Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO(can we say Czar?) of Facebook, deems
to make an appearance before the House Commerce Committee.
His appearance and style remind me very much of another similar
grilling conducted a few years back, by the Chicken Growers of
America.
"Mister Fox", said the timid chairperson, "Mister Fox, do you think
that just maybe we ought to discuss some sort of surveillance camera,
or something, on the Hen House Door?"
"Gentlemen, gentlemen," soothed Mister Fox. "While certainly,
considering the numbers of fat, juicy Hens now unaccounted for, that
option might be good to bring up at a future council meeting. But we
should spend our time right now looking for those poor lost Hens".
And so, just as Mark Zuckerberg suggested that congress do with their
proposals to regulate Facebook, the suggestion by the Chicken Growers
Association was sent forward, to a future meeting, unscheduled.
So, we brave Americans are willing to stop being Citizens, are we?
Instead we'll just be the Consumers of all the wonderful gifts and
services handed down to us.
Remember when the American People decided what regulations and laws
were needed to keep corporations in line? Is Mark Zuckerberg really
being asked to tell us, the Former American Citizens, what we should
do in the way of regulating his corporation?
And some of us do not believe that we have undergone a Coup. My oh my!
Carl Jarvis
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
interesting article. "...We need to radically change the way we relate to Nature."
For your enjoyment, and discussion.
Carl Jarvis
***
The Masaai, a pastoral people, were removed from their traditional
lands in the Serengeti by British colonialists, largely in order to
reserve the land
for big game hunting and tourism. The Masaai are resisting similar
removal practices by the Kenyan and Tanzanian governments.
By CHRIS TEI
We don't need to be removed from nature. We need to radically change
the way we relate to it.
Capitalism's endless pursuit of profits for the few continues to
destroy the ecosystems upon which human beings base our very
existence. And while one
political wing of the capitalist class ceaselessly denies climate
change, those capitalist politicians who do acknowledge the science
make attempts to
shift blame for it away from themselves. Misanthropic explanations for
the state of the world, holding all humans to account for our original
sin of being
human, help reduce the risk that the exploiters will have to answer
for the unique crisis that they have created.
Foremost among these misanthropic explanations of climate change is
populationism, which holds that the growing population is responsible.
In the words
of Ian Angus and Simon Butler, who have worked diligently on refuting
this idea, "populationist policies focus on symptoms, not causes.
Worse, they shift
the blame for climate change, and the burden for stopping it, onto the
poorest and most vulnerable people in the world."[1]
This perspective is, rather unfortunately, popular on both the left
and right. And if we assume that our nature, as a species, is
inherently harmful, we
will inevitably push for policies that are harmful to humans.
Empty half the Earth?
Kim Stanley Robinson recently contributed a piece to the Guardian with
the provocative title and call to action, "Empty half the Earth of its
humans. It's
the only way to save the planet."[2]
Robinson is a science fiction novelist, and this writer is a huge fan
of his work. His books combine hard science, involving an immense
amount of personal
research, with speculation about the social and political
ramifications of developments such as climate change and planetary
colonization. He tells stories
of future histories and addresses how the oppressive institutions of
our present day might evolve, be challenged, or even be eliminated.
A lot of popular science fiction imagines how the world will only get
worse for humanity, but Robinson very consciously does something
different: "Anyone
can do a dystopia these days just by making a collage of newspaper
headlines, but utopias are hard, and important, because we need to
imagine what it might
be like if we did things well enough to say to our kids, we did our
best, this is about as good as it was when it was handed to us, take
care of it and
do better. Some kind of narrative vision of what we're trying for as a
civilization."[3]
Robinson therefore assigns a great deal of importance to the work of
imagining a more progressive future. "I do consider my books to be a
political work.
It seems to me that the more stories out there that encourage these
kinds of actions, then the better off people would be."[4] From his
books and his personal
activism, it's clear that Robinson has an affinity for liberation
movements, the political left, and of course climate justice.
