about what they need to change when they write for popular consumption or when they shift from print to online, etc. And I try hard to embed our assignments in a realistic context that shows them how media works, and how public discourse engages with policy and industry.
I could research writing studies, or do more research about PTSD and the writing of trauma, or about the rhetoric of video games and publish on those topics, but those subjects, while more respected by my institution. Would be accessible to only a handful of people. Instead, I try to show 40 to 60 people a quarter how to go out and find other viewpoints and test their own opinions of a subject and find venues where they can discuss these matters in a way that might actually lead to change, and I set them to practicing this.
As for when higher education mattered, I’d say 1940 to 1980 or so was the cresting period. WWII, the GI Bill, the Cold War, the Great Society, all coincided with widespread public support for educational funding. The belt tightening and anti-tax attitudes of the Reagan era started shrinking the share of state university budgets actually covered by the state at the same time that it marked (at the very least) the start of wage stagnation that put working class wages on a slower path than tuition costs.
But it was really the recession of 2007 or 2008 that slammed most institutions of higher learning in the US and forced the model into crisis mode. That’s when tuitions really started to rise, with only loans to cover the increase. That’s also the period when hiring for tenure track positions dried up and the universities began to embrace a gig faculty model. Somewhere between my grad school cohort and the cohort that came in four years later I began seeing brown bag lunches sponsored by academic departments designed to prepare graduate students for “alternative academic” (alt ac) career paths. 80% of my cohort landed in an alt ac position. This from a top 10 school in the discipline.
Had I not been lucky enough to have paid off all of my loans during the 90s tech boom when jobs were plentiful even without a degree, had I started my schooling in the late 90s or early 2000s with the sort of loans that were expected for a financial aid package, I’d have had to find an alt ac job as well just to service my debt. The only reason I made it to as much security as I have is because I got full support in grad school, and was in a DINK family, and could get a unionized lecturer’s position after finishing that gave me benefits and a measure of security after ten years of teaching at the university.
1. What do you mean by “tools to shape our shared future”? A couple of concrete examples would be helpful.
What I mean here is that when I plan a topic and readings for one of my writing classes, I try to find some current issue that my students come in already caring about. I try to design my assignments in such a way that they develop the ability to write and speak about those topics to more than just a college audience, and that they think about what they need to change when they write for popular consumption or when they shift from print to online, etc. And I try hard to embed our assignments in a realistic context that shows them how media works, and how public discourse engages with policy and industry.
I could research writing studies, or do more research about PTSD and the writing of trauma, or about the rhetoric of video games and publish on those topics, but those subjects, while more respected by my institution. Would be accessible to only a handful of people. Instead, I try to show 40 to 60 people a quarter how to go out and find other viewpoints and test their own opinions of a subject and find venues where they can discuss these matters in a way that might actually lead to change, and I set them to practicing this.
As for when higher education mattered, I’d say 1940 to 1980 or so was the cresting period. WWII, the GI Bill, the Cold War, the Great Society, all coincided with widespread public support for educational funding. The belt tightening and anti-tax attitudes of the Reagan era started shrinking the share of state university budgets actually covered by the state at the same time that it marked (at the very least) the start of wage stagnation that put working class wages on a slower path than tuition costs.
But it was really the recession of 2007 or 2008 that slammed most institutions of higher learning in the US and forced the model into crisis mode. That’s when tuitions really started to rise, with only loans to cover the increase. That’s also the period when hiring for tenure track positions dried up and the universities began to embrace a gig faculty model. Somewhere between my grad school cohort and the cohort that came in four years later I began seeing brown bag lunches sponsored by academic departments designed to prepare graduate students for “alternative academic” (alt ac) career paths. 80% of my cohort landed in an alt ac position. This from a top 10 school in the discipline.
Had I not been lucky enough to have paid off all of my loans during the 90s tech boom when jobs were plentiful even without a degree, had I started my schooling in the late 90s or early 2000s with the sort of loans that were expected for a financial aid package, I’d have had to find an alt ac job as well just to service my debt. The only reason I made it to as much security as I have is because I got full support in grad school, and was in a DINK family, and could get a unionized lecturer’s position after finishing that gave me benefits and a measure of security after ten years of teaching at the university.
Thanks, that was informative. I wish I had the time to dig deeper into this issue.
Thanks, that was informative. I wish I had the time to dig deeper into this issue.
Fine and illuminating post, nous.
Fine and illuminating post, nous.
Perhaps some other readers are as unclear as I am about how student funding works in the USA.
My impression is that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, which may well deter non-wealthy students. Is that right?
In England, tuition fees are capped at about $13k, with government-backed soft loans readily available. My understanding is that in other European countries fees for home-country students are substantially lower.
Perhaps some other readers are as unclear as I am about how student funding works in the USA.
My impression is that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, which may well deter non-wealthy students. Is that right?
In England, tuition fees are capped at about $13k, with government-backed soft loans readily available. My understanding is that in other European countries fees for home-country students are substantially lower.
University of Massachusetts tuition is about 13k, room and board another 14k.
University of Massachusetts tuition is about 13k, room and board another 14k.
Florida State University tuition is $5500 room and board is 15k or so.
Univ of Florida is $6300.
All those numbers are 5-6 times more if you go out of state. Go to the college you can commute to your not in bad shape
The problem is the culture of sending kids away for the “college exxperience”
Florida State University tuition is $5500 room and board is 15k or so.
Univ of Florida is $6300.
All those numbers are 5-6 times more if you go out of state. Go to the college you can commute to your not in bad shape
The problem is the culture of sending kids away for the “college exxperience”
My impression is that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, which may well deter non-wealthy students. Is that right?
Beyond the fact that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, that’s not true, if by “elite” you mean the Ivies, MIT, Stanford, etc. There are other ways to define “elite,” but in line the popular imagination, I think that’s good enough to go on with.
E.g. Harvard:
I went to MIT on scholarship (my year, 1968, was the last year some kids got no loans, only grants and the expectation of a part-time job, which the school would help you find, usually on campus) for all the money MIT and the Financial Aid Service thought I needed. My parents might not have agreed, i.e. helping me with the rest was a bit of a stretch for them, but I also had part-time jobs all through college. Also, all the colleges I applied to came in with roughly the same amount in financial aid offers, although some included some loan $ in the package and MIT did not, at that time.
That was 50+ years ago, and as nous said, things were different then. In some ways things have gotten harder for students — there are now big loan components to most schools’ aid — but in some ways they’ve gotten easier — see Harvard’s program as a groundbreaker. There was nothing like that 50 years ago that I know of, unless, I suppose, you count the service academies.
Smaller elite schools can’t be as generous, but even some of those make it possible for kids without family resources to attend, and not (like the scammy for-profit pseudo-schools) at the cost of a lifetime of debt slavery.
It’s hard to get into the “elite” universities because everyone wants to go there, and too many places go to legacies and athletes. But even allowing for that, if you’re a very good student with an impressive record academically and extra-curricularly, and your family has no money, money isn’t the obstacle you’d think it should be if you just look at the tuition and housing numbers.
MIT had and still has a policy of no merit scholarships. Admissions and financial aid are separate processes. If you get in, they guarantee that they’ll help you financially to whatever extent FAS said you needed help. (Again, families don’t always feel that that’s enough, but at MIT they try pretty hard. I worked in the admissions office at MIT for four years when I was finishing my dissertation elsewhere, so I have first-hand — but admittedly long-ago — experience with this. It isn’t just a self-aggrandizing publicity fib. Additional note: if you get an outside-MIT scholarship, they lessen what they give you. They are trying to make an even playing field amongst admitted students….I.e. when calculating “need,” outside scholarships are considered to be part of your resources.)
This is already too long, and nous might be able to fill in some of the more recent nuances, but the system is, unlike Pro Bono’s impression … complicated. In some ways I had no business being at MIT: first in my family to go to college, I had no clue about what I was getting into. (Some schools, like Bates College in Lewiston down the road from me, where one of my kids went, now have programs for kids who are first in their families to go to college. I could have used that, although when I was 18 I would have been sure I was above it all, and knew everything.)
In other ways I treasure my years there, and my later connection with the ‘Tute (as we called it). I got to spend four years with a bunch of really smart, really dynamic people who were doing interesting things then and many of whom went on to do really cool things later. They were a motley crew, from all parts of the world and all social and economic classes and no one cared about any of that. As I’ve said here before: MIT is arrogant and elitist in a lot of ways, but if you build a bridge, goddamit, it’s got to stand up. There’s a groundedness to the place that I appreciated and still do.
Some MIT numbers now.
Once again, the disclaimer: I am trying to answer a vary narrow assertion from Pro Bono, and I am defining “elite” a certain way. It may be just as ridiculous for Harvard to have its billions in endowment as for Jeff Bezos to have his billions in money that should have gone to better wages for Amazon’s workers. (I think it is.) But it’s still not true that the reason some kids can’t go there is money.
One of my nieces went to very expensive, very “elite” schools even before college. When I visited her school when she was 6 or 7, I actually had to work hard not to cry, right there in her classroom, at the thought that every kid should have what those kids had. So in keeping with my normal leftie cred, I’ll say: it isn’t that the wealth should be taken away from the Harvards and MITs, it’s that all schools should have the resources they do to use in making sure every student who wants to, and can do the work, can be there. And also to pay people well to teach them. (Hi nous.)
ETA: I had a bad link, so I fixed it in Typepad, so sue me. Also some typos. There are probably more. I haven’t had breakfast yet. Maybe I should leave the computer off until I’ve eaten. 😉
My impression is that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, which may well deter non-wealthy students. Is that right?
Beyond the fact that elite universities charge very high tuition fees, that’s not true, if by “elite” you mean the Ivies, MIT, Stanford, etc. There are other ways to define “elite,” but in line the popular imagination, I think that’s good enough to go on with.
E.g. Harvard:
I went to MIT on scholarship (my year, 1968, was the last year some kids got no loans, only grants and the expectation of a part-time job, which the school would help you find, usually on campus) for all the money MIT and the Financial Aid Service thought I needed. My parents might not have agreed, i.e. helping me with the rest was a bit of a stretch for them, but I also had part-time jobs all through college. Also, all the colleges I applied to came in with roughly the same amount in financial aid offers, although some included some loan $ in the package and MIT did not, at that time.
That was 50+ years ago, and as nous said, things were different then. In some ways things have gotten harder for students — there are now big loan components to most schools’ aid — but in some ways they’ve gotten easier — see Harvard’s program as a groundbreaker. There was nothing like that 50 years ago that I know of, unless, I suppose, you count the service academies.
Smaller elite schools can’t be as generous, but even some of those make it possible for kids without family resources to attend, and not (like the scammy for-profit pseudo-schools) at the cost of a lifetime of debt slavery.
It’s hard to get into the “elite” universities because everyone wants to go there, and too many places go to legacies and athletes. But even allowing for that, if you’re a very good student with an impressive record academically and extra-curricularly, and your family has no money, money isn’t the obstacle you’d think it should be if you just look at the tuition and housing numbers.
MIT had and still has a policy of no merit scholarships. Admissions and financial aid are separate processes. If you get in, they guarantee that they’ll help you financially to whatever extent FAS said you needed help. (Again, families don’t always feel that that’s enough, but at MIT they try pretty hard. I worked in the admissions office at MIT for four years when I was finishing my dissertation elsewhere, so I have first-hand — but admittedly long-ago — experience with this. It isn’t just a self-aggrandizing publicity fib. Additional note: if you get an outside-MIT scholarship, they lessen what they give you. They are trying to make an even playing field amongst admitted students….I.e. when calculating “need,” outside scholarships are considered to be part of your resources.)
This is already too long, and nous might be able to fill in some of the more recent nuances, but the system is, unlike Pro Bono’s impression … complicated. In some ways I had no business being at MIT: first in my family to go to college, I had no clue about what I was getting into. (Some schools, like Bates College in Lewiston down the road from me, where one of my kids went, now have programs for kids who are first in their families to go to college. I could have used that, although when I was 18 I would have been sure I was above it all, and knew everything.)
In other ways I treasure my years there, and my later connection with the ‘Tute (as we called it). I got to spend four years with a bunch of really smart, really dynamic people who were doing interesting things then and many of whom went on to do really cool things later. They were a motley crew, from all parts of the world and all social and economic classes and no one cared about any of that. As I’ve said here before: MIT is arrogant and elitist in a lot of ways, but if you build a bridge, goddamit, it’s got to stand up. There’s a groundedness to the place that I appreciated and still do.
Some MIT numbers now.
Once again, the disclaimer: I am trying to answer a vary narrow assertion from Pro Bono, and I am defining “elite” a certain way. It may be just as ridiculous for Harvard to have its billions in endowment as for Jeff Bezos to have his billions in money that should have gone to better wages for Amazon’s workers. (I think it is.) But it’s still not true that the reason some kids can’t go there is money.
One of my nieces went to very expensive, very “elite” schools even before college. When I visited her school when she was 6 or 7, I actually had to work hard not to cry, right there in her classroom, at the thought that every kid should have what those kids had. So in keeping with my normal leftie cred, I’ll say: it isn’t that the wealth should be taken away from the Harvards and MITs, it’s that all schools should have the resources they do to use in making sure every student who wants to, and can do the work, can be there. And also to pay people well to teach them. (Hi nous.)
ETA: I had a bad link, so I fixed it in Typepad, so sue me. Also some typos. There are probably more. I haven’t had breakfast yet. Maybe I should leave the computer off until I’ve eaten. 😉
I was asking a question, not making an assertion. Thank you for the detailed reply.
I was asking a question, not making an assertion. Thank you for the detailed reply.
my undergraduate degree is from the State University of New York. Per the current tuition and fee schedule, tuition is a little more than 7x what I paid, if you add room and board the whole shebang is about 10x more than I paid.
Current value of a dollar when I went is about $3.40 now.
So, 3.4x vs 7x, or 10x if you live on campus.
my undergraduate degree is from the State University of New York. Per the current tuition and fee schedule, tuition is a little more than 7x what I paid, if you add room and board the whole shebang is about 10x more than I paid.
Current value of a dollar when I went is about $3.40 now.
So, 3.4x vs 7x, or 10x if you live on campus.
russell — I do a similar comparison using minimum wage. …
russell — I do a similar comparison using minimum wage. …
From another angle, I believe John Quiggin of Crooked Timber has written about how the population has grown much faster than the # of places at US “elite” universities. That’s related to what I wrote about thinking in terms of giving all schools more resources. Connect the dots of you feel like it.
Taking MIT: US population in 1968, per Google, was about 200 million. Now it’s more than 330 million.
My entering class was about 900 students. Average class size now is roughly 1100. Proportional to the population would be about 1500. I would guess you’d find similar numbers at most universities. The elite get eliter, under that model…..
From another angle, I believe John Quiggin of Crooked Timber has written about how the population has grown much faster than the # of places at US “elite” universities. That’s related to what I wrote about thinking in terms of giving all schools more resources. Connect the dots of you feel like it.
Taking MIT: US population in 1968, per Google, was about 200 million. Now it’s more than 330 million.