His call to action is to "leave about half the Earth's surface mostly
free of humans, so wild plants and animals can live there unimpeded as
they did for
so long before humans arrived." How this is to be accomplished is left
somewhat to the imagination, although he appears to favor "repricing"
and perhaps
new cultural and legal frameworks that would govern threatened areas:
"Many villages now have populations of under a thousand, and continue
to shrink as
most of the young people leave. If these places were redefined (and
repriced) as becoming usefully empty, there would be caretaker work
for some, gamekeeper
work for others, and the rest could go to the cities and get into the
main swing of things."
Anyone who finds this notion to be obvious, that humans must be
removed from the land to save the environment, and specifically the
world's biodiversity,
would be wise to look at indigenous political movements around the
Earth. In 2016, during the Native American-led protests against the
Dakota Access Pipeline
(DAPL), the Standing Rock encampment was visited by indigenous
activists from Latin America who came to express their solidarity. A
Sarayaku activist named
Nina Gualinga, who has been a leader in her people's fight to keep the
Ecuadoran government from allowing oil drilling on their ancestral
lands, illustrated
in remarkable terms the outsized role that native peoples have played
in preserving the global environment: "The statistics say that we are
4 percent of
the world's population but we are protecting more than 80 percent of
the world's biodiversity."[5]
The conclusion we should draw is clear: to preserve the world's
biodiversity, it is also necessary for us to support the indigenous in
their struggle for
self-determination and, importantly, lend our assistance to prevent
any effort to remove them from the lands they inhabit.
Yet this is, in effect, the opposite of what Robinson calls for. It's
not at all obvious that humans need to be removed from the land to
preserve biodiversity.
It's certainly not true of indigenous people, who are the vanguard of
movements for environmental justice in the world. And while it's true
that sensitive
ecosystems should be removed of industrial agriculture companies,
logging companies, and oil extraction companies, those profit-making
entities are not
the result of an essential "human nature." They result from a social
system directed toward the accumulation of private profit, something
that is neither
eternal nor predetermined by our biology. It is capitalism that we
need to remove, not people.
"Half-Earth"
The inspiration for Robinson's piece was Edward O. Wilson's book
"Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life." Wilson is the world's
leading expert on ants,
but for many critics he is more well-known for the biological
determinism of his "sociobiology" idea.
In 1975, a group of scientists responded to Wilson's ideas of
sociobiology, saying that he offered up a "particular theory about
human nature, which has
no scientific support." They explained that views of biological
determinism similar to Wilson's become fashionable from time to time,
not because of their
scientific validity, but because of their usefulness to those in
power: "The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist
theories is that they
consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo
and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race
or sex. Historically,
powerful countries or ruling groups within them have drawn support for
the maintenance or extension of their power from these products of the
scientific
community." [6]
In "Half-Earth," Wilson continues to paint humanity with broad
strokes, and insist that most of our behavior is biologically
determined. In his view we
were driven by our genetics to multiply and strain the Earth's
resources "like a hostile race of aliens."[7]
When speaking on social issues, his used of the pronoun "we" shows
that he has no understanding of class. He wonders how humans can be so
knowledgeable
yet make decisions against our own interests.[8] Indeed, his
explanation of capitalist society's negative impact on the planet is
that it is "largely due
to the excess of the many quotidian activities we perform just to get
on with our personal lives. Those activities have made us the most
destructive species
in the history of life."[9] Thus, responsibility for the negative
effects of industry is shared equally among the members of our
species, even those who,
due to the class divisions in society, have no decision-making power.
He devotes woefully little of his book to his actual proposal. How it
could be enacted, whether enforced by state repression or encouraged
by Robinson's
"pricing", or both, is left to the imagination. Wilson just wants us
to know it should be done.
There is a link between human health and biodiversity. And, of course,
there are complexities to ecosystems, involving the participation of
countless species,
which make our existence possible. We are, therefore, self-interested
to protect Earth's biodiversity. So, while it may indeed be necessary
for that purpose
to create new protected areas, it's not obvious at all that masses of
people will need to be removed to do so.