My entering class was about 900 students. Average class size now is roughly 1100. Proportional to the population would be about 1500. I would guess you’d find similar numbers at most universities. The elite get eliter, under that model…..
i went to RIT in 1988. tuition + room & board was $14K per year. now, it’s $50K+.
i got by with a lot of scholarships from various places (including the school itself), as much cash as the school said my parents could afford, as much as i could get in federal loans (between $2.5K and $4K per year) and a bunch of odd jobs to pay for food, rent and spending money.
i did think about applying to Yale, initially. my grandfather went there so i thought i might have a chance. but ultimately decided i wouldn’t be able to afford it even if i did get in. i don’t know if that would have been true or not (didn’t apply so we never got to find out what Yale would actually do for us tuition-wise). but the perception that the Ivy league schools are too expensive does discourage people from even trying.
i went to RIT in 1988. tuition + room & board was $14K per year. now, it’s $50K+.
i got by with a lot of scholarships from various places (including the school itself), as much cash as the school said my parents could afford, as much as i could get in federal loans (between $2.5K and $4K per year) and a bunch of odd jobs to pay for food, rent and spending money.
i did think about applying to Yale, initially. my grandfather went there so i thought i might have a chance. but ultimately decided i wouldn’t be able to afford it even if i did get in. i don’t know if that would have been true or not (didn’t apply so we never got to find out what Yale would actually do for us tuition-wise). but the perception that the Ivy league schools are too expensive does discourage people from even trying.
also, FYI, student loan maximums have not quite doubled since 1988.
which is not even close to keeping up with tuition increases.
also, FYI, student loan maximums have not quite doubled since 1988.
which is not even close to keeping up with tuition increases.
the perception that the Ivy league schools are too expensive does discourage people from even trying
Perhaps, among other things, we need better-informed high school guidance counselors. Yes it was long ago, make what allowances you wish. But my own — a sweet, round-faced little nun — was useless for my purposes. Her standard would have been to send me to some tiny little nun-run college in Cleveland, or barring that (I didn’t want to go to an all-girls school), Marquette (Catholic, it had to be Catholic!). I did all the research on my own, starting sophomore year of high school.
the perception that the Ivy league schools are too expensive does discourage people from even trying
Perhaps, among other things, we need better-informed high school guidance counselors. Yes it was long ago, make what allowances you wish. But my own — a sweet, round-faced little nun — was useless for my purposes. Her standard would have been to send me to some tiny little nun-run college in Cleveland, or barring that (I didn’t want to go to an all-girls school), Marquette (Catholic, it had to be Catholic!). I did all the research on my own, starting sophomore year of high school.
It’s funny to read this exchange. My understanding for has been for a while that going to an Ivy costs little more in the end than going to a less-expensive school because you get more aid. They have enormous endowments. The hard part is getting in. But “if Princeton wants you to go to Princeton, Princeton will make sure you can go to Princeton” is what I’ve been hearing since I don’t know when.
It’s funny to read this exchange. My understanding for has been for a while that going to an Ivy costs little more in the end than going to a less-expensive school because you get more aid. They have enormous endowments. The hard part is getting in. But “if Princeton wants you to go to Princeton, Princeton will make sure you can go to Princeton” is what I’ve been hearing since I don’t know when.
That is, if you’re the kind of person who needs aid. If you’re wealthy enough that you can afford Princeton, it’s going to cost more than a state school.
That is, if you’re the kind of person who needs aid. If you’re wealthy enough that you can afford Princeton, it’s going to cost more than a state school.
Perhaps, among other things, we need better-informed high school guidance counselors.
definitely.
the irony here is: my step-mother’s father was in fact a guidance counselor at my high school. and i don’t remember him saying anything to me about this stuff.
Perhaps, among other things, we need better-informed high school guidance counselors.
definitely.
the irony here is: my step-mother’s father was in fact a guidance counselor at my high school. and i don’t remember him saying anything to me about this stuff.
In Berlin students have currently to pay slightly above 300€ per half-year. Of that about 100€ are university fees and 200€ are for a public transport ticket covering Berlin and parts of Brandenburg. That same ticket alone would otherwise cost about thrice that. It’s quite funny that this has led the universities to meticulously check that people applying for student status are actually interested in studying and not just in the public transport savings. Additionally student status allows to get into our numerous and renowned public museums at a much lower ticket prize (and the annual ticket for all of them (including special exhibitions) is just 50€ [100€ being the ordinary full price]).
So, the main financial burden on students is not tuition but paying for rent and living in a city that currently has a shortage in affordable housing.
Another perk is that as a student one has access through the library to huge amounts of literature (in electronic form) that would otherwise be unaffordable (I could not store all the stuff I have already downloaded, if it were in dead tree editions, let alone pay for it in my lifetime).
Yes, I am a parasite in paradise 😉
In Berlin students have currently to pay slightly above 300€ per half-year. Of that about 100€ are university fees and 200€ are for a public transport ticket covering Berlin and parts of Brandenburg. That same ticket alone would otherwise cost about thrice that. It’s quite funny that this has led the universities to meticulously check that people applying for student status are actually interested in studying and not just in the public transport savings. Additionally student status allows to get into our numerous and renowned public museums at a much lower ticket prize (and the annual ticket for all of them (including special exhibitions) is just 50€ [100€ being the ordinary full price]).
So, the main financial burden on students is not tuition but paying for rent and living in a city that currently has a shortage in affordable housing.
Another perk is that as a student one has access through the library to huge amounts of literature (in electronic form) that would otherwise be unaffordable (I could not store all the stuff I have already downloaded, if it were in dead tree editions, let alone pay for it in my lifetime).
Yes, I am a parasite in paradise 😉
According to this recent poll, around half of Republicans think it’s more important to change the rules around voting than to actually win more votes.
https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1393938110426275840
According to this recent poll, around half of Republicans think it’s more important to change the rules around voting than to actually win more votes.
https://twitter.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1393938110426275840
Nigel, the tweet doesn’t really reflect accurately what the poll question asked.
If you read it, what the poll results show is that around half of Republicans think that changing the rules is more likely to lead to success than trying to attract more voters. Which could just be a realistic assessment of the unpopularity of their current positions. (Not least, the huge portion of the party embracing the Dear Leader.)
Still unfortunate, of course. But a rather different kind of unfortunate.
Nigel, the tweet doesn’t really reflect accurately what the poll question asked.
If you read it, what the poll results show is that around half of Republicans think that changing the rules is more likely to lead to success than trying to attract more voters. Which could just be a realistic assessment of the unpopularity of their current positions. (Not least, the huge portion of the party embracing the Dear Leader.)
Still unfortunate, of course. But a rather different kind of unfortunate.
they think the votes are there, but aren’t counted / are discouraged by our allegedly-fraud-ridden system / are overwhelmed by apparently-undetectable fraudulent votes.
what this means is that they will consider every election illegitimate, unless they win.
you want fascism? this is how you get fascism.
they think the votes are there, but aren’t counted / are discouraged by our allegedly-fraud-ridden system / are overwhelmed by apparently-undetectable fraudulent votes.
what this means is that they will consider every election illegitimate, unless they win.
you want fascism? this is how you get fascism.
When I was going to a two-year college in ’66-’69, they gave me a part-time job preparing and running payroll and other accounting and student reports. I was a bit embarrassed to see that they were paying me more than the senior admin secretaries.
When I was going to a two-year college in ’66-’69, they gave me a part-time job preparing and running payroll and other accounting and student reports. I was a bit embarrassed to see that they were paying me more than the senior admin secretaries.
Quick note to add to the discussion of tuition. It’s perfectly understandable for people to talk about resident vs. non-resident tuition for Big State University and about private tuition and financial assistance. Those things reflect the costs to individual students and families.
Truth is, though, that none of these things are necessarily a good measure of what attending Big State, say, costs. My university has around 29k undergrads enrolled, 24k of which are CA residents. In-state tuition is around $13.5k and non-resident tuition is $43.5. Needs based financial aid from the university discounts part of that tuition for some students, as does athletic or academic scholarships, so not all students pay the full tuition. On average, once all of this is figured into it, the median tuition is around $15.5.
It should also be noted that, despite being Big State University at X City, the state actually contributes only about 6% of the operational budget, while exerting influence far beyond that 6% on the cost of tuition, so those out-of-state tuition costs face a lot more upwards pressure to make up for this. This is true of most other R1 state university systems.
And if Big State U admits more non-residents to help subsidize that lower resident tuition, the residents howl about how the university should be benefitting residents, not all those outsiders, and put pressure on to limit how many get admitted, driving up the out-of-state tuition even more.
So while I lived under the rules that Marty mentions above, graduating from Colorado as a resident, if everyone follows that rule, then the cost of tuition is going to rise for everyone because there are fewer students subsidizing the in-state discount. The non-residents are floating everyone else’s asses.
And, having attended many schools of higher ed, I firmly believe that educational quality declines if the student body is from the local area. Diversity of viewpoint and experience is important when trying to facilitate critical thinking. A homogenous student body is not a curious student body, and curiosity is the single most important quality for learning in my experience.
Quick note to add to the discussion of tuition. It’s perfectly understandable for people to talk about resident vs. non-resident tuition for Big State University and about private tuition and financial assistance. Those things reflect the costs to individual students and families.
Truth is, though, that none of these things are necessarily a good measure of what attending Big State, say, costs. My university has around 29k undergrads enrolled, 24k of which are CA residents. In-state tuition is around $13.5k and non-resident tuition is $43.5. Needs based financial aid from the university discounts part of that tuition for some students, as does athletic or academic scholarships, so not all students pay the full tuition. On average, once all of this is figured into it, the median tuition is around $15.5.
It should also be noted that, despite being Big State University at X City, the state actually contributes only about 6% of the operational budget, while exerting influence far beyond that 6% on the cost of tuition, so those out-of-state tuition costs face a lot more upwards pressure to make up for this. This is true of most other R1 state university systems.
And if Big State U admits more non-residents to help subsidize that lower resident tuition, the residents howl about how the university should be benefitting residents, not all those outsiders, and put pressure on to limit how many get admitted, driving up the out-of-state tuition even more.
So while I lived under the rules that Marty mentions above, graduating from Colorado as a resident, if everyone follows that rule, then the cost of tuition is going to rise for everyone because there are fewer students subsidizing the in-state discount. The non-residents are floating everyone else’s asses.
And, having attended many schools of higher ed, I firmly believe that educational quality declines if the student body is from the local area. Diversity of viewpoint and experience is important when trying to facilitate critical thinking. A homogenous student body is not a curious student body, and curiosity is the single most important quality for learning in my experience.
Hartmut, one should add that students in Germany also get financial support that covers accommodation and basic necessities (if they need it).
Hartmut, one should add that students in Germany also get financial support that covers accommodation and basic necessities (if they need it).
The non-residents are floating everyone else’s asses.
There may be a bit less float due to Trump’s disastrous trade war. Which, apparently, has become prudent trade policy since there’s been little or no change since he lost the election.
The non-residents are floating everyone else’s asses.
There may be a bit less float due to Trump’s disastrous trade war. Which, apparently, has become prudent trade policy since there’s been little or no change since he lost the election.
I worked for a year at a community college with a very large international student cohort, and the college administrators made no bones about the non-resident (and esp. international) student payments being vital to the budget.
International student enrollment collapsed in 2019 – due entirely to Trump Administration immigration policy – and the college took a 30% hit to its overall budget. They had to end programs, collapse departments, and lay off a lot of employees. (I was one of them.)
I worked for a year at a community college with a very large international student cohort, and the college administrators made no bones about the non-resident (and esp. international) student payments being vital to the budget.
International student enrollment collapsed in 2019 – due entirely to Trump Administration immigration policy – and the college took a 30% hit to its overall budget. They had to end programs, collapse departments, and lay off a lot of employees. (I was one of them.)
There may be a bit less float due to Trump’s disastrous trade war.
Speaking locally, it was less the trade war putting a dent in international enrollments and more the visa restrictions, both the anti-Islamic ones and the ones against China in the wake of the pandemic.
And they still float everyone else (since few residents care if non-resident tuition climbs) there’s just other considerations at work. the university may, for example, relax its admissions standard a bit to admit more wealthy non-resident students to make up for the higher-scoring non-resident students who have been priced out.
But all of this has a knock-on effect for the smaller or less prestigious schools. They already get fewer applications and now they are getting applications mostly from students with greater financial need, so…
There may be a bit less float due to Trump’s disastrous trade war.
Speaking locally, it was less the trade war putting a dent in international enrollments and more the visa restrictions, both the anti-Islamic ones and the ones against China in the wake of the pandemic.
And they still float everyone else (since few residents care if non-resident tuition climbs) there’s just other considerations at work. the university may, for example, relax its admissions standard a bit to admit more wealthy non-resident students to make up for the higher-scoring non-resident students who have been priced out.
But all of this has a knock-on effect for the smaller or less prestigious schools. They already get fewer applications and now they are getting applications mostly from students with greater financial need, so…
due entirely to Trump Administration immigration policy – and the college took a 30% hit to its overall budget. They had to end programs, collapse departments, and lay off a lot of employees.
The question is, was that shrinkage of higher education a significant policy goal? Or merely a fringe benefit of immigration policy? (After all, the immigration could have been structured to allow all those foreign students to still come here and help pay the bills.)
due entirely to Trump Administration immigration policy – and the college took a 30% hit to its overall budget. They had to end programs, collapse departments, and lay off a lot of employees.
The question is, was that shrinkage of higher education a significant policy goal? Or merely a fringe benefit of immigration policy? (After all, the immigration could have been structured to allow all those foreign students to still come here and help pay the bills.)
The question is, was that shrinkage of higher education a significant policy goal?
I’d add shrinkage of “not-for-profit” higher education, since the people who are getting appointed to oversee higher ed quite often have ties either to for-profit post-secondary institutions, or to tech industries that are busy trying to disrupt higher ed and shoehorn their product into the educational landscape.
Maybe in another post we can discuss the differential effect of economic background on student experience with tech-mediated learning.
The question is, was that shrinkage of higher education a significant policy goal?
I’d add shrinkage of “not-for-profit” higher education, since the people who are getting appointed to oversee higher ed quite often have ties either to for-profit post-secondary institutions, or to tech industries that are busy trying to disrupt higher ed and shoehorn their product into the educational landscape.
Maybe in another post we can discuss the differential effect of economic background on student experience with tech-mediated learning.
novakant, true. but it’s partially a loan* and will (at least in the bigger cities) not suffice by itself (although I believe that it’s still more of a problem in Munich than Berlin).
Covid was/is a major problem because it wiped out a large amount of typical ‘student’ jobs.
It’s nice to have but it would not fundamentally change the system, if it was absent. I know a lot of students that don’t use it but work part-time and manage quite well.
*no interest and students have to repay only about half of it
novakant, true. but it’s partially a loan* and will (at least in the bigger cities) not suffice by itself (although I believe that it’s still more of a problem in Munich than Berlin).
Covid was/is a major problem because it wiped out a large amount of typical ‘student’ jobs.
It’s nice to have but it would not fundamentally change the system, if it was absent. I know a lot of students that don’t use it but work part-time and manage quite well.
*no interest and students have to repay only about half of it
wj – I think it was serendipitous, with the destruction of colleges a nice fringe benefit. I don’t think anyone in the Trump Administration knew or cared a single bit about the impact on colleges.
wj – I think it was serendipitous, with the destruction of colleges a nice fringe benefit. I don’t think anyone in the Trump Administration knew or cared a single bit about the impact on colleges.
I don’t think anyone in the Trump Administration knew or cared a single bit about the impact on colleges.
I suspect you are correct. Best evidence: if they had been trying to do it deliberately, their characteristic level of (in)competence would have guaranteed it didn’t happen.
I don’t think anyone in the Trump Administration knew or cared a single bit about the impact on colleges.
I suspect you are correct. Best evidence: if they had been trying to do it deliberately, their characteristic level of (in)competence would have guaranteed it didn’t happen.
Interesting stuff. I feel (though I am happy to be corrected) that one reason why we have the mix of people we do is that a lot of us bopped around in higher ed. I advisedly choose that verb because we certainly didn’t go in with a purpose. And I say that with affection, though nothing against folks who had a more targeted goal.
I also imagine that this is why I ended up overseas. I can’t think of anyone I’ve met who said ‘well, I wanted to teach in Japan so I began doing X, then Y, followed by…’ All the people I know here have some strange combination of interests and happenstance to get them here.
I also think that partly an issue with higher ed in the US. Generally, people who like school want to stay there, if not as students, then as teachers. They will do that even though the costs may not really logically make sense. So much for the invisible hand.
There is a different sense in Europe with its more widespread support (though the same desire to remain a student is there?), though the UK has been moving to a US model. Here in Japan, we have a US model as well, but the strain of thinking that made education special goods, combined with the post-war ethos that was imported from the US, combined with very indulgent parents, creates a similar situation. That, coupled with the position of English in society, has made this a nice sinecure. I have vague aspirations that I’m as altruistic as nous, but I’m certainly a bit further away from that. EFL has tons of acronyms and here in Japan, one of my favorites is TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason)
We don’t have the issue of adjuncts, but the part time teachers are often those who have gotten qualifications and are acting as full time part time teachers. You can carve out a decent living like that, though a lot of trends are making that increasing untenable. It will be interesting to see what happens, in the way that the French Revolution or industrialization are ‘interesting’.
Interesting stuff. I feel (though I am happy to be corrected) that one reason why we have the mix of people we do is that a lot of us bopped around in higher ed. I advisedly choose that verb because we certainly didn’t go in with a purpose. And I say that with affection, though nothing against folks who had a more targeted goal.