We should be asking, first and foremost, who specifically would be
removed from the land if Wilson's dream becomes reality. And given the
proximity of
many indigenous peoples to threatened ecosystems, it's clear that they
would be uniquely impacted by Wilson's proposal.
Conservation and expulsion
The proposal to empty half the Earth of people would have an enormous
impact, and it would be naïve to think it could be enacted without
causing a great
deal of suffering. In fact, there is already a long history of much
smaller conservation projects leading to forced expulsions, violence,
and the shredding
of native people's rights.
The creation of nearly all of the world's national parks involved
expulsions of indigenous people. These areas of the world are now,
ironically, considered
to be the closest examples of "pristine" nature, of "wilderness," and
of the true nature that existed before human despoilment. In reality,
they stand
as examples of ecosystems that have never existed in such a
people-less state. And the sudden departure of humans from ecosystems
where they lived for
thousands of years led to rather serious ecological problems.
Though Serengeti National Park is known to many as a pristine and
people-less wilderness, the Masaai people called it home for thousands
of years before
they were evicted by the British colonial government. The Masaai
leader Kissale Ole Serupe remembers it thusly: "The Brits razed our
houses to the ground…
we did not dare to fight back."
And though the stated purpose for removing people was to protect
wildlife, in actuality the Masaai were responsible for the survival of
the great Serengeti
herds. With their abrupt departure from the land, poachers found it
much easier to hunt and kill animals such as elephants and rhinos.
Their numbers dwindled.
"I am surprised by the accusations against us," said Lomayani Ole
Pose. "Had it not been for our ancestor and us, these wild animals
would not be here.
Despite these facts, we are still being demonized."[10]
Stories like this abound. Even the creation of Yellowstone, the
world's first national park, involved the expulsion and destruction of
land-use rights
for native Crow, Shoshone, and Bannock. Glacier National Park was
created with the expulsion of Blackfeet, Yosemite with the expulsion
of Yosemite Indians,
and Grand Canyon with the expulsion of Havasupai. When Havasupai
gained part of their land back from the government in the 1970s, they
did so despite many
self-avowed conservationists, who fought against it.[11]
At worst, the dispossession of native peoples for conservation
purposes was based on an intentional erasure of native history and
claims to the land. At
best, it was based on a flawed definition of nature, which holds that
it is exogenous to human beings. Indigenous people have played a
crucial role in
the maintenance of their native lands, such as in fire management and
the protection of wildlife. In fact, they often see their fight for
sovereignty as
being directly aligned with the need for conservation.
Conclusion
Misanthropic views about humanity have the real potential of
precluding the solidarity we should be building to address climate
change. There's little
hope for that kind of solidarity if people in the industrialized
countries accept the nonsense that poor women in the underdeveloped
world are to blame
for the crisis for having too many children. And there's little hope
for it if the basic rights of indigenous people are opposed by
conservationists asserting
the superiority of their own demands regarding their lands.
We want a revolution in our relationship to the environment, and that
is something that can only come about with a revolution in our
relationship to each
other. Che Guevara once said, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let
me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of
love. It is impossible
to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
The misanthropy at the root of populationism, as well as Wilson's view
that we need to remove people from the land, is not one that holds
great love for
humanity. If it doesn't entail outright hatred for our species, it
certainly entails great fear and suspicion of one another.
This is not the compass that points us in the correct direction.
Solidarity is the answer to alienation. We need to build broad
movements to address our
collective material and ecological interests.
And ultimately, the source of humanity's destructive behavior is the
system that directs all of society's productive power toward the
accumulation of profits
for a tiny minority. Only socialism can redirect our collective labor
toward the fulfillment of all human needs, including the need to
preserve the Earth's
delicate ecosystems.
[1] Angus, Ian, and Simon Butler. Too Many People? : Population,
Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis: 4.
[2] Robinson, Kim Stanley. "Empty half the Earth of its humans. It's
the only way to save the planet." The Guardian, US edition, 20 Mar.
2018,
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson.
[3] Bisson, Terry. "Galileo's Dream: A Q&A with Kim Stanley Robinson."
Shareable, 4 Nov. 2009,
https://www.shareable.net/blog/galileos-dream-a-qa-with-kim-stanley-robinson.
[4] Smith, Jeremy. "The Ambiguous Utopian." January Magazine, Jul. 2002,
http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/ksrobinson.html.
[5]Jaffe, Sarah. "Standing Firm at Standing Rock: Why the Struggle is
Bigger Than One Pipeline." Bill Moyers & Company, 28 Sept. 2016,
http://billmoyers.com/story/standing-firm-standing-rock-pipeline-protesters-will-not-moved.
[6] Allen, Elizabeth, Barbara Beckwith, Jon Beckwith, et al. "Against
'Sociobiology.'" The New York Review of Books, 13 Nov. 1975,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/11/13/against-sociobiology/.
[7] Wilson, Edward O. "Half-Earth : Our Planet's Fight for Life."
Liveright Publishing Corporation, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company,
2016: 81.
[8] Ibid, 167.
[9] Ibid, 63.
[10] Interviews in "A Place Without People." Directed by Andreas
Apostolidis. Quebec: Films Transit International, 2011.
[11] Spence, Mark David. "Dispossessing the Wilderness : Indian
Removal and the Making of the National Parks." Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Carl Jarvis
***
The Masaai, a pastoral people, were removed from their traditional
lands in the Serengeti by British colonialists, largely in order to
reserve the land
for big game hunting and tourism. The Masaai are resisting similar
removal practices by the Kenyan and Tanzanian governments.
By CHRIS TEI
We don't need to be removed from nature. We need to radically change
the way we relate to it.
Capitalism's endless pursuit of profits for the few continues to
destroy the ecosystems upon which human beings base our very
existence. And while one
political wing of the capitalist class ceaselessly denies climate
change, those capitalist politicians who do acknowledge the science
make attempts to
shift blame for it away from themselves. Misanthropic explanations for
the state of the world, holding all humans to account for our original
sin of being
human, help reduce the risk that the exploiters will have to answer
for the unique crisis that they have created.
Foremost among these misanthropic explanations of climate change is
populationism, which holds that the growing population is responsible.
In the words
of Ian Angus and Simon Butler, who have worked diligently on refuting
this idea, "populationist policies focus on symptoms, not causes.
Worse, they shift
the blame for climate change, and the burden for stopping it, onto the
poorest and most vulnerable people in the world."[1]
This perspective is, rather unfortunately, popular on both the left
and right. And if we assume that our nature, as a species, is
inherently harmful, we
will inevitably push for policies that are harmful to humans.
Empty half the Earth?
Kim Stanley Robinson recently contributed a piece to the Guardian with
the provocative title and call to action, "Empty half the Earth of its
humans. It's
the only way to save the planet."[2]
Robinson is a science fiction novelist, and this writer is a huge fan
of his work. His books combine hard science, involving an immense
amount of personal
research, with speculation about the social and political
ramifications of developments such as climate change and planetary
colonization. He tells stories
of future histories and addresses how the oppressive institutions of
our present day might evolve, be challenged, or even be eliminated.
A lot of popular science fiction imagines how the world will only get
worse for humanity, but Robinson very consciously does something
different: "Anyone
can do a dystopia these days just by making a collage of newspaper
headlines, but utopias are hard, and important, because we need to
imagine what it might
be like if we did things well enough to say to our kids, we did our
best, this is about as good as it was when it was handed to us, take
care of it and
do better. Some kind of narrative vision of what we're trying for as a
civilization."[3]
Robinson therefore assigns a great deal of importance to the work of
imagining a more progressive future. "I do consider my books to be a
political work.