I also imagine that this is why I ended up overseas. I can’t think of anyone I’ve met who said ‘well, I wanted to teach in Japan so I began doing X, then Y, followed by…’ All the people I know here have some strange combination of interests and happenstance to get them here.
I also think that partly an issue with higher ed in the US. Generally, people who like school want to stay there, if not as students, then as teachers. They will do that even though the costs may not really logically make sense. So much for the invisible hand.
There is a different sense in Europe with its more widespread support (though the same desire to remain a student is there?), though the UK has been moving to a US model. Here in Japan, we have a US model as well, but the strain of thinking that made education special goods, combined with the post-war ethos that was imported from the US, combined with very indulgent parents, creates a similar situation. That, coupled with the position of English in society, has made this a nice sinecure. I have vague aspirations that I’m as altruistic as nous, but I’m certainly a bit further away from that. EFL has tons of acronyms and here in Japan, one of my favorites is TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason)
We don’t have the issue of adjuncts, but the part time teachers are often those who have gotten qualifications and are acting as full time part time teachers. You can carve out a decent living like that, though a lot of trends are making that increasing untenable. It will be interesting to see what happens, in the way that the French Revolution or industrialization are ‘interesting’.
a lot of us bopped around in higher ed. I advisedly choose that verb because we certainly didn’t go in with a purpose.
Oh, I definitely had a purpose/goal in mind. My actual career never went anywhere near there. For multiple reasons, including a recession in that industry at the time I left school. But it wasn’t for lack of a purpose while I was in school.
Generally, people who like school want to stay there, if not as students, then as teachers.
I really liked school. Not to the point of wanting a PhD, but just taking lots of classes. Happily, I discovered UC Extension** — let me keep taking misc classes. (Plus, my 1st employer came up with a program to let anyone who wanted to get an MBA. Definitely not intended for computer staff . . . but they didn’t write the program to exclude us.) If what I loved was the environment, I suppose I might have ended up a teacher. But what I loved was learning new (totally unrelated) stuff.
Hmmm. It occurs to me that I have somehow ended up this past year with a job title of “Teacher” at the Virtual School of Internet Governance. Not quite sure how that happened, since I never went looking for it….
** Now, of course, there are Internet-based classes without end.
a lot of us bopped around in higher ed. I advisedly choose that verb because we certainly didn’t go in with a purpose.
Oh, I definitely had a purpose/goal in mind. My actual career never went anywhere near there. For multiple reasons, including a recession in that industry at the time I left school. But it wasn’t for lack of a purpose while I was in school.
Generally, people who like school want to stay there, if not as students, then as teachers.
I really liked school. Not to the point of wanting a PhD, but just taking lots of classes. Happily, I discovered UC Extension** — let me keep taking misc classes. (Plus, my 1st employer came up with a program to let anyone who wanted to get an MBA. Definitely not intended for computer staff . . . but they didn’t write the program to exclude us.) If what I loved was the environment, I suppose I might have ended up a teacher. But what I loved was learning new (totally unrelated) stuff.
Hmmm. It occurs to me that I have somehow ended up this past year with a job title of “Teacher” at the Virtual School of Internet Governance. Not quite sure how that happened, since I never went looking for it….
** Now, of course, there are Internet-based classes without end.
Well, wj, (and again, said with affection) you do tend to be our main outlier here…
But that desire to find out about stuff seems to link a lot of us together.
Well, wj, (and again, said with affection) you do tend to be our main outlier here…
But that desire to find out about stuff seems to link a lot of us together.
Well, wj, (and again, said with affection) you do tend to be our main outlier here…
I confess that exactly that thought did occur to me as I was typing. 😉
Well, wj, (and again, said with affection) you do tend to be our main outlier here…
I confess that exactly that thought did occur to me as I was typing. 😉
@wj,
In all Nordic countries, the corporal discipline of children has been prohibited for decades. It is an assault to slap your child, and this is enforced. If a child tells at the kindergarten about having been slapped, you are quite sure to end up in trouble with child protection service and the police.
It works fine. I have been able to raise my children without using corporal punishment. Even a small child is completely able to listen to verbal messaging, just like a puppy. A firm “No!” is very effective with babies and small toddlers. With larger, a longer tirade about the problems in the behaviour is equally effective. The kid is quite able to understand “You do this, you might get killed. That is why you make me angry. Never do that again.” The key is to use a clearly understandable tone and end the situation so that the child understands being loved despite having acted wrong. I learned to do it so that my children started crying with a certain frown rising upon my brow. That was a good thing: I hate shouting at them.
@Hartmut,
The same goes for university education in Finland. There is no tuition for EU/EEA students. The student union collects about 49 euros in fees per year, and the National Pension Insurance Organisation collects 72 euros for students’ health insurance. You get 252 euros’ allowance per month + plus a grant of about 400 euros for housing expenses. (EU requires all EU/EEA students to get the same benefits as domestic ones.)
The one really nice thing is the adult student grant. You can get, once in your life, up to 15 months of unpaid leave from your employer to study a college or vocational degree, provided that you have already worked for six years full-time. During the leave, you get paid about 70 % of your previous income. You can do use this allocation once or in several parts, at least two months per time. That is something that allows you to change careers with relative ease. (The money comes with strings attached: they will require you to show a transcript with enough credit points afterwards. If you fail the classes, you’ll need to pay the grant back.)
@wj,
In all Nordic countries, the corporal discipline of children has been prohibited for decades. It is an assault to slap your child, and this is enforced. If a child tells at the kindergarten about having been slapped, you are quite sure to end up in trouble with child protection service and the police.
It works fine. I have been able to raise my children without using corporal punishment. Even a small child is completely able to listen to verbal messaging, just like a puppy. A firm “No!” is very effective with babies and small toddlers. With larger, a longer tirade about the problems in the behaviour is equally effective. The kid is quite able to understand “You do this, you might get killed. That is why you make me angry. Never do that again.” The key is to use a clearly understandable tone and end the situation so that the child understands being loved despite having acted wrong. I learned to do it so that my children started crying with a certain frown rising upon my brow. That was a good thing: I hate shouting at them.
@Hartmut,
The same goes for university education in Finland. There is no tuition for EU/EEA students. The student union collects about 49 euros in fees per year, and the National Pension Insurance Organisation collects 72 euros for students’ health insurance. You get 252 euros’ allowance per month + plus a grant of about 400 euros for housing expenses. (EU requires all EU/EEA students to get the same benefits as domestic ones.)
The one really nice thing is the adult student grant. You can get, once in your life, up to 15 months of unpaid leave from your employer to study a college or vocational degree, provided that you have already worked for six years full-time. During the leave, you get paid about 70 % of your previous income. You can do use this allocation once or in several parts, at least two months per time. That is something that allows you to change careers with relative ease. (The money comes with strings attached: they will require you to show a transcript with enough credit points afterwards. If you fail the classes, you’ll need to pay the grant back.)
I don’t know how you endure under such tyranny, Lurker.
I don’t know how you endure under such tyranny, Lurker.
I don’t know how you endure under such tyranny, Lurker.
I sent an urgent email plea to Bill Gates begging him to do something about this.
I don’t know how you endure under such tyranny, Lurker.
I sent an urgent email plea to Bill Gates begging him to do something about this.
I sent an urgent email plea to Bill Gates begging him to do something about this.
Clippy: “I see you’re trying to write an email to Bill Gates, can I help you with that?”
I sent an urgent email plea to Bill Gates begging him to do something about this.
Clippy: “I see you’re trying to write an email to Bill Gates, can I help you with that?”
LOL DIAF GOP U SUXX
in other words: lie all you want, GOP, we’ve got your back.
LOL DIAF GOP U SUXX
in other words: lie all you want, GOP, we’ve got your back.
Politicians cost individuals, institutions, and taxpayers billions of dollars by passing laws they have to know are unconstitutional. But will take years to drag them through the courts to the Supreme Court to have them ruled so.
Politicians cost individuals, institutions, and taxpayers billions of dollars by passing laws they have to know are unconstitutional. But will take years to drag them through the courts to the Supreme Court to have them ruled so.
laws they have to know are unconstitutional
If you think you have a good handle on what the current Supreme Court will decide is unconstitutional, you have a much clearer crystal ball than I.
laws they have to know are unconstitutional
If you think you have a good handle on what the current Supreme Court will decide is unconstitutional, you have a much clearer crystal ball than I.
Happy 80th birthday, Bob Dylan.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/may/24/favourite-dylan-song-mick-jagger-marianne-faithfull-tom-jones-judy-collins-and-more
I don’t often quote Mick Jagger, but when he says
His greatness lies in the body of work.
he’s absolutely right.
Happy 80th birthday, Bob Dylan.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/may/24/favourite-dylan-song-mick-jagger-marianne-faithfull-tom-jones-judy-collins-and-more
I don’t often quote Mick Jagger, but when he says
His greatness lies in the body of work.
he’s absolutely right.
I’m running for FL Gov. I can say anything I want and the Wimpy Moderators at ObWi can’t stop me!
FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!
I’m running for FL Gov. I can say anything I want and the Wimpy Moderators at ObWi can’t stop me!
FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!FREEEEEEEEDOM!
I hear that Devin Nune’s Cow is running for office also, too.
I hear that Devin Nune’s Cow is running for office also, too.
If you think you have a good handle on what the current Supreme Court will decide is unconstitutional, you have a much clearer crystal ball than I.
Part of the uncertainty in the law is due to the courts starting with the verdict they would like to have in a case and working their way backward to try and find justifications for it in existing law and the constitution. Instead of starting with the constitution and existing law and reasoning their way forward to the verdict a case should have.
If you think you have a good handle on what the current Supreme Court will decide is unconstitutional, you have a much clearer crystal ball than I.
Part of the uncertainty in the law is due to the courts starting with the verdict they would like to have in a case and working their way backward to try and find justifications for it in existing law and the constitution. Instead of starting with the constitution and existing law and reasoning their way forward to the verdict a case should have.
the courts starting with the verdict they would like to have in a case and working their way backward to try and find justifications
Precisely. With laws like this, anyone who is minimally literate can see the conflict with the Constitution. No law school education necessary. But will the Court, this Court, rule that way? I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
the courts starting with the verdict they would like to have in a case and working their way backward to try and find justifications
Precisely. With laws like this, anyone who is minimally literate can see the conflict with the Constitution. No law school education necessary. But will the Court, this Court, rule that way? I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
CharlesWT: … courts starting with the verdict they would like to have …
That may well be true of appellate judges in general and SCOTUS judges in particular. (It seems strange to ascribe desires to “courts” as if they were corporations or something.) And that would explain why it matters so much to both Republicans and Democrats who gets to be an appellate judge.
Only charlatans pretend that their judicial rulings are always totally independent of their personal preferences; only fools believe them. The Framers were not fools.
–TP
CharlesWT: … courts starting with the verdict they would like to have …
That may well be true of appellate judges in general and SCOTUS judges in particular. (It seems strange to ascribe desires to “courts” as if they were corporations or something.) And that would explain why it matters so much to both Republicans and Democrats who gets to be an appellate judge.
Only charlatans pretend that their judicial rulings are always totally independent of their personal preferences; only fools believe them. The Framers were not fools.
–TP
Happy 80th birthday, Bob Dylan.
Dylan has released 39 studio albums, 12 live albums, and god knows how many bootlegs, singles, and compilations. Everybody has covered a Dylan tune at some point. He survived being the voice of a generation, somehow, and just kept writing songs.
He’s had a 60-year career in an industry that generally chews people up and leaves them for dead by the side of the road. He’s been on tour more or less all his life, and basically continuously since 1988. The man is 80 and he’s still at it.
When he was young, he immersed himself in American traditional music. He was, famously, a sponge, learning everything he could learn from anyone who would sit still long enough to teach him, stealing records from his friends. He was obsessed.
He writes from a deep knowledge of that body of work, and from his own kind of intuitive bardic mind and sensibility. Leadbelly and Rimbaud, cowboy songs and Appalachian hollers, roadhouse R&B and ancient murder ballads. It’s all in there.
He doesn’t have the facile gift of somebody like, for instance, McCartney. He’s written some stuff that is timeless, and some that is kind of mediocre. I’d say his lifetime batting average is maybe around .300. But when he’s on, nobody can touch him. There isn’t anyone like him.
My own personal favorite of his is It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry, probably the best song title ever. It’s a tune that sounds like it could have been written on a front porch in Arkansas or Mississippi somewhere around 1924, but it also doesn’t sound dated. It’s wry and funny and sly. It’s written by a guy who is deeply and profoundly steeped in traditional American song.
Dylan didn’t emulate the people in that lineage, he became one of them. People will sing his stuff 100 or more years from now. That’s an astonishing accomplishment.
He’s a complicated and often difficult cat – there have probably been ten different Bob Dylan’s over the last 60 years, each with their own persona and distinct body of work – but his work stands and speaks for itself.
Happy 80th birthday, Bob Dylan.
Dylan has released 39 studio albums, 12 live albums, and god knows how many bootlegs, singles, and compilations. Everybody has covered a Dylan tune at some point. He survived being the voice of a generation, somehow, and just kept writing songs.
He’s had a 60-year career in an industry that generally chews people up and leaves them for dead by the side of the road. He’s been on tour more or less all his life, and basically continuously since 1988. The man is 80 and he’s still at it.
When he was young, he immersed himself in American traditional music. He was, famously, a sponge, learning everything he could learn from anyone who would sit still long enough to teach him, stealing records from his friends. He was obsessed.
He writes from a deep knowledge of that body of work, and from his own kind of intuitive bardic mind and sensibility. Leadbelly and Rimbaud, cowboy songs and Appalachian hollers, roadhouse R&B and ancient murder ballads. It’s all in there.
He doesn’t have the facile gift of somebody like, for instance, McCartney. He’s written some stuff that is timeless, and some that is kind of mediocre. I’d say his lifetime batting average is maybe around .300. But when he’s on, nobody can touch him. There isn’t anyone like him.
My own personal favorite of his is It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry, probably the best song title ever. It’s a tune that sounds like it could have been written on a front porch in Arkansas or Mississippi somewhere around 1924, but it also doesn’t sound dated. It’s wry and funny and sly. It’s written by a guy who is deeply and profoundly steeped in traditional American song.
Dylan didn’t emulate the people in that lineage, he became one of them. People will sing his stuff 100 or more years from now. That’s an astonishing accomplishment.
He’s a complicated and often difficult cat – there have probably been ten different Bob Dylan’s over the last 60 years, each with their own persona and distinct body of work – but his work stands and speaks for itself.
An amusing Ben Dreyfuss Twitter thread reminiscing about Dylan.
An amusing Ben Dreyfuss Twitter thread reminiscing about Dylan.
The ‘train people’ thing is also kinda funny
The ‘train people’ thing is also kinda funny
Instead of starting with the constitution and existing law and reasoning their way forward to the verdict a case should have.
I’ll take Shelby County for eight hundred Buzzy.
Instead of starting with the constitution and existing law and reasoning their way forward to the verdict a case should have.
I’ll take Shelby County for eight hundred Buzzy.
For the Bob Dylan obsessives…
“In celebration of Bob’s upcoming birthday, I’ve decided to undertake an irresistible but dangerous proposition for a Dylan obsessive: I’m going to rank all of his studio albums. Originally, I thought about doing all of his albums, including live records and installments of his essential Bootleg Series. But I realized that this might very well kill me, or at the very least cause my wife to sneak off in the night with the kids. So! I’m sticking just with the studio albums.”
Every Bob Dylan Studio Album, Ranked
For the Bob Dylan obsessives…
“In celebration of Bob’s upcoming birthday, I’ve decided to undertake an irresistible but dangerous proposition for a Dylan obsessive: I’m going to rank all of his studio albums. Originally, I thought about doing all of his albums, including live records and installments of his essential Bootleg Series. But I realized that this might very well kill me, or at the very least cause my wife to sneak off in the night with the kids. So! I’m sticking just with the studio albums.”
Every Bob Dylan Studio Album, Ranked
I thought russell’s comment @11.57 on Dylan was very fair.
Personally, I am far from a Bob Dylan “obsessive”. I stopped listening to him altogether for years in the middle of his output, only started again with “Blood on the Tracks” (which, when it was first released, made me pull my car over to the side of the road in disbelief when I heard it on the radio), and am still completely ignorant of almost all his mid-period work and even most of his very late work.
But perhaps this makes it all the more significant that I consider him, based on the work I know, to be a true genius. When he won the Nobel prize I got into a (good-natured) fight with cleek right here about his worthiness. When I went online and checked a list of all his songs, I was astounded to see the number of great – not good – great songs there were. Hundreds. (And, russell is right, many mediocre ones.) And even some of his minor works are amazing; I consider his Black Diamond Bay to be superior to My Last Duchess, a hugely anthologised poem of Robert Browning’s, where conveying the unspoken is concerned.
As for “He’s a complicated and often difficult cat”, this is if anything an understatement. He was one of the artists I was thinking of when we recently talked about whether knowing reprehensible things about an artist’s life affected one’s opinion of their work. For me, where he is concerned, it has not.
When asked what a song means, he has famously said “Don’t ask me, I only wrote it.” He may be one of the best arguments (as Mozart was in his day) for being a conduit from the divine, or the collective unconscious, or whatever concept makes sense to you.
I thought russell’s comment @11.57 on Dylan was very fair.
Personally, I am far from a Bob Dylan “obsessive”. I stopped listening to him altogether for years in the middle of his output, only started again with “Blood on the Tracks” (which, when it was first released, made me pull my car over to the side of the road in disbelief when I heard it on the radio), and am still completely ignorant of almost all his mid-period work and even most of his very late work.
But perhaps this makes it all the more significant that I consider him, based on the work I know, to be a true genius. When he won the Nobel prize I got into a (good-natured) fight with cleek right here about his worthiness. When I went online and checked a list of all his songs, I was astounded to see the number of great – not good – great songs there were. Hundreds. (And, russell is right, many mediocre ones.) And even some of his minor works are amazing; I consider his Black Diamond Bay to be superior to My Last Duchess, a hugely anthologised poem of Robert Browning’s, where conveying the unspoken is concerned.
As for “He’s a complicated and often difficult cat”, this is if anything an understatement. He was one of the artists I was thinking of when we recently talked about whether knowing reprehensible things about an artist’s life affected one’s opinion of their work. For me, where he is concerned, it has not.
When asked what a song means, he has famously said “Don’t ask me, I only wrote it.” He may be one of the best arguments (as Mozart was in his day) for being a conduit from the divine, or the collective unconscious, or whatever concept makes sense to you.
When he won the Nobel prize I got into a (good-natured) fight with cleek right here about his worthiness. When I went online and checked a list of all his songs, I was astounded to see the number of great – not good – great songs there were. Hundreds. (And, russell is right, many mediocre ones.)
The only people who have won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who did not have a lot of mediocre published works alongside their great work, are those who had an extremely limited number of works published at all. Which, it is my impression, are often those who are getting the award based more on politics than on quality of work.
When he won the Nobel prize I got into a (good-natured) fight with cleek right here about his worthiness. When I went online and checked a list of all his songs, I was astounded to see the number of great – not good – great songs there were. Hundreds. (And, russell is right, many mediocre ones.)
The only people who have won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who did not have a lot of mediocre published works alongside their great work, are those who had an extremely limited number of works published at all. Which, it is my impression, are often those who are getting the award based more on politics than on quality of work.
He was one of the artists I was thinking of when we recently talked about whether knowing reprehensible things about an artist’s life affected one’s opinion of their work.
From interviews Dylan had with long-time friend and Minnesota homebody Tony Glover, about his state of mind ca. Highway 61 Revisited:
Dylan’s gone to some dark places and lived to tell the tale. The songs from the Highway 61 period, in particular, are some of the most bitter and jaundiced work in popular music, or any music. And also some of the most remarkable, it’s just startingly good.
Blood On The Tracks is one of the most consistently great recordings in popular music. And it’s full of angry, bitter resignation. It’s a record of Dylan confronting his own failures as a person, and it’s brilliant.
Perfection of the life, or of the work. Not many achieve both. Most of us are lucky to get one.
100 years from now, people will be singing Bob Dylan songs. That kind of achievement rarely comes for free.
He was one of the artists I was thinking of when we recently talked about whether knowing reprehensible things about an artist’s life affected one’s opinion of their work.
From interviews Dylan had with long-time friend and Minnesota homebody Tony Glover, about his state of mind ca. Highway 61 Revisited:
Dylan’s gone to some dark places and lived to tell the tale. The songs from the Highway 61 period, in particular, are some of the most bitter and jaundiced work in popular music, or any music. And also some of the most remarkable, it’s just startingly good.
Blood On The Tracks is one of the most consistently great recordings in popular music. And it’s full of angry, bitter resignation. It’s a record of Dylan confronting his own failures as a person, and it’s brilliant.
Perfection of the life, or of the work. Not many achieve both. Most of us are lucky to get one.
100 years from now, people will be singing Bob Dylan songs. That kind of achievement rarely comes for free.
‘homebody’ -> ‘homeboy’
autocomplete delenda est
‘homebody’ -> ‘homeboy’
autocomplete delenda est
The only people who have won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who did not have a lot of mediocre published works alongside their great work, are those who had an extremely limited number of works published at all.
Yes, publish the Steinbeck werewolf novel, dammit.
The only people who have won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who did not have a lot of mediocre published works alongside their great work, are those who had an extremely limited number of works published at all.
Yes, publish the Steinbeck werewolf novel, dammit.
Rolling Stone did what it does best and published an “80 best Dylan covers” with plenty of controversial picks.
my peeve: they left off Robyn Hitchcock (who has an entire double album full of Dylan covers, and plenty besides that), but picked a song from his girlfriend’s new album full of Dylan covers (which Robyn plays on).
Rolling Stone did what it does best and published an “80 best Dylan covers” with plenty of controversial picks.
my peeve: they left off Robyn Hitchcock (who has an entire double album full of Dylan covers, and plenty besides that), but picked a song from his girlfriend’s new album full of Dylan covers (which Robyn plays on).
I am A Bob Dylan obsessive to some extent, my son is named after him. The only other option was Kris. 40 years later it was a good choice. I loved your summary russell.
He has, in a way not equalled by many, shared his emotional life with us. From Baby Let me Follow You Down to Don’t think twice to Tonight I’ll be staying Here with You to, well, all of Blood on the Tracks all the way to I’ve Made Up my Mind to Give Myself to You he wrote amazing love songs intertwined with his philosophical works.
It was all Bob Dylan.
I would comment on how lucky we are to have been here for his music, but, like russell, I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work. It was nice to see him live a few times.
I am A Bob Dylan obsessive to some extent, my son is named after him. The only other option was Kris. 40 years later it was a good choice. I loved your summary russell.
He has, in a way not equalled by many, shared his emotional life with us. From Baby Let me Follow You Down to Don’t think twice to Tonight I’ll be staying Here with You to, well, all of Blood on the Tracks all the way to I’ve Made Up my Mind to Give Myself to You he wrote amazing love songs intertwined with his philosophical works.
It was all Bob Dylan.
I would comment on how lucky we are to have been here for his music, but, like russell, I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work. It was nice to see him live a few times.
I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work. [emphasis added]
A prediction of time travel? 😉
I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work. [emphasis added]
A prediction of time travel? 😉
Odd word hmm I wonder if that was somehow hopeful. Descendants
Odd word hmm I wonder if that was somehow hopeful. Descendants
I’ve just been reading something on Wikipedia about Dylan, and found this about Like a Rolling Stone, which supports what I was saying about the conduit thing:
In 2004, speaking to Robert Hilburn, Dylan still felt that the song had a special place in his work: “It’s like a ghost is writing a song like that, it gives you the song and it goes away. You don’t know what it means. Except that the ghost picked me to write the song.”
I’ve just been reading something on Wikipedia about Dylan, and found this about Like a Rolling Stone, which supports what I was saying about the conduit thing:
In 2004, speaking to Robert Hilburn, Dylan still felt that the song had a special place in his work: “It’s like a ghost is writing a song like that, it gives you the song and it goes away. You don’t know what it means. Except that the ghost picked me to write the song.”
One more thing, last week I got captivated by this video. The fact that these guys love doing this with him just comes through.
https://youtu.be/rGEIMCWob3U
One more thing, last week I got captivated by this video. The fact that these guys love doing this with him just comes through.
https://youtu.be/rGEIMCWob3U
:thumbs up:
That’s Steve Cropper and (I think) Duck Dunn in the back line.
Nice, Marty. Thank you!
:thumbs up:
That’s Steve Cropper and (I think) Duck Dunn in the back line.
Nice, Marty. Thank you!
I never got the grumpyness – what’s that all about?
I always preferred Simon and Garfunkel
– ducks and runs for cover…
But happy birthday anyway!
I never got the grumpyness – what’s that all about?
I always preferred Simon and Garfunkel
– ducks and runs for cover…
But happy birthday anyway!
Yeah it was Duck, the MGs were the house band that night,and GE Smith. The whole concert is worth streaming.
Yeah it was Duck, the MGs were the house band that night,and GE Smith. The whole concert is worth streaming.
https://m.facebook.com/SingingFolks/videos/250136892931257/
https://m.facebook.com/SingingFolks/videos/250136892931257/
As with the Beatles, it’s difficult to conger original Dylan tunes on YouTube, but here’s a cover of “If Dogs Run Free”, a neglected deep cut from the New Morning album.
https://youtu.be/HDxhauyLf80
“My ears hear a syn-PHO…. ny … two mules, trains….. and rain.”
As with the Beatles, it’s difficult to conger original Dylan tunes on YouTube, but here’s a cover of “If Dogs Run Free”, a neglected deep cut from the New Morning album.
https://youtu.be/HDxhauyLf80
“My ears hear a syn-PHO…. ny … two mules, trains….. and rain.”
SyMphony
SyMphony
Paul Simon’s thing was/is a species of high-toned, wistful, literary, melancholy. He created nostalgia in the moment. The early stuff.
Also sublime in its execution.
Paul Simon’s thing was/is a species of high-toned, wistful, literary, melancholy. He created nostalgia in the moment. The early stuff.
Also sublime in its execution.
Music:
Kick those butts, ladies!
https://digbysblog.net/2021/05/you-go-grrrrllls/
Semi-automatic guitars.
Music:
Kick those butts, ladies!
https://digbysblog.net/2021/05/you-go-grrrrllls/
Semi-automatic guitars.
So unfair.
Those ladies are slamming the “racist, sexist BOYYYY”. But it’s his father who’s the real villain here. (Note that the boy said “my father says I should”; not like he has embraced it himself. Yet.)
So unfair.
Those ladies are slamming the “racist, sexist BOYYYY”. But it’s his father who’s the real villain here. (Note that the boy said “my father says I should”; not like he has embraced it himself. Yet.)
I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work.
I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now…
I’m pretty sure my ancestors will get to experience the body of his work.
I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now…
For a while there the SJW vanguard had turned their backs on riot grrrl and Bikini Kill as being too white and too pretty and too sex positive. Good to see The Linda Lindas not giving a rat’s ass and taking the lesson that they can make music about the things that matter to them.
Also heartening to see that right when guitars and rock were being written off as culturally irrelevant, women decided to embrace them both and suddenly we have an explosion of slamming new rock guitar music that is also kicking rock’s sexism in the teeth.
For a while there the SJW vanguard had turned their backs on riot grrrl and Bikini Kill as being too white and too pretty and too sex positive. Good to see The Linda Lindas not giving a rat’s ass and taking the lesson that they can make music about the things that matter to them.
Also heartening to see that right when guitars and rock were being written off as culturally irrelevant, women decided to embrace them both and suddenly we have an explosion of slamming new rock guitar music that is also kicking rock’s sexism in the teeth.
this Florida non-deplatforming bill does not apply to a “company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex”
GOP = goofy
this Florida non-deplatforming bill does not apply to a “company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex”
GOP = goofy
Paul Simon is an underrated genius.
Paul Simon is an underrated genius.
I have read comments that Zuckerberg & Co should just install single merry-go-rounds on their Florida properties in order to make use of that escape clause.
I propose: “Haunted Sugar Mountain” as the theme (putting a new meaning on saccharine horror).
I have read comments that Zuckerberg & Co should just install single merry-go-rounds on their Florida properties in order to make use of that escape clause.
I propose: “Haunted Sugar Mountain” as the theme (putting a new meaning on saccharine horror).
I’ve known a few professional .usicians who struggled to hear how great their contemporaries were, or even different types of music. These weregifted musicians completely wrapped up in their creative vision.
Dylan and Paul Simon are both examples of translating the music of the world around them into their art. Using the best of what others did and respecting it.
I’ve known a few professional .usicians who struggled to hear how great their contemporaries were, or even different types of music. These weregifted musicians completely wrapped up in their creative vision.
Dylan and Paul Simon are both examples of translating the music of the world around them into their art. Using the best of what others did and respecting it.
I’m also a great admirer of Paul Simon, although I have to admit I don’t see him as being in the same league as Dylan. But then, I don’t really see anybody else in the field of popular music as being in that league. But Paul Simon, and Ray Davies (and no doubt others I’m not so familiar with): certainly wonderful songwriters.
I’m also a great admirer of Paul Simon, although I have to admit I don’t see him as being in the same league as Dylan. But then, I don’t really see anybody else in the field of popular music as being in that league. But Paul Simon, and Ray Davies (and no doubt others I’m not so familiar with): certainly wonderful songwriters.
Simon and Dylan are hard to compare. They’re very different artists.
Simon is, I think, much more of an intentional craftsman. His musical vocabulary is much more sophisticated than Dylan’s. His use of language seems, for lack of a better word, clever, when compared to Dylan. He’s much more of an artisan.
Simon has at various points borrowed from a really wide range of musical traditions, but he uses that stuff is kind of a found object. He’s curious, and has big ears and good taste, but I doubt he thinks of himself as being “in the tradition” of South African mbaqanga, or Andean flute music, or Brazilian afro-bloc. They’re just cool sounds that appealed to him and that he wanted to use.
As a young man Dylan steeped himself in a range of traditional American musical styles. He absorbed all of that stuff like a sponge. Those traditions are his musical vocabulary, and he doesn’t seem interested in expanding his horizons beyond them – which is not necessarily a bad thing. My guess is that he thinks of himself as being in those traditions and lineages – from Leadbelly and Charlie Patton and Woody and a cast of other similar players, to Bob.
Lyrically Dylan is kind of a shaman. He’s a bard, looking to channel whatever his inner flow brings to consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but when it does it has real power, in ways that Simon’s work rarely does, or at least does much less frequently.
All of this shows up in their approaches to performance and recording. Dylan is more or less famous for being unpredictable, constantly messing with things, changing his mind, changing set lists during live performance in favor of whatever tune from his catalog of hundreds of tunes seems, to him, to fit the moment. I’m sure he drives his bands nuts.
Really different guys. Impossible to say one is better or worse, it all depends on what you find meaningful or valuable in their art.
What I haven’t seen called out in this thread is how really funny both guys frequently are.
Simon and Dylan are hard to compare. They’re very different artists.
Simon is, I think, much more of an intentional craftsman. His musical vocabulary is much more sophisticated than Dylan’s. His use of language seems, for lack of a better word, clever, when compared to Dylan. He’s much more of an artisan.
Simon has at various points borrowed from a really wide range of musical traditions, but he uses that stuff is kind of a found object. He’s curious, and has big ears and good taste, but I doubt he thinks of himself as being “in the tradition” of South African mbaqanga, or Andean flute music, or Brazilian afro-bloc. They’re just cool sounds that appealed to him and that he wanted to use.
As a young man Dylan steeped himself in a range of traditional American musical styles. He absorbed all of that stuff like a sponge. Those traditions are his musical vocabulary, and he doesn’t seem interested in expanding his horizons beyond them – which is not necessarily a bad thing. My guess is that he thinks of himself as being in those traditions and lineages – from Leadbelly and Charlie Patton and Woody and a cast of other similar players, to Bob.
Lyrically Dylan is kind of a shaman. He’s a bard, looking to channel whatever his inner flow brings to consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but when it does it has real power, in ways that Simon’s work rarely does, or at least does much less frequently.