It seems to me that the more stories out there that encourage these
kinds of actions, then the better off people would be."[4] From his
books and his personal
activism, it's clear that Robinson has an affinity for liberation
movements, the political left, and of course climate justice.
His call to action is to "leave about half the Earth's surface mostly
free of humans, so wild plants and animals can live there unimpeded as
they did for
so long before humans arrived." How this is to be accomplished is left
somewhat to the imagination, although he appears to favor "repricing"
and perhaps
new cultural and legal frameworks that would govern threatened areas:
"Many villages now have populations of under a thousand, and continue
to shrink as
most of the young people leave. If these places were redefined (and
repriced) as becoming usefully empty, there would be caretaker work
for some, gamekeeper
work for others, and the rest could go to the cities and get into the
main swing of things."
Anyone who finds this notion to be obvious, that humans must be
removed from the land to save the environment, and specifically the
world's biodiversity,
would be wise to look at indigenous political movements around the
Earth. In 2016, during the Native American-led protests against the
Dakota Access Pipeline
(DAPL), the Standing Rock encampment was visited by indigenous
activists from Latin America who came to express their solidarity. A
Sarayaku activist named
Nina Gualinga, who has been a leader in her people's fight to keep the
Ecuadoran government from allowing oil drilling on their ancestral
lands, illustrated
in remarkable terms the outsized role that native peoples have played
in preserving the global environment: "The statistics say that we are
4 percent of
the world's population but we are protecting more than 80 percent of
the world's biodiversity."[5]
The conclusion we should draw is clear: to preserve the world's
biodiversity, it is also necessary for us to support the indigenous in
their struggle for
self-determination and, importantly, lend our assistance to prevent
any effort to remove them from the lands they inhabit.
Yet this is, in effect, the opposite of what Robinson calls for. It's
not at all obvious that humans need to be removed from the land to
preserve biodiversity.
It's certainly not true of indigenous people, who are the vanguard of
movements for environmental justice in the world. And while it's true
that sensitive
ecosystems should be removed of industrial agriculture companies,
logging companies, and oil extraction companies, those profit-making
entities are not
the result of an essential "human nature." They result from a social
system directed toward the accumulation of private profit, something
that is neither
eternal nor predetermined by our biology. It is capitalism that we
need to remove, not people.
"Half-Earth"
The inspiration for Robinson's piece was Edward O. Wilson's book
"Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life." Wilson is the world's
leading expert on ants,
but for many critics he is more well-known for the biological
determinism of his "sociobiology" idea.
In 1975, a group of scientists responded to Wilson's ideas of
sociobiology, saying that he offered up a "particular theory about
human nature, which has
no scientific support." They explained that views of biological
determinism similar to Wilson's become fashionable from time to time,
not because of their
scientific validity, but because of their usefulness to those in
power: "The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist
theories is that they
consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo
and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race
or sex. Historically,
powerful countries or ruling groups within them have drawn support for
the maintenance or extension of their power from these products of the
scientific
community." [6]
In "Half-Earth," Wilson continues to paint humanity with broad
strokes, and insist that most of our behavior is biologically
determined. In his view we
were driven by our genetics to multiply and strain the Earth's
resources "like a hostile race of aliens."[7]
When speaking on social issues, his used of the pronoun "we" shows
that he has no understanding of class. He wonders how humans can be so
knowledgeable
yet make decisions against our own interests.[8] Indeed, his
explanation of capitalist society's negative impact on the planet is
that it is "largely due
to the excess of the many quotidian activities we perform just to get
on with our personal lives. Those activities have made us the most
destructive species
in the history of life."[9] Thus, responsibility for the negative
effects of industry is shared equally among the members of our
species, even those who,
due to the class divisions in society, have no decision-making power.
He devotes woefully little of his book to his actual proposal. How it
could be enacted, whether enforced by state repression or encouraged
by Robinson's
"pricing", or both, is left to the imagination. Wilson just wants us
to know it should be done.