All of this shows up in their approaches to performance and recording. Dylan is more or less famous for being unpredictable, constantly messing with things, changing his mind, changing set lists during live performance in favor of whatever tune from his catalog of hundreds of tunes seems, to him, to fit the moment. I’m sure he drives his bands nuts.
Really different guys. Impossible to say one is better or worse, it all depends on what you find meaningful or valuable in their art.
What I haven’t seen called out in this thread is how really funny both guys frequently are.
[Paul Simon] created nostalgia in the moment.
That might explain why songs by Simon (and Garfunkle) stick with me in ways Dylan’s songs don’t. “Graceland” (practically the whole album); “America,” “Sounds of Silence,” and “The Boxer,” in particular.
[Paul Simon] created nostalgia in the moment.
That might explain why songs by Simon (and Garfunkle) stick with me in ways Dylan’s songs don’t. “Graceland” (practically the whole album); “America,” “Sounds of Silence,” and “The Boxer,” in particular.
He writes from a deep knowledge of that body of work, and from his own kind of intuitive bardic mind and sensibility. Leadbelly and Rimbaud, cowboy songs and Appalachian hollers, roadhouse R&B and ancient murder ballads. It’s all in there.
***
Lyrically Dylan is kind of a shaman. He’s a bard, looking to channel whatever his inner flow brings to consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but when it does it has real power, in ways that Simon’s work rarely does, or at least does much less frequently.
It’s my opinion that in both these comments, russell gets somewhere close to the essence of Dylan. My only slight disagreement (when russell says “His use of language seems, for lack of a better word, clever, when compared to Dylan.” – although I do recognise what he means) is that (according to academics who recognise all the references etc) Dylan is apparently hugely well-read, in many traditions, and I do think the power of his best lyrics (and I may think there are more of those than russell) conveys the extraordinary depth of that hinterland. I am in no position to comment about his musical talent, I can only go on the lyrics and their interraction with the sound of the songs. After my comment above about which “league” various songwriters might be in, I pondered Leonard Cohen. I believe a very few of his songs approach a similar level of significance, but “few” is the operative word. And he himself recognised the difference between them, and I think recognised the strange bardic communication with Dylan’s unconscious that russell refers to. In my opinion, too, despite agreeing with Marty about Dylan’s love songs etc, Cohen’s best songs seem to me to be more personal in a way, whereas Dylan’s carry the unmistakeable aura (to me anyway) of something more universal, derived I guess from the underlying mythos (I hope I am using this term correctly) of the collective unconscious.
(p.s. And russell is right, Dylan can be funny/corny etc. There was a whole piece in the NYT about that. And come to think of it, Cohen was good on graveyard humour too…)
He writes from a deep knowledge of that body of work, and from his own kind of intuitive bardic mind and sensibility. Leadbelly and Rimbaud, cowboy songs and Appalachian hollers, roadhouse R&B and ancient murder ballads. It’s all in there.
***
Lyrically Dylan is kind of a shaman. He’s a bard, looking to channel whatever his inner flow brings to consciousness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but when it does it has real power, in ways that Simon’s work rarely does, or at least does much less frequently.
It’s my opinion that in both these comments, russell gets somewhere close to the essence of Dylan. My only slight disagreement (when russell says “His use of language seems, for lack of a better word, clever, when compared to Dylan.” – although I do recognise what he means) is that (according to academics who recognise all the references etc) Dylan is apparently hugely well-read, in many traditions, and I do think the power of his best lyrics (and I may think there are more of those than russell) conveys the extraordinary depth of that hinterland. I am in no position to comment about his musical talent, I can only go on the lyrics and their interraction with the sound of the songs. After my comment above about which “league” various songwriters might be in, I pondered Leonard Cohen. I believe a very few of his songs approach a similar level of significance, but “few” is the operative word. And he himself recognised the difference between them, and I think recognised the strange bardic communication with Dylan’s unconscious that russell refers to. In my opinion, too, despite agreeing with Marty about Dylan’s love songs etc, Cohen’s best songs seem to me to be more personal in a way, whereas Dylan’s carry the unmistakeable aura (to me anyway) of something more universal, derived I guess from the underlying mythos (I hope I am using this term correctly) of the collective unconscious.
(p.s. And russell is right, Dylan can be funny/corny etc. There was a whole piece in the NYT about that. And come to think of it, Cohen was good on graveyard humour too…)
CaseyL: I also love all those Paul Simon songs, and know the feeling you speak about. I actually think Graceland is pretty close to a masterpiece, with its wonderful synthesis of lyrics and African music and voices.
CaseyL: I also love all those Paul Simon songs, and know the feeling you speak about. I actually think Graceland is pretty close to a masterpiece, with its wonderful synthesis of lyrics and African music and voices.
‘significance’ is in the eye of the beholder.
with Dylan, i start at the beginning and stop at Blonde On Blonde. everything in that span is truly great.
but nothing BoB grabs me at all – sometimes it’s even off-putting. (covers have redeemed a lot of the later stuff, to me)
i find Simon to be much more relatable and human than Dylan. Dylan’s like a very clever alien to me. maybe it’s just that Simon is more ear-friendly.
musically, i think Simon is in a different league than Dylan. Dylan sticks close to Americana – folk or folk+rock. Simon (like Joni Mitchell) is always up for trying something new.
of course i didn’t grow up with Dylan, so that’s probably part of the issue. Simon is closer to my era.
‘significance’ is in the eye of the beholder.
with Dylan, i start at the beginning and stop at Blonde On Blonde. everything in that span is truly great.
but nothing BoB grabs me at all – sometimes it’s even off-putting. (covers have redeemed a lot of the later stuff, to me)
i find Simon to be much more relatable and human than Dylan. Dylan’s like a very clever alien to me. maybe it’s just that Simon is more ear-friendly.
musically, i think Simon is in a different league than Dylan. Dylan sticks close to Americana – folk or folk+rock. Simon (like Joni Mitchell) is always up for trying something new.
of course i didn’t grow up with Dylan, so that’s probably part of the issue. Simon is closer to my era.
…nothing past BoB…
…nothing past BoB…
but nothing past BoB grabs me at all – sometimes it’s even off-putting.
Including Blood on the Tracks. Gosh. Eye of the beholder indeed.
but nothing past BoB grabs me at all – sometimes it’s even off-putting.
Including Blood on the Tracks. Gosh. Eye of the beholder indeed.
Dylan is apparently hugely well-read, in many traditions
I’m sure that is so. I’m struggling a bit to articulate the differences I see between these two guys.
If I had to guess, my guess would be that Dylan is more widely read than Simon. Perhaps by quite a bit.
In Dylan’s case, it seems like he absorbs and internalizes all of that stuff, with a goal of letting it speak through him. His approach seems, again for lack of a better word, more intuitive, where Simon’s seems more intentional and deliberate.
Simon seems, to me, more of a technician – more of a skilled artisan. Dylan seems to stand more in the role of bard (it seems to me). I can imagine Dylan in some other lifetime inhaling the vapors at Pythia, or eating the sacred mushrooms, and then speaking forth ecstatic visions. I can’t imagine Simon doing that.
And when I say that Dylan has a more intuitive approach and less of a craftsmanlike one, I hope that isn’t misconstrued to mean that I think he has less dedication to his art, or less of a work ethic than Simon. Both guys are, in my view, masters, and have paid the dues to be masters.
They just seem to have really different approaches to what they do. They both work in the general domain of popular music, but they each seem to practice a different art.
I should add that I have great respect for both of them, but I listen to Simon a lot more than I do to Dylan. The work of Dylan’s that really grabs me is the Bringing It All Back Home – Highway 61 – Blonde On Blonde trio, and then Blood On The Tracks. In contrast, all of Simon’s work is interesting to me, and I listen to it a lot.
But Dylan – and Cohen too, for that matter – go to some deep and dark places, powerful places. Chthonic places. PJ Harvey gets into that world, too, from a somewhat different perspective. Patti Smith, same. Simon touches on some of that stuff, but those guys kind of live there.
Dylan is apparently hugely well-read, in many traditions
I’m sure that is so. I’m struggling a bit to articulate the differences I see between these two guys.
If I had to guess, my guess would be that Dylan is more widely read than Simon. Perhaps by quite a bit.
In Dylan’s case, it seems like he absorbs and internalizes all of that stuff, with a goal of letting it speak through him. His approach seems, again for lack of a better word, more intuitive, where Simon’s seems more intentional and deliberate.
Simon seems, to me, more of a technician – more of a skilled artisan. Dylan seems to stand more in the role of bard (it seems to me). I can imagine Dylan in some other lifetime inhaling the vapors at Pythia, or eating the sacred mushrooms, and then speaking forth ecstatic visions. I can’t imagine Simon doing that.
And when I say that Dylan has a more intuitive approach and less of a craftsmanlike one, I hope that isn’t misconstrued to mean that I think he has less dedication to his art, or less of a work ethic than Simon. Both guys are, in my view, masters, and have paid the dues to be masters.
They just seem to have really different approaches to what they do. They both work in the general domain of popular music, but they each seem to practice a different art.
I should add that I have great respect for both of them, but I listen to Simon a lot more than I do to Dylan. The work of Dylan’s that really grabs me is the Bringing It All Back Home – Highway 61 – Blonde On Blonde trio, and then Blood On The Tracks. In contrast, all of Simon’s work is interesting to me, and I listen to it a lot.
But Dylan – and Cohen too, for that matter – go to some deep and dark places, powerful places. Chthonic places. PJ Harvey gets into that world, too, from a somewhat different perspective. Patti Smith, same. Simon touches on some of that stuff, but those guys kind of live there.
russell, as someone who is (very obviously) an immoderate admirer of much of Bob Dylan’s work, I will only say that in my opinion you get very close to a real sense of what Bob Dylan is, and does.
russell, as someone who is (very obviously) an immoderate admirer of much of Bob Dylan’s work, I will only say that in my opinion you get very close to a real sense of what Bob Dylan is, and does.
Including Blood on the Tracks.
yep.
Tangled Up In Blue is good… if long.
You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go is a good song, but like most songs past BoB, it’s one i only came to appreciate from covers.
Including Blood on the Tracks.
yep.
Tangled Up In Blue is good… if long.
You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go is a good song, but like most songs past BoB, it’s one i only came to appreciate from covers.
and, just for the record… sure, i blithely dissed 31 (!) of his studio records. but those first seven records are enough to earn him all the accolades.
and, just for the record… sure, i blithely dissed 31 (!) of his studio records. but those first seven records are enough to earn him all the accolades.
So I switched to the computer.
I agree with almost everything written here, except that Simon is a better musician than Dylan.
When I think about great songwriters I think of them in two ways. Those that share the emotion flowing through them in a way that makes me feel like I understand exactly what they mean, even if it only means that to me. There are very few of those that last beyond an album or a few songs.
Dylan, Kristofferson, Simon, Guy Clark, John Prine, Jackson Browne, Willie Nelson. Bruce Springsteen in spurts over the years. They write poetry that is set to music in a way that makes it accessible to me. I think lots of other people do that in a way that is accessible to others. And lots of people can do it for a song.
Then there are the songwriters that can craft a song. Give them a topic or a concept and they can write a rhyme and put a melody to it that is really great. The guys that can do that time after time for 50 years are incredible but they aren’t the same, Dean Dillon comes to mind.
The ability to write that poetry over the course of a lifetime and continue to share how you feel and see the world today in a way that is lyrically and musically meaningful is an impossible task if it is not just a part of you.
the last person I will mention is Stevie Wonder, who is the most underrated songwriter that I put in the first bucket.
I don’t really think that my list would match anyone else’s list because the whole concept is so personal.
So I switched to the computer.
I agree with almost everything written here, except that Simon is a better musician than Dylan.
When I think about great songwriters I think of them in two ways. Those that share the emotion flowing through them in a way that makes me feel like I understand exactly what they mean, even if it only means that to me. There are very few of those that last beyond an album or a few songs.
Dylan, Kristofferson, Simon, Guy Clark, John Prine, Jackson Browne, Willie Nelson. Bruce Springsteen in spurts over the years. They write poetry that is set to music in a way that makes it accessible to me. I think lots of other people do that in a way that is accessible to others. And lots of people can do it for a song.
Then there are the songwriters that can craft a song. Give them a topic or a concept and they can write a rhyme and put a melody to it that is really great. The guys that can do that time after time for 50 years are incredible but they aren’t the same, Dean Dillon comes to mind.
The ability to write that poetry over the course of a lifetime and continue to share how you feel and see the world today in a way that is lyrically and musically meaningful is an impossible task if it is not just a part of you.
the last person I will mention is Stevie Wonder, who is the most underrated songwriter that I put in the first bucket.
I don’t really think that my list would match anyone else’s list because the whole concept is so personal.
except that Simon is a better musician than Dylan.
to clarify – IMO Simon’s musical vocabulary is more sophisticated than Dylan’s.
“better musician” is a different question, and I don’t think I’d make that claim. It all depends on the understanding of what makes music “good”. And that’s hard to answer without talking about what music is for.
At that point, we’re well above my pay grade.
🙂
except that Simon is a better musician than Dylan.
to clarify – IMO Simon’s musical vocabulary is more sophisticated than Dylan’s.
“better musician” is a different question, and I don’t think I’d make that claim. It all depends on the understanding of what makes music “good”. And that’s hard to answer without talking about what music is for.
At that point, we’re well above my pay grade.
🙂
One more thing, Kesha’s performance of It Ain’t Me, Babe at the 2016 Billboard Music Awards redefined that song, and made it one of my favorite Dylan songs of all time. I still play it from Youtube pretty regularly.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kesha+it+aintme+babe&docid=607992297775326269&mid=5D781FA47E22556593595D781FA47E2255659359&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
One more thing, Kesha’s performance of It Ain’t Me, Babe at the 2016 Billboard Music Awards redefined that song, and made it one of my favorite Dylan songs of all time. I still play it from Youtube pretty regularly.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kesha+it+aintme+babe&docid=607992297775326269&mid=5D781FA47E22556593595D781FA47E2255659359&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
So. Many. Dudes.
Glad that Patti Smith got a nod, at least. I blame the tie. 😉
So. Many. Dudes.
Glad that Patti Smith got a nod, at least. I blame the tie. 😉
And P J Harvey, nous
And P J Harvey, nous
Simon seems, to me, more of a technician – more of a skilled artisan. Dylan seems to stand more in the role of bard (it seems to me)….
And of course Simon produced a pretty good parody of Dylan.
I doubt the thought of doing the same would even occur to Bob ?
Simon seems, to me, more of a technician – more of a skilled artisan. Dylan seems to stand more in the role of bard (it seems to me)….
And of course Simon produced a pretty good parody of Dylan.
I doubt the thought of doing the same would even occur to Bob ?
My daughter and I talk about this, her list has a lot more women. But then, I sing mostly dude songs at karaoke and she sings mostly women’s songs. I
My daughter and I talk about this, her list has a lot more women. But then, I sing mostly dude songs at karaoke and she sings mostly women’s songs. I
and Joni!
and Joni!
hey, Dylan and Smith together. not the best quality recording, but you can get the gist.
didn’t know the tune before this. have added it to my list of Dylan favorites.
also, the Nobel performance of Smith singing Hard Rain.
hey, Dylan and Smith together. not the best quality recording, but you can get the gist.
didn’t know the tune before this. have added it to my list of Dylan favorites.
also, the Nobel performance of Smith singing Hard Rain.
By the way, for UK commenters and lurkers, if you think that I am unaware how many of my Dylan comments could go straight into Pseuds Corner, you are much mistaken!
By the way, for UK commenters and lurkers, if you think that I am unaware how many of my Dylan comments could go straight into Pseuds Corner, you are much mistaken!
also, the Nobel performance of Smith singing Hard Rain.
Smith’s essay about that performance, “How Does It Feel” is the first reading I assign for my music themed writing class.
also, the Nobel performance of Smith singing Hard Rain.
Smith’s essay about that performance, “How Does It Feel” is the first reading I assign for my music themed writing class.
nous, thank you for that New Yorker piece, which I read at the time and have since forgotten. What a perfect choice A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall was: one of the most mysterious and most prescient of his greatest works.
nous, thank you for that New Yorker piece, which I read at the time and have since forgotten. What a perfect choice A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall was: one of the most mysterious and most prescient of his greatest works.
clearly this is not a day on which I’m gonna get much done…
Patti Smith.
I think I saw this Letterman show. She came over and sat on the big couch, and in about three minutes she had taken over Letterman’s desk and he was on the couch being interviewed by her. She just has a weird mesmerizing charisma.
clearly this is not a day on which I’m gonna get much done…
Patti Smith.
I think I saw this Letterman show. She came over and sat on the big couch, and in about three minutes she had taken over Letterman’s desk and he was on the couch being interviewed by her. She just has a weird mesmerizing charisma.
My wife’s late stepfather went to high school with Patti Smith. Unfortunately, no stories to relate beyond that.
My wife’s late stepfather went to high school with Patti Smith. Unfortunately, no stories to relate beyond that.
clearly this is not a day on which I’m gonna get much done…
Yep, me too. Just watched her performance at the Nobel ceremony – so moving in so many ways (including the beautiful black woman in a red evening gown in the audience starting to cry and desperately trying to save her eye makeup).
clearly this is not a day on which I’m gonna get much done…
Yep, me too. Just watched her performance at the Nobel ceremony – so moving in so many ways (including the beautiful black woman in a red evening gown in the audience starting to cry and desperately trying to save her eye makeup).
cleek, I swear I’m not going to torment you with any more, but: Blind Willie McTell??!!
Surely….
cleek, I swear I’m not going to torment you with any more, but: Blind Willie McTell??!!
Surely….
Blind Willie McTell
an outtake from an 80s record that showed up on a rarities compilation in the 90s? i, um, never made it that far into his catalog. 🙂
i have everything before and a couple after BoB. and i have sampled a bit more from the 70s. then i have a couple later ones: World Gone Wrong and Tempest. feels like i have the lay of the land so to speak, and i know where my happy valley is.
Blind Willie McTell
an outtake from an 80s record that showed up on a rarities compilation in the 90s? i, um, never made it that far into his catalog. 🙂
i have everything before and a couple after BoB. and i have sampled a bit more from the 70s. then i have a couple later ones: World Gone Wrong and Tempest. feels like i have the lay of the land so to speak, and i know where my happy valley is.
No no no – a track incomprehensibly left off an album (in which I also had no interest), and since regarded as certain proof that he is (or was at that time) the worst judge of his own material. It has a fair claim to be one of his truly great songs, and I have got out of bed and gone downstairs (because I cannot post links on my phone) in order to send you this, and beg you to listen to it. It’s 5.53 long, and builds and builds. You may say my promises are trash, but after this, whatever your opinion, I will torment you no more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uf5gi3E_rQ
No no no – a track incomprehensibly left off an album (in which I also had no interest), and since regarded as certain proof that he is (or was at that time) the worst judge of his own material. It has a fair claim to be one of his truly great songs, and I have got out of bed and gone downstairs (because I cannot post links on my phone) in order to send you this, and beg you to listen to it. It’s 5.53 long, and builds and builds. You may say my promises are trash, but after this, whatever your opinion, I will torment you no more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uf5gi3E_rQ
Wow, really interesting stuff. Two things
Simon has at various points borrowed from a really wide range of musical traditions, but he uses that stuff is kind of a found object.
I remember reading something that had some history about Simon’s Graceland and the process of going to South Africa. A lot of the points come thru the wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland_(album)
but from what I read, I was struck by Simon’s, depending on how you look at it, cluelessness or narrow focus, about the situation there. I need to find that article again, cause it may illuminate recent events.
So. Many. Dudes.
Glad that Patti Smith got a nod, at least. I blame the tie. 😉
I recently started shooting the basketball (it is rainy season here, so my new regime of exercise will not be derailed) with a colleague of mine who has fewer years but several inches on me. However, he lived in rural Canada and went to a small church based elementary and secondary school, which had a tiny student body. Consequently, he never came up against any real competition, being the tallest kid in the class and all. So nous’ observation has me wonder about other women who might have been discussed alongside Simon and Dylan, but didn’t have the chance to compete, which is not simply access but also the luxury of being challenged and pushed into doing something more.
Wow, really interesting stuff. Two things
Simon has at various points borrowed from a really wide range of musical traditions, but he uses that stuff is kind of a found object.
I remember reading something that had some history about Simon’s Graceland and the process of going to South Africa. A lot of the points come thru the wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland_(album)
but from what I read, I was struck by Simon’s, depending on how you look at it, cluelessness or narrow focus, about the situation there. I need to find that article again, cause it may illuminate recent events.
So. Many. Dudes.
Glad that Patti Smith got a nod, at least. I blame the tie. 😉
I recently started shooting the basketball (it is rainy season here, so my new regime of exercise will not be derailed) with a colleague of mine who has fewer years but several inches on me. However, he lived in rural Canada and went to a small church based elementary and secondary school, which had a tiny student body. Consequently, he never came up against any real competition, being the tallest kid in the class and all. So nous’ observation has me wonder about other women who might have been discussed alongside Simon and Dylan, but didn’t have the chance to compete, which is not simply access but also the luxury of being challenged and pushed into doing something more.
As I mentioned to nous, russell also brought up P J Harvey, so Patti Smith and Joni Mitchell were not the only two women mentioned.
On Paul Simon and Graceland, there was a very interesting documentary about it, which (among much other interesting musical info) had various people, including Harry Belafonte, discussing Simon’s breaking of the boycott, and Thabo Mbeki’s son explaining (painstakingly and gently) to Simon why it had been a big deal, but Simon really seemed blind to pretty much everything but artistic considerations (and, to some extent, how it had benefitted the relevant SA musicians). I found that fascinating.
As I mentioned to nous, russell also brought up P J Harvey, so Patti Smith and Joni Mitchell were not the only two women mentioned.
On Paul Simon and Graceland, there was a very interesting documentary about it, which (among much other interesting musical info) had various people, including Harry Belafonte, discussing Simon’s breaking of the boycott, and Thabo Mbeki’s son explaining (painstakingly and gently) to Simon why it had been a big deal, but Simon really seemed blind to pretty much everything but artistic considerations (and, to some extent, how it had benefitted the relevant SA musicians). I found that fascinating.
Not a Dylan fan in the way some of you are, and too busy to be really following along, but I went to listen to GftNC’s 6:17 link to Blind Willie McTell and YouTube popped up a version of Dylan doing it with Mark Knopfler that I thought was good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaoiyLYdTVo
Not a Dylan fan in the way some of you are, and too busy to be really following along, but I went to listen to GftNC’s 6:17 link to Blind Willie McTell and YouTube popped up a version of Dylan doing it with Mark Knopfler that I thought was good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaoiyLYdTVo
The interesting comparisons for me from that particular time is comparing Simon’s worldbeat jonez to Peter Gabriel’s. Both went in search of musical discovery, but Gabriel’s engagement went deeper than just expanding his musical toolbox. Gabriel curated venues for world artists and did a ton of work for human rights.
The interesting comparisons for me from that particular time is comparing Simon’s worldbeat jonez to Peter Gabriel’s. Both went in search of musical discovery, but Gabriel’s engagement went deeper than just expanding his musical toolbox. Gabriel curated venues for world artists and did a ton of work for human rights.
Janie, I’d never heard that version before. Thanks!
Janie, I’d never heard that version before. Thanks!
I love Mark Knofpler….in my scattered way. 😉
I love Mark Knofpler….in my scattered way. 😉
Maybe it was the documentary that GftNC mentioned (I think she mentioned it here earlier, so if I didn’t thank you then, thank you now!) that had that,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2112868/
Under African Skies and it is on Amazon Prime.
Maybe it was the documentary that GftNC mentioned (I think she mentioned it here earlier, so if I didn’t thank you then, thank you now!) that had that,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2112868/
Under African Skies and it is on Amazon Prime.
thanks for the tip, lj
thanks for the tip, lj
I think it’s fair to say that Simon was more or less oblivious to and / or uninterested in the politics in South Africa when he made Graceland. He thought the music was hip and wanted to play.
IMO it’s hard to say if Simon’s collaboration with SA musicians helped, hindered, or had any effect at all on the racial and political situation there. I don’t know if, net/net, it was a good, bad, or indifferent thing for the rights of black people there for him to collaborate with them.
It’s a thing people have strong feelings about, with good reason. It’s not clear to me that focusing on Simon’s work with SA musicians is the right battle to fight. To the degree that we can put the political stuff to the side and just listen, it’s a great recording. The mature work of a master. It will have a life of its own, beyond the context in which it was created.
Without in any way wanting to take away from the work of Peter Gabriel, I’d say that Simon most definitely has given an international platform to the folks he has collaborated with, and with the traditions they come from. That has not been a bad thing, for them or anyone.
I think it’s fair to say that Simon was more or less oblivious to and / or uninterested in the politics in South Africa when he made Graceland. He thought the music was hip and wanted to play.
IMO it’s hard to say if Simon’s collaboration with SA musicians helped, hindered, or had any effect at all on the racial and political situation there. I don’t know if, net/net, it was a good, bad, or indifferent thing for the rights of black people there for him to collaborate with them.
It’s a thing people have strong feelings about, with good reason. It’s not clear to me that focusing on Simon’s work with SA musicians is the right battle to fight. To the degree that we can put the political stuff to the side and just listen, it’s a great recording. The mature work of a master. It will have a life of its own, beyond the context in which it was created.
Without in any way wanting to take away from the work of Peter Gabriel, I’d say that Simon most definitely has given an international platform to the folks he has collaborated with, and with the traditions they come from. That has not been a bad thing, for them or anyone.
Peter Gabriel is also underrated.
on the subject of 70s/80s western musicians taking inspiration from Africa… most of the Talking Heads “Remain In Light” album is Fela Kuti (Nigerian hypno-funk) as interpreted Byrne and Eno.
Peter Gabriel is also underrated.
on the subject of 70s/80s western musicians taking inspiration from Africa… most of the Talking Heads “Remain In Light” album is Fela Kuti (Nigerian hypno-funk) as interpreted Byrne and Eno.
Meant to say earlier that I loved GftNC’s Dylan quote about the ghost that picked him to write the song.
To the limited extent that I’ve tried to write fiction, I find that a related thing that people say about that is true, too. Sometimes a character just comes along and says, “I’m in this story.” And you have to put them in.
It’s one of the more compelling (to me) bits of evidence that we are nowhere near as much in control of our choices as we think.
Meant to say earlier that I loved GftNC’s Dylan quote about the ghost that picked him to write the song.
To the limited extent that I’ve tried to write fiction, I find that a related thing that people say about that is true, too. Sometimes a character just comes along and says, “I’m in this story.” And you have to put them in.
It’s one of the more compelling (to me) bits of evidence that we are nowhere near as much in control of our choices as we think.
In this case, “we” meaning everyone.
In this case, “we” meaning everyone.
Simon going to South Africa caused a big dust-up at the time. But realistically, it was long past the time when the apartheid rulers of SA could use something like that to improve their international standing. It would have, at minimum, taken a general decision by musicians elsewhere to go — and likely even that wouldn’t have changed the course of events.
Not that I don’t think he deserved to negative reaction he got. He did. Just that I think we were well past the time when a lone symbolic gesture, even if intentional, would have made a difference.
Simon going to South Africa caused a big dust-up at the time. But realistically, it was long past the time when the apartheid rulers of SA could use something like that to improve their international standing. It would have, at minimum, taken a general decision by musicians elsewhere to go — and likely even that wouldn’t have changed the course of events.
Not that I don’t think he deserved to negative reaction he got. He did. Just that I think we were well past the time when a lone symbolic gesture, even if intentional, would have made a difference.
Did the musicians he worked with on that trip have any agency?
Did the musicians he worked with on that trip have any agency?
About Fela…
https://twitter.com/Femiakuti/status/1392478838454632454
“Apparently there’s another vote only members can take part in, and that’s what counts. So they kind of wasted our precious time, the positive side #Fela was trending and many who never heard of him got to hear his music and his story .”
About Fela…
https://twitter.com/Femiakuti/status/1392478838454632454
“Apparently there’s another vote only members can take part in, and that’s what counts. So they kind of wasted our precious time, the positive side #Fela was trending and many who never heard of him got to hear his music and his story .”
Did the musicians he worked with on that trip have any agency?
In general I think the musical community in SA welcomed Simon. The musicians involved in recordings in SA were paid NYC triple scale – at the time about $200/hour – and some were given writing credits, which probably made some of them wealthy.
Participation in Graceland gave many of them international visibility and very successful performing careers.
I’m not mentioning any of this to defend Simon, there are definitely legitimate objections to his engagement in South Africa. His intentions were not bad – he just thought the music was great – but his apparent lack of interest in the political dimensions and implications was arguably naive.
But in terms of how the musicians involved were treated, it was pretty much all upside.
Did the musicians he worked with on that trip have any agency?
In general I think the musical community in SA welcomed Simon. The musicians involved in recordings in SA were paid NYC triple scale – at the time about $200/hour – and some were given writing credits, which probably made some of them wealthy.
Participation in Graceland gave many of them international visibility and very successful performing careers.
I’m not mentioning any of this to defend Simon, there are definitely legitimate objections to his engagement in South Africa. His intentions were not bad – he just thought the music was great – but his apparent lack of interest in the political dimensions and implications was arguably naive.
But in terms of how the musicians involved were treated, it was pretty much all upside.
most of the Talking Heads “Remain In Light” album is Fela Kuti (Nigerian hypno-funk) as interpreted Byrne and Eno.
And African-American funk – notably James Brown – was a significant influence on Fela.
I’ll also take this opportunity to recommend Anjelique Kidjo’s re-recording of “Remain In Light”. It freaking rocks.
most of the Talking Heads “Remain In Light” album is Fela Kuti (Nigerian hypno-funk) as interpreted Byrne and Eno.
And African-American funk – notably James Brown – was a significant influence on Fela.
I’ll also take this opportunity to recommend Anjelique Kidjo’s re-recording of “Remain In Light”. It freaking rocks.
But in terms of how the musicians involved were treated, it was pretty much all upside.
I was more thinking of the question of who made what choices. Not to let Simon off the hook, but the SA musicians made a choice to do the project as well.
But in terms of how the musicians involved were treated, it was pretty much all upside.
I was more thinking of the question of who made what choices. Not to let Simon off the hook, but the SA musicians made a choice to do the project as well.
Kidjo’s Remain In Light:
Cross-Eyed And Painless
The Great Curve
Born Under Punches
you might have to move yourself.
Kidjo’s Remain In Light:
Cross-Eyed And Painless
The Great Curve
Born Under Punches
you might have to move yourself.
I was more thinking of the question of who made what choices. Not to let Simon off the hook, but the SA musicians made a choice to do the project as well.
Who made the choice to invite Simon to come? (For that matter, was he invited, or did he just hear about it and decide to go all on his own?) If it was the musicians themselves, that’s one thing. If it was, for example, the SA government, that’s a different one.
I was more thinking of the question of who made what choices. Not to let Simon off the hook, but the SA musicians made a choice to do the project as well.
Who made the choice to invite Simon to come? (For that matter, was he invited, or did he just hear about it and decide to go all on his own?) If it was the musicians themselves, that’s one thing. If it was, for example, the SA government, that’s a different one.
i’ve seen some of Kidjo’s takes. and yes, fantastic stuff.
even Phish can’t help but make those songs sizzle.
https://youtu.be/negQCMxYlz8?t=393
(i gently kid. i’m not a Phish fan)
i’ve seen some of Kidjo’s takes. and yes, fantastic stuff.
even Phish can’t help but make those songs sizzle.
https://youtu.be/negQCMxYlz8?t=393
(i gently kid. i’m not a Phish fan)
Without in any way wanting to take away from the work of Peter Gabriel, I’d say that Simon most definitely has given an international platform to the folks he has collaborated with, and with the traditions they come from. That has not been a bad thing, for them or anyone.
I don’t mean to imply that Simon treated the SA musicians he worked with unfairly or unethically. I brought up the comparison with Gabriel because Gabriel had curated and been the major tentpole in WOMAD and did all of the Amnesty International work. So it’s not just that Gabriel has given a boost to N’Dour and Katché and the others who have been his collaborators. He’s tried to build structures that give those and other world artists more access to Western eyes and ears and systems of distribution.