There is a link between human health and biodiversity. And, of course,
there are complexities to ecosystems, involving the participation of
countless species,
which make our existence possible. We are, therefore, self-interested
to protect Earth's biodiversity. So, while it may indeed be necessary
for that purpose
to create new protected areas, it's not obvious at all that masses of
people will need to be removed to do so.
We should be asking, first and foremost, who specifically would be
removed from the land if Wilson's dream becomes reality. And given the
proximity of
many indigenous peoples to threatened ecosystems, it's clear that they
would be uniquely impacted by Wilson's proposal.
Conservation and expulsion
The proposal to empty half the Earth of people would have an enormous
impact, and it would be naïve to think it could be enacted without
causing a great
deal of suffering. In fact, there is already a long history of much
smaller conservation projects leading to forced expulsions, violence,
and the shredding
of native people's rights.
The creation of nearly all of the world's national parks involved
expulsions of indigenous people. These areas of the world are now,
ironically, considered
to be the closest examples of "pristine" nature, of "wilderness," and
of the true nature that existed before human despoilment. In reality,
they stand
as examples of ecosystems that have never existed in such a
people-less state. And the sudden departure of humans from ecosystems
where they lived for
thousands of years led to rather serious ecological problems.
Though Serengeti National Park is known to many as a pristine and
people-less wilderness, the Masaai people called it home for thousands
of years before
they were evicted by the British colonial government. The Masaai
leader Kissale Ole Serupe remembers it thusly: "The Brits razed our
houses to the ground…
we did not dare to fight back."
And though the stated purpose for removing people was to protect
wildlife, in actuality the Masaai were responsible for the survival of
the great Serengeti
herds. With their abrupt departure from the land, poachers found it
much easier to hunt and kill animals such as elephants and rhinos.
Their numbers dwindled.
"I am surprised by the accusations against us," said Lomayani Ole
Pose. "Had it not been for our ancestor and us, these wild animals
would not be here.
Despite these facts, we are still being demonized."[10]
Stories like this abound. Even the creation of Yellowstone, the
world's first national park, involved the expulsion and destruction of
land-use rights
for native Crow, Shoshone, and Bannock. Glacier National Park was
created with the expulsion of Blackfeet, Yosemite with the expulsion
of Yosemite Indians,
and Grand Canyon with the expulsion of Havasupai. When Havasupai
gained part of their land back from the government in the 1970s, they
did so despite many
self-avowed conservationists, who fought against it.[11]
At worst, the dispossession of native peoples for conservation
purposes was based on an intentional erasure of native history and
claims to the land. At
best, it was based on a flawed definition of nature, which holds that
it is exogenous to human beings. Indigenous people have played a
crucial role in
the maintenance of their native lands, such as in fire management and
the protection of wildlife. In fact, they often see their fight for
sovereignty as
being directly aligned with the need for conservation.
Conclusion
Misanthropic views about humanity have the real potential of
precluding the solidarity we should be building to address climate
change. There's little
hope for that kind of solidarity if people in the industrialized
countries accept the nonsense that poor women in the underdeveloped
world are to blame
for the crisis for having too many children. And there's little hope
for it if the basic rights of indigenous people are opposed by
conservationists asserting
the superiority of their own demands regarding their lands.
We want a revolution in our relationship to the environment, and that
is something that can only come about with a revolution in our
relationship to each
other. Che Guevara once said, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let
me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of
love. It is impossible
to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
The misanthropy at the root of populationism, as well as Wilson's view
that we need to remove people from the land, is not one that holds
great love for
humanity. If it doesn't entail outright hatred for our species, it
certainly entails great fear and suspicion of one another.
This is not the compass that points us in the correct direction.
Solidarity is the answer to alienation. We need to build broad
movements to address our
collective material and ecological interests.