He’s also, I believe, been more sensitive and fair with his use of field recordings and traditional music than Eno and Byrne. Again, not impugning them for their groundbreaking work that I think did have a positive influence, I’m just saying that I think Gabriel has been much more thoughtful and forthright in his approach to the power imbalances and the legacy of colonialism. He’s been sensitive to his own privilege and has worked against it, often to his own financial detriment.
Without in any way wanting to take away from the work of Peter Gabriel, I’d say that Simon most definitely has given an international platform to the folks he has collaborated with, and with the traditions they come from. That has not been a bad thing, for them or anyone.
I don’t mean to imply that Simon treated the SA musicians he worked with unfairly or unethically. I brought up the comparison with Gabriel because Gabriel had curated and been the major tentpole in WOMAD and did all of the Amnesty International work. So it’s not just that Gabriel has given a boost to N’Dour and Katché and the others who have been his collaborators. He’s tried to build structures that give those and other world artists more access to Western eyes and ears and systems of distribution.
He’s also, I believe, been more sensitive and fair with his use of field recordings and traditional music than Eno and Byrne. Again, not impugning them for their groundbreaking work that I think did have a positive influence, I’m just saying that I think Gabriel has been much more thoughtful and forthright in his approach to the power imbalances and the legacy of colonialism. He’s been sensitive to his own privilege and has worked against it, often to his own financial detriment.
Who made the choice to invite Simon to come?
my understanding is that Simon heard a tape of some township mbaqanga music and liked it, so he reached out to the musicians.
I brought up the comparison with Gabriel
no worries nous.
Gabriel created and championed an institution that gives musicians from all around the world visibility and a platform for getting heard.
Simon… made a record. A really good record, but a record.
I have no problem saying that Gabriel’s efforts are of greater scope and are likely much more consequential.
Who made the choice to invite Simon to come?
my understanding is that Simon heard a tape of some township mbaqanga music and liked it, so he reached out to the musicians.
I brought up the comparison with Gabriel
no worries nous.
Gabriel created and championed an institution that gives musicians from all around the world visibility and a platform for getting heard.
Simon… made a record. A really good record, but a record.
I have no problem saying that Gabriel’s efforts are of greater scope and are likely much more consequential.
One more and I’ll shut up for a while.
For folks who enjoy the music on Graceland and want to hear more stuff like it, I can recommend Singing In An Open Space, an anthology of all kinds of South African music from the 60’s through the 80’s. Basically, the sounds that inspired Simon. It’s available from all the usual places.
It’s good listening and a lot of fun.
One more and I’ll shut up for a while.
For folks who enjoy the music on Graceland and want to hear more stuff like it, I can recommend Singing In An Open Space, an anthology of all kinds of South African music from the 60’s through the 80’s. Basically, the sounds that inspired Simon. It’s available from all the usual places.
It’s good listening and a lot of fun.
Simon honors whatever music he covers and/or appropriates … or even “steals”. It’s good up and down and all around for everyone because of his unique musical sensibilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXHsARkfDbw
Neither Bach nor the Swan Silvertones are diminished here, rather they are transmuted into fresh beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFt0cP-klQI
Go to the six minute mark where Simon talks about writing the song.
Here are the Silvertones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKv4l-DabTw
Bach again here. In ‘Blackbird’, which Paul explains somewhere I can’t find at the moment, that he and George used to play this Bach piece on guitars, more or less, to impress the birds at parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2HzvlNVav4
Ah, but here’s Paul telling the story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNshwcwUQwM
Don’t tell anyone, because it’s a “secret”, ha ha, but George Harrison stole plenty from Chet Atkins, among others, on those early Beatles song solos.
Atkins obviously, in rebuttal, hated the Beatles and never played any of their stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9bajxt02h8
If not for Graceland with Simon as the conduit, would we even be talking about South African music?
We SHOULD have been all along, of course, justifiably all along, but Simon tapped us on the shoulder, as David Byrne does, and said: “Hey, have you heard these sounds? Pretty cool.”
I’m for reparations all along the line, but we’re told we can’t do that:
Fred and Ginger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNKRm6H-qOU
Simon honors whatever music he covers and/or appropriates … or even “steals”. It’s good up and down and all around for everyone because of his unique musical sensibilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXHsARkfDbw
Neither Bach nor the Swan Silvertones are diminished here, rather they are transmuted into fresh beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFt0cP-klQI
Go to the six minute mark where Simon talks about writing the song.
Here are the Silvertones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKv4l-DabTw
Bach again here. In ‘Blackbird’, which Paul explains somewhere I can’t find at the moment, that he and George used to play this Bach piece on guitars, more or less, to impress the birds at parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2HzvlNVav4
Ah, but here’s Paul telling the story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNshwcwUQwM
Don’t tell anyone, because it’s a “secret”, ha ha, but George Harrison stole plenty from Chet Atkins, among others, on those early Beatles song solos.
Atkins obviously, in rebuttal, hated the Beatles and never played any of their stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9bajxt02h8
If not for Graceland with Simon as the conduit, would we even be talking about South African music?
We SHOULD have been all along, of course, justifiably all along, but Simon tapped us on the shoulder, as David Byrne does, and said: “Hey, have you heard these sounds? Pretty cool.”
I’m for reparations all along the line, but we’re told we can’t do that:
Fred and Ginger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNKRm6H-qOU
If not for Graceland with Simon as the conduit, would we even be talking about South African music?
We SHOULD have been all along, of course, justifiably all along, but Simon tapped us on the shoulder, as David Byrne does, and said: “Hey, have you heard these sounds? Pretty cool.”
Well, there was also Savuka. Johnny Clegg and company were getting a lot of play on college radio (back when such a thing still mattered). And in jazz you had the influence of Hugh Masakela and you had Miles Davis in his Amandala era phase.
My disappointment with Simon lies not in his decision to make the album, but just in his apparent lack of reflection to consider how his decision to chase the art and ignore the politics of that was something that he could do only because he had the privilege to ignore the politics. I don’t think he was bad, or harmful, it’s just a striking lack of introspection from someone who is known for his introspective lyrics. I find that blind spot disappointing, especially when he has been invited to think more deeply about it several times by people who want to have that bigger discussion.
If not for Graceland with Simon as the conduit, would we even be talking about South African music?
We SHOULD have been all along, of course, justifiably all along, but Simon tapped us on the shoulder, as David Byrne does, and said: “Hey, have you heard these sounds? Pretty cool.”
Well, there was also Savuka. Johnny Clegg and company were getting a lot of play on college radio (back when such a thing still mattered). And in jazz you had the influence of Hugh Masakela and you had Miles Davis in his Amandala era phase.
My disappointment with Simon lies not in his decision to make the album, but just in his apparent lack of reflection to consider how his decision to chase the art and ignore the politics of that was something that he could do only because he had the privilege to ignore the politics. I don’t think he was bad, or harmful, it’s just a striking lack of introspection from someone who is known for his introspective lyrics. I find that blind spot disappointing, especially when he has been invited to think more deeply about it several times by people who want to have that bigger discussion.
his apparent lack of reflection to consider how his decision to chase the art and ignore the politics of that was something that he could do only because he had the privilege to ignore the politics
Simon said:
his apparent lack of reflection to consider how his decision to chase the art and ignore the politics of that was something that he could do only because he had the privilege to ignore the politics
Simon said:
Yes, and then there is the angle with Graceland that Elvis wasn’t shown below the waist on TV back in the day because conservatives thought there was something black going on down there.
Perhaps one day, when we stop (never) funding and boycott Netanyahu’s utterly fascist stealing of Palestinian homes, Paul Simon will come out of retirement and put together a joint band of Jewish Israel liberals on percussion and Palestinian guitar players and do a pop up gig in front of the Knesset with an innocent face for the cause of music.
Paul Simon had his eye on the ball. Ronald Reagan, the racist, couldn’t dance to it with his eye on the Confederacy to build the despicable vote-stealing piece of crap called the Republican Party of this parlous, pre-violent moment.
Yes, and then there is the angle with Graceland that Elvis wasn’t shown below the waist on TV back in the day because conservatives thought there was something black going on down there.
Perhaps one day, when we stop (never) funding and boycott Netanyahu’s utterly fascist stealing of Palestinian homes, Paul Simon will come out of retirement and put together a joint band of Jewish Israel liberals on percussion and Palestinian guitar players and do a pop up gig in front of the Knesset with an innocent face for the cause of music.
Paul Simon had his eye on the ball. Ronald Reagan, the racist, couldn’t dance to it with his eye on the Confederacy to build the despicable vote-stealing piece of crap called the Republican Party of this parlous, pre-violent moment.
Perhaps one day, when we stop (never) funding and boycott Netanyahu’s utterly fascist stealing of Palestinian homes, Paul Simon will come out of retirement and put together a joint band of Jewish Israel liberals on percussion and Palestinian guitar players and do a pop up gig in front of the Knesset with an innocent face for the cause of music.
Orphaned Land has been doing the musical equivalent for a while (minus Simon plus metal). Saw them open for Opeth. Good show and a good band. Don’t know many others who are doing their mix of metal and Arabic folk.
https://youtu.be/Bds3FALcR7M
Perhaps one day, when we stop (never) funding and boycott Netanyahu’s utterly fascist stealing of Palestinian homes, Paul Simon will come out of retirement and put together a joint band of Jewish Israel liberals on percussion and Palestinian guitar players and do a pop up gig in front of the Knesset with an innocent face for the cause of music.
Orphaned Land has been doing the musical equivalent for a while (minus Simon plus metal). Saw them open for Opeth. Good show and a good band. Don’t know many others who are doing their mix of metal and Arabic folk.
https://youtu.be/Bds3FALcR7M
Following my habit of taking observations and running with them to places unforeseen, going off of nous’ comment (and he shouldn’t be responsible for my observation I should add) is one of the things I’ve learned getting older is that everyone, your heroes especially, are going to do something you aren’t happy with. Nous (and I) are disappointed with Paul Simon. Unaware? Self-centered? Naive? Though the music video for you can call me Al seems to be a jab at people who complained about what he did, in that Chevy Chase ends up lip synching the vocals and Simon pretends to play various instruments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA
I always imagine that Bruce Springsteen not giving Chris Christie the time of day brings Cristie up short, but that’s just my imagination and he probably can’t figure out why the Boss thinks he’s a jerk.
Following my habit of taking observations and running with them to places unforeseen, going off of nous’ comment (and he shouldn’t be responsible for my observation I should add) is one of the things I’ve learned getting older is that everyone, your heroes especially, are going to do something you aren’t happy with. Nous (and I) are disappointed with Paul Simon. Unaware? Self-centered? Naive? Though the music video for you can call me Al seems to be a jab at people who complained about what he did, in that Chevy Chase ends up lip synching the vocals and Simon pretends to play various instruments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA
I always imagine that Bruce Springsteen not giving Chris Christie the time of day brings Cristie up short, but that’s just my imagination and he probably can’t figure out why the Boss thinks he’s a jerk.
I have no idea why artists shouldn’t work with artists from countries that have a bad government and / or human rights record – unless what they are doing is explicitly lending support to such regimes.
There seems to be a prevailing assumption that people living in these countries are supposed to put their lives on hold until their government falls or there is a major political sea change. But that can take decades, lifetimes or never happen at all.
Meanwhile the privileged can emigrate, while the majority is stuck suffering under various forms of sanctions. That’s not only cruel and unjust, but also hypocritical since “our” human rights record is far from stellar.
I have no idea why artists shouldn’t work with artists from countries that have a bad government and / or human rights record – unless what they are doing is explicitly lending support to such regimes.
There seems to be a prevailing assumption that people living in these countries are supposed to put their lives on hold until their government falls or there is a major political sea change. But that can take decades, lifetimes or never happen at all.
Meanwhile the privileged can emigrate, while the majority is stuck suffering under various forms of sanctions. That’s not only cruel and unjust, but also hypocritical since “our” human rights record is far from stellar.
There seems to be a prevailing assumption that people living in these countries are supposed to put their lives on hold until their government falls or there is a major political sea change. But that can take decades, lifetimes or never happen at all.
Yes — I couldn’t figure out quite how to articulate this as clearly. It’s obviously not the same thing, or on the same scale, but I’m a gay person living in a state against which boycotts were once threatened over a campaign to explicitly write “gay people don’t have X rights” into the law. I sat here wondering what isolating us even further was likely to accomplish.
There seems to be a prevailing assumption that people living in these countries are supposed to put their lives on hold until their government falls or there is a major political sea change. But that can take decades, lifetimes or never happen at all.
Yes — I couldn’t figure out quite how to articulate this as clearly. It’s obviously not the same thing, or on the same scale, but I’m a gay person living in a state against which boycotts were once threatened over a campaign to explicitly write “gay people don’t have X rights” into the law. I sat here wondering what isolating us even further was likely to accomplish.
I have no idea why artists shouldn’t work with artists from countries that have a bad government and / or human rights record – unless what they are doing is explicitly lending support to such regimes.
Well, apartheid was an outlier case in many ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_United_Against_Apartheid
Also, the section about the controversy surrounding Graceland discusses other points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland_(album)
Not saying that it’s wrong to question these things, but the situation in South Africa seemed to be more complicated than simply ‘artists working with other artists’
I have no idea why artists shouldn’t work with artists from countries that have a bad government and / or human rights record – unless what they are doing is explicitly lending support to such regimes.
Well, apartheid was an outlier case in many ways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_United_Against_Apartheid
Also, the section about the controversy surrounding Graceland discusses other points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland_(album)
Not saying that it’s wrong to question these things, but the situation in South Africa seemed to be more complicated than simply ‘artists working with other artists’
I sat here wondering what isolating us even further was likely to accomplish.
But that’s true of every boycott. Georgia has serious subsidies to encourage movie companies to film there. Those companies threatened to take their business elsewhere, after Georgia started looking at a flood of voter suppression laws.
Such a boycott would have directly hurt mostly a bunch of workers who were probably Democratic voters. (And, I suspect, likely the ones who were looking at having their votes suppressed by those laws, too.) But threatening a boycott was the way to get Georgia politicians attention, and make them familiar with the concept of unintended consequences.
Similarly with companies in a bunch of states threatening to take their new facilities elsewhere. A lot of “keep government out of private business” politicians turn out to be really big on, essentially, bribing businesses to come to their state. Finding out those businesses care about more than just their raw bottom line, or maybe just think good human rights are good for business, can be a wake-up call.
Essentially, a boycott is the 2×4 up side the head. Even if, in the short term, it also hurts the “wrong” people.
I sat here wondering what isolating us even further was likely to accomplish.
But that’s true of every boycott. Georgia has serious subsidies to encourage movie companies to film there. Those companies threatened to take their business elsewhere, after Georgia started looking at a flood of voter suppression laws.
Such a boycott would have directly hurt mostly a bunch of workers who were probably Democratic voters. (And, I suspect, likely the ones who were looking at having their votes suppressed by those laws, too.) But threatening a boycott was the way to get Georgia politicians attention, and make them familiar with the concept of unintended consequences.
Similarly with companies in a bunch of states threatening to take their new facilities elsewhere. A lot of “keep government out of private business” politicians turn out to be really big on, essentially, bribing businesses to come to their state. Finding out those businesses care about more than just their raw bottom line, or maybe just think good human rights are good for business, can be a wake-up call.
Essentially, a boycott is the 2×4 up side the head. Even if, in the short term, it also hurts the “wrong” people.
I should perhaps note that, in most cases of proposed boycotts, I think the harms outweigh the hoped-for benefits**. But in some few cases, especially when they are widespread enough (as was the case with South Africa), they can be the best way to get the job done.
** And, quite often, the probable actual benefits are substantially less than the hoped-for ones.
I should perhaps note that, in most cases of proposed boycotts, I think the harms outweigh the hoped-for benefits**. But in some few cases, especially when they are widespread enough (as was the case with South Africa), they can be the best way to get the job done.
** And, quite often, the probable actual benefits are substantially less than the hoped-for ones.
Paul Simon did more for expanding the reach of South African musicians than any boycott ever could.
if the goal is to make the world a better place, Simon’s action come out on top.
Paul Simon did more for expanding the reach of South African musicians than any boycott ever could.
if the goal is to make the world a better place, Simon’s action come out on top.
Was out of radio contact all day yesterday, and today won’t be much better, so (with no research, FWIW) this is my take on Graceland, the SA boycott etc.
1. I believe it is widely accepted that the BDS movement was the last straw for apartheid, and almost certainly was the factor which finally brought it down after all the years of protests.
2. It was probably the D part of BDS which did the most good, but the ANC (which was not at that time the corrupt, discredited organisation it is today) was widely accepted by opponents of apartheid as the government in exile, and they said the boycott (which had been observed for years and decades by protesters in the case of SA goods) was an important tool in the fight, so on the whole opponents of apartheid listened and observed the boycott (although some internal critics made the point that poor blacks were the most likely to suffer), and if my memory is accurate, most black opinion in SA supported the boycott.
3. The boycott, as a whole, probably did contribute to the demoralisation of SA whites, in terms of making them realise how (morally) isolated they were from the rest of the world. It is likely that the sports boycott (in sports-mad SA) had the greatest effect in this regard, but the ANC’s position was that the boycott had to be wide, and actually this made sense in a tactical (and psychological) sense.
4. Paul Simon’s statement, as quoted by cleek @ 05.52 ignores the actual political context of the controversy, and is a pretty self-serving justification (although fairly superficially convincing on the face of it). If you didn’t know from his music and his lyrics that he must be a smart guy, his whole reaction (as fleshed out in the documentary, but the statement illustrates it as well) makes him look ignorant and/or wilfully blind. Simon’s narrowly focussed emphasis on the music and nothing but the music was a notable exception. Most morally respectable artists (and even ones who weren’t, but were self-interested) in all fields observed the boycott, and the ones who didn’t were named and shamed. That’s how boycotts work.
5. Paul Simon did more for expanding the reach of South African musicians than any boycott ever could. This is very true, but was not the point of the boycott, which was to bring down apartheid and enfranchise 80% of the SA population.
6. I think Graceland is a masterpiece, I’m glad it exists.
Was out of radio contact all day yesterday, and today won’t be much better, so (with no research, FWIW) this is my take on Graceland, the SA boycott etc.
1. I believe it is widely accepted that the BDS movement was the last straw for apartheid, and almost certainly was the factor which finally brought it down after all the years of protests.
2. It was probably the D part of BDS which did the most good, but the ANC (which was not at that time the corrupt, discredited organisation it is today) was widely accepted by opponents of apartheid as the government in exile, and they said the boycott (which had been observed for years and decades by protesters in the case of SA goods) was an important tool in the fight, so on the whole opponents of apartheid listened and observed the boycott (although some internal critics made the point that poor blacks were the most likely to suffer), and if my memory is accurate, most black opinion in SA supported the boycott.
3. The boycott, as a whole, probably did contribute to the demoralisation of SA whites, in terms of making them realise how (morally) isolated they were from the rest of the world. It is likely that the sports boycott (in sports-mad SA) had the greatest effect in this regard, but the ANC’s position was that the boycott had to be wide, and actually this made sense in a tactical (and psychological) sense.
4. Paul Simon’s statement, as quoted by cleek @ 05.52 ignores the actual political context of the controversy, and is a pretty self-serving justification (although fairly superficially convincing on the face of it). If you didn’t know from his music and his lyrics that he must be a smart guy, his whole reaction (as fleshed out in the documentary, but the statement illustrates it as well) makes him look ignorant and/or wilfully blind. Simon’s narrowly focussed emphasis on the music and nothing but the music was a notable exception. Most morally respectable artists (and even ones who weren’t, but were self-interested) in all fields observed the boycott, and the ones who didn’t were named and shamed. That’s how boycotts work.
5. Paul Simon did more for expanding the reach of South African musicians than any boycott ever could. This is very true, but was not the point of the boycott, which was to bring down apartheid and enfranchise 80% of the SA population.
6. I think Graceland is a masterpiece, I’m glad it exists.
lest anyone forget, the GOP is a death cult:
lest anyone forget, the GOP is a death cult:
This is very true, but was not the point of the boycott, which was to bring down apartheid and enfranchise 80% of the SA population.
i’m sure i’m not the only person in America whose eyes were opened by Graceland, and not by the boycott. an average teenage kid American kid in the mid-80s had nothing at all going on that would be affected by a boycott of SA: literally nothing. that “Sun City” song was out in 85, but it didn’t really catch on with my cohort. it was shouty and preachy and we’d already just had a most of a year full of political musicians with Band Aid, then Live Aid.
Gabriel’s 1980 “Biko” was great, but even now it’s still fairly obscure. (“So” didn’t come out until 86, a few months before Graceland, so Gabriel wasn’t yet a superstar)
Graceland though was an eye opener. and it opened eyes by being a great album, one which didn’t try to shout its way into the politics like the strident “Sun City”, but which simply let these musicians do their thing and invited people to learn about the them and their situation.
there’s more than one way to do these things.
This is very true, but was not the point of the boycott, which was to bring down apartheid and enfranchise 80% of the SA population.
i’m sure i’m not the only person in America whose eyes were opened by Graceland, and not by the boycott. an average teenage kid American kid in the mid-80s had nothing at all going on that would be affected by a boycott of SA: literally nothing. that “Sun City” song was out in 85, but it didn’t really catch on with my cohort. it was shouty and preachy and we’d already just had a most of a year full of political musicians with Band Aid, then Live Aid.
Gabriel’s 1980 “Biko” was great, but even now it’s still fairly obscure. (“So” didn’t come out until 86, a few months before Graceland, so Gabriel wasn’t yet a superstar)
Graceland though was an eye opener. and it opened eyes by being a great album, one which didn’t try to shout its way into the politics like the strident “Sun City”, but which simply let these musicians do their thing and invited people to learn about the them and their situation.
there’s more than one way to do these things.
Alternatively, it felt like (to me) lLittle Steven and the TLAs were talking about politics. And Simon said “and these are some of the people who are being persecuted “ his record broadened the discussion beyond nightly-news foreign political coverage.
The approaches complimented each other. They weren’t in opposition.
Alternatively, it felt like (to me) lLittle Steven and the TLAs were talking about politics. And Simon said “and these are some of the people who are being persecuted “ his record broadened the discussion beyond nightly-news foreign political coverage.
The approaches complimented each other. They weren’t in opposition.
Italics?
Italics?
Sun City’s biggest problem was that it really didn’t have much going for it musically, yet it had to be 348 minutes long to fit in all of the cameos. It was an impressive logistical feat with scattershot musical results.
Graceland undoubtedly raised some young consciousness. I saw a lot of that on my campus at the time. I can’t say how much practical effect that consciousness raising had on South Africa, but it probably did convince a lot of people to pay more attention to international politics and human rights. Activism was the zeitgeist of the moment. Some of it may even have outlived that moment in time.
I do miss that optimism.
Sun City’s biggest problem was that it really didn’t have much going for it musically, yet it had to be 348 minutes long to fit in all of the cameos. It was an impressive logistical feat with scattershot musical results.
Graceland undoubtedly raised some young consciousness. I saw a lot of that on my campus at the time. I can’t say how much practical effect that consciousness raising had on South Africa, but it probably did convince a lot of people to pay more attention to international politics and human rights. Activism was the zeitgeist of the moment. Some of it may even have outlived that moment in time.
I do miss that optimism.
lest anyone forget, the GOP is a death cult:
Well, the rabid opposition to any kind of gun control was also a bit of a clue.
lest anyone forget, the GOP is a death cult:
Well, the rabid opposition to any kind of gun control was also a bit of a clue.
Taking a hard turn on the conversation, this.
Senator Murkowski made a rather impassioned speech in favor of the special Jan 6 Commission. Unfortunately, only 5 other Republicans joined her. So McConnell’s filibuster held.
But it occurs to me to wonder. If Senator Manchin can’t bring himself to limit the filibuster enough to pass this, perhaps Murkowski (and/or Romney) could provide the votes to pass the rule change (which only requires a majority) necessary.
Taking a hard turn on the conversation, this.
Senator Murkowski made a rather impassioned speech in favor of the special Jan 6 Commission. Unfortunately, only 5 other Republicans joined her. So McConnell’s filibuster held.
But it occurs to me to wonder. If Senator Manchin can’t bring himself to limit the filibuster enough to pass this, perhaps Murkowski (and/or Romney) could provide the votes to pass the rule change (which only requires a majority) necessary.
On the “death cult” front, the Washington Post finds that infection rates for covid-19 remain as high as ever among the unvaccinated population. If demographic trends weren’t enough, they’re killing off their strongest supporters.
On the “death cult” front, the Washington Post finds that infection rates for covid-19 remain as high as ever among the unvaccinated population. If demographic trends weren’t enough, they’re killing off their strongest supporters.
Senator Murkowski made a rather impassioned speech in favor of the special Jan 6 Commission
Alternatively, one could view it as more dog and pony as those counting the votes knew they would prevail, so Lisa got cut a little slack.
The idea that any GOP Senator would cross the line on this ONE vote is, um, a fantasy. To be truly effective it would have to be an all or nothing move to caucus with the opposition (a la Jeffords). However, as the ideological chasm as between the parties grows, this seems more and more a relic of a long gone distant past.
Senator Murkowski made a rather impassioned speech in favor of the special Jan 6 Commission
Alternatively, one could view it as more dog and pony as those counting the votes knew they would prevail, so Lisa got cut a little slack.
The idea that any GOP Senator would cross the line on this ONE vote is, um, a fantasy. To be truly effective it would have to be an all or nothing move to caucus with the opposition (a la Jeffords). However, as the ideological chasm as between the parties grows, this seems more and more a relic of a long gone distant past.
I have just discovered that the Hay Literary Festival (which is entirely online this year) is available to overseas people – which I didn’t know before. All events are free, if you miss any they are available afterwards, and amazing authors from all over the world (fiction and non) like Margaret Atwood or Daniel Kahneman are interviewed and talk about their books, lives etc. This is the whole programme, on which you can register for any of the events you are interested in. Although it goes on until June 6th, it seemed to me that letting anybody interested know about this before a three day weekend made sense.
https://www.hayfestival.com/m-163-hay-festival-2021.aspx?skinid=1¤cysetting=GBP&localesetting=en-GB&resetfilters=true
(That link looks weirdly UK-centric, but there were plenty of people online from the US, Canada etc, so I know it’s possible.) This may help:
https://www.hayfestival.com/how-to-register-for-digital-events
I have just discovered that the Hay Literary Festival (which is entirely online this year) is available to overseas people – which I didn’t know before. All events are free, if you miss any they are available afterwards, and amazing authors from all over the world (fiction and non) like Margaret Atwood or Daniel Kahneman are interviewed and talk about their books, lives etc. This is the whole programme, on which you can register for any of the events you are interested in. Although it goes on until June 6th, it seemed to me that letting anybody interested know about this before a three day weekend made sense.
https://www.hayfestival.com/m-163-hay-festival-2021.aspx?skinid=1¤cysetting=GBP&localesetting=en-GB&resetfilters=true
(That link looks weirdly UK-centric, but there were plenty of people online from the US, Canada etc, so I know it’s possible.) This may help:
https://www.hayfestival.com/how-to-register-for-digital-events
e.g. For those interested in this sort of thing (i.e. not me), Noam Chomsky talking to Gary Younge on June 3rd at 7pm on Consequences of Capitalism
e.g. For those interested in this sort of thing (i.e. not me), Noam Chomsky talking to Gary Younge on June 3rd at 7pm on Consequences of Capitalism
The idea that any GOP Senator would cross the line on this ONE vote is, um, a fantasy.
You may have missed the fact that several of them did so. Not exactly a fantasy.
The idea that any GOP Senator would cross the line on this ONE vote is, um, a fantasy.
You may have missed the fact that several of them did so. Not exactly a fantasy.
You may have missed the fact that several of them did so. Not exactly a fantasy.
I think what bobbyp was saying is that the dissenters were given permission to dissent because McConnell knew that the Dems didn’t have enough to override a filibuster. So the dissenters can appeal to the moderates in their districts and give the impression of diversity of opinion for the party without endangering the party’s goal of sweeping this under the rug by midterms.
It’s a pressure release valve, not a sign of actual pressure that might threaten the party.
You may have missed the fact that several of them did so. Not exactly a fantasy.
I think what bobbyp was saying is that the dissenters were given permission to dissent because McConnell knew that the Dems didn’t have enough to override a filibuster. So the dissenters can appeal to the moderates in their districts and give the impression of diversity of opinion for the party without endangering the party’s goal of sweeping this under the rug by midterms.
It’s a pressure release valve, not a sign of actual pressure that might threaten the party.
wj,
If the outcome could have been determined by a simple majority vote, Murkowski and the others most likely would not have voted the way they did, “heavy hearts” and “deep misgivings” notwithstanding.
wj,
If the outcome could have been determined by a simple majority vote, Murkowski and the others most likely would not have voted the way they did, “heavy hearts” and “deep misgivings” notwithstanding.
I could be mistaken but I have a bit more trust in Murkowski than in Collins. But imo Romney’s vote has more to do with his dislike of Trump personally.
I could be mistaken but I have a bit more trust in Murkowski than in Collins. But imo Romney’s vote has more to do with his dislike of Trump personally.
Murkowski is in the happy position of having been already primaried (by a tea party type) a few years back. So she ran in the general election as an independent. And won. Makes her a lot less fearful of the Trump cultists than others.
Murkowski is in the happy position of having been already primaried (by a tea party type) a few years back. So she ran in the general election as an independent. And won. Makes her a lot less fearful of the Trump cultists than others.
Yes, that’s the main reason. Iirc she won after being kept off the ballots (by ruling party shenanigans) as a write-in candidate even against sneaky attempts* to have voters spell her name wrong (with a ‘y’ at the end) and with newly introduced rules that would invalidate any ballots with any spelling error.
That does not make her a liberal (cf. Liz Cheney) but potentially less prone to blindly follow the lead of the guys who stabbed her in the back.
*as in deliberately misspelling her name in campaign materials aimed at her
Yes, that’s the main reason. Iirc she won after being kept off the ballots (by ruling party shenanigans) as a write-in candidate even against sneaky attempts* to have voters spell her name wrong (with a ‘y’ at the end) and with newly introduced rules that would invalidate any ballots with any spelling error.
That does not make her a liberal (cf. Liz Cheney) but potentially less prone to blindly follow the lead of the guys who stabbed her in the back.
*as in deliberately misspelling her name in campaign materials aimed at her
This is a public service announcement for the benefit of anybody who doesn’t discount everything Anne Applebaum says because they disagree with her past or present foreign policy opinions, and/or for any Atlantic readers.
A couple of hours ago I watched her give the Christopher Hitchens memorial lecture at the Hay Festival. The title was Twilight of Democracy – Disinformation, Polarization and the Digital Future. Despite a couple of freezing glitches (which I hope would be ironed out in the catch-up version on the Hay site), I thought this a very interesting talk. I imagine some of it is covered by her book, which is called Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, but actually it was the stuff about the digital future that I really wanted to point anybody interested towards, because it follows on from so much of what we talk about here on post-truth bubbles etc.
Obviously, to ObWi regulars who are majorly informed about the online world, a lot of the stuff about how it was envisaged when it started is old news. But when she gets on to the subject of the current oligopolies (as she calls them), and how their ill-effects might begin to be mitigated, I thought it got really interesting and actually constructive. She gives some really good examples of experiments in Taiwan and elsewhere, and I thought it worth highlighting for anybody interested, who doesn’t already know everything she talks about.
This is a public service announcement for the benefit of anybody who doesn’t discount everything Anne Applebaum says because they disagree with her past or present foreign policy opinions, and/or for any Atlantic readers.
A couple of hours ago I watched her give the Christopher Hitchens memorial lecture at the Hay Festival. The title was Twilight of Democracy – Disinformation, Polarization and the Digital Future. Despite a couple of freezing glitches (which I hope would be ironed out in the catch-up version on the Hay site), I thought this a very interesting talk. I imagine some of it is covered by her book, which is called Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, but actually it was the stuff about the digital future that I really wanted to point anybody interested towards, because it follows on from so much of what we talk about here on post-truth bubbles etc.
Obviously, to ObWi regulars who are majorly informed about the online world, a lot of the stuff about how it was envisaged when it started is old news. But when she gets on to the subject of the current oligopolies (as she calls them), and how their ill-effects might begin to be mitigated, I thought it got really interesting and actually constructive. She gives some really good examples of experiments in Taiwan and elsewhere, and I thought it worth highlighting for anybody interested, who doesn’t already know everything she talks about.