And ultimately, the source of humanity's destructive behavior is the
system that directs all of society's productive power toward the
accumulation of profits
for a tiny minority. Only socialism can redirect our collective labor
toward the fulfillment of all human needs, including the need to
preserve the Earth's
delicate ecosystems.
[1] Angus, Ian, and Simon Butler. Too Many People? : Population,
Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis: 4.
[2] Robinson, Kim Stanley. "Empty half the Earth of its humans. It's
the only way to save the planet." The Guardian, US edition, 20 Mar.
2018,
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson.
[3] Bisson, Terry. "Galileo's Dream: A Q&A with Kim Stanley Robinson."
Shareable, 4 Nov. 2009,
https://www.shareable.net/blog/galileos-dream-a-qa-with-kim-stanley-robinson.
[4] Smith, Jeremy. "The Ambiguous Utopian." January Magazine, Jul. 2002,
http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/ksrobinson.html.
[5]Jaffe, Sarah. "Standing Firm at Standing Rock: Why the Struggle is
Bigger Than One Pipeline." Bill Moyers & Company, 28 Sept. 2016,
http://billmoyers.com/story/standing-firm-standing-rock-pipeline-protesters-will-not-moved.
[6] Allen, Elizabeth, Barbara Beckwith, Jon Beckwith, et al. "Against
'Sociobiology.'" The New York Review of Books, 13 Nov. 1975,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/11/13/against-sociobiology/.
[7] Wilson, Edward O. "Half-Earth : Our Planet's Fight for Life."
Liveright Publishing Corporation, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company,
2016: 81.
[8] Ibid, 167.
[9] Ibid, 63.
[10] Interviews in "A Place Without People." Directed by Andreas
Apostolidis. Quebec: Films Transit International, 2011.
[11] Spence, Mark David. "Dispossessing the Wilderness : Indian
Removal and the Making of the National Parks." Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Friday, April 6, 2018
and things that go bump in the night
Maybe all this flap about Sinclair's taking control of our air waves
will serve as a wake up call, but Sinclair is not doing anything that
we haven't been permitting to go on for as many years as we have had
"public air waves".
Americans have been under the spell of "Non News" for so long a time
that I doubt many of us would know honest unbiased reporting if it hit
us between the eyes. Where we find ourselves today is the result of
allowing our public air space to be sold to a vast army of
advertisers. Big and little, they jockey for our attention. Their
goal is not to tell us the news, it is to sell us the product. Back
when tobacco was King, everyone appeared to have a cigarette or a
cigar or a pipe sticking out of their mouths. Even Santa Claus smoked
Chesterfields in place of his little pipe. Our air waves were turned
against us, subtly and not so subtly sending the message that it was
okay to smoke. And the tobacco industry fought to keep certain news
stories out of the public's eye. Stories of growing lung cancer,
people with throat cancer, elderly folks falling asleep with lighted
cigarettes that turned them to ashes. All we saw were those young,
healthy lovers running hand in hand through the fields of flowers and
Disney-like little love birds fluttering about them. Most of the
people we looked up to had a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the
other. Perry Como, Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole and so many more blew
smoke in our eyes, along with their smooth melodies. And that is just
one corner of how we have been charmed by the Pied Pipers, peddling
their bobbles, bangles and bright shiny junk.
We have unwittingly been transformed from Citizens, into Consumers.
Madison Avenue tossed truth out the window many years ago, in favor of
Schmooze.
We have come to believe that possessing gadgets is a sign of Progress.
And Progress is a sign of advanced civilization. It's a short step,
mentally, to then be sold on the need to protect our nation's right to
sell gadgets to the entire world. Gadgets such as tanks, fighter
planes, drones, ammunition, and of course all of the toys like iPhones
and smart phones. And so now we are ready to defend our right to
control the world's oil, and to drill wherever necessary in order to
protect and advance our American Freedom. Talk about confusing? And
suddenly we get excited over Sinclair? No, the problem is not
Sinclair, as scary as the aspects of being controlled by Sinclair'
brand of Truth, we must turn on the entire misuse of our Public Air
Waves. We must take them back and remove the control of the Pushers
and Peddlers who only see us as objects to be scammed. "Let the buyer
beware!" "There's a sucker born every second!"
If we learn anything from Sinclair, it is that we have allowed
ourselves to be teased and charmed down a road that has led us a long
way from our dream of Independence and Freedom.
And speaking of freedom, Freedom is not something that is given to
each of us. We must be willing to stand and declare ourselves free,
and be willing to defend that Freedom, otherwise, it is not ours at
all.
Carl Jarvis
will serve as a wake up call, but Sinclair is not doing anything that
we haven't been permitting to go on for as many years as we have had
"public air waves".
Americans have been under the spell of "Non News" for so long a time
that I doubt many of us would know honest unbiased reporting if it hit
us between the eyes. Where we find ourselves today is the result of
allowing our public air space to be sold to a vast army of
advertisers. Big and little, they jockey for our attention. Their
goal is not to tell us the news, it is to sell us the product. Back
when tobacco was King, everyone appeared to have a cigarette or a
cigar or a pipe sticking out of their mouths. Even Santa Claus smoked
Chesterfields in place of his little pipe. Our air waves were turned
against us, subtly and not so subtly sending the message that it was
okay to smoke. And the tobacco industry fought to keep certain news
stories out of the public's eye. Stories of growing lung cancer,
people with throat cancer, elderly folks falling asleep with lighted
cigarettes that turned them to ashes. All we saw were those young,
healthy lovers running hand in hand through the fields of flowers and
Disney-like little love birds fluttering about them. Most of the
people we looked up to had a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the
other. Perry Como, Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole and so many more blew
smoke in our eyes, along with their smooth melodies. And that is just
one corner of how we have been charmed by the Pied Pipers, peddling
their bobbles, bangles and bright shiny junk.
We have unwittingly been transformed from Citizens, into Consumers.
Madison Avenue tossed truth out the window many years ago, in favor of
Schmooze.
We have come to believe that possessing gadgets is a sign of Progress.
And Progress is a sign of advanced civilization. It's a short step,
mentally, to then be sold on the need to protect our nation's right to
sell gadgets to the entire world. Gadgets such as tanks, fighter
planes, drones, ammunition, and of course all of the toys like iPhones
and smart phones. And so now we are ready to defend our right to
control the world's oil, and to drill wherever necessary in order to
protect and advance our American Freedom. Talk about confusing? And
suddenly we get excited over Sinclair? No, the problem is not
Sinclair, as scary as the aspects of being controlled by Sinclair'
brand of Truth, we must turn on the entire misuse of our Public Air
Waves. We must take them back and remove the control of the Pushers
and Peddlers who only see us as objects to be scammed. "Let the buyer
beware!" "There's a sucker born every second!"
If we learn anything from Sinclair, it is that we have allowed
ourselves to be teased and charmed down a road that has led us a long
way from our dream of Independence and Freedom.
And speaking of freedom, Freedom is not something that is given to
each of us. We must be willing to stand and declare ourselves free,
and be willing to defend that Freedom, otherwise, it is not ours at
all.
Carl Jarvis
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Re: [acb-chat] denial is not a river in Egypt
Good Easter Sunday, Bob and All. And a good April Fool's Day to my
eldest Nephew Joe, who turned 64 today...no joke!
And below find an article that speaks to the myth of equal opportunity.
Carl Jarvis
******
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."
The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today,
the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any
other advanced
industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that
America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While
Americans may differ
on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal
consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew
Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe
that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of
opportunity.
Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to
have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was
more opportunity
than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio
Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but
given how they've
lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.
It's not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly
mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to
research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans
born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that
category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the
top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of
Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.
Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what
extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and
income of his
parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated
parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone
born to middle-class
parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the
answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more
dependent on the
income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced
country for which there is data.
How do we explain this? Some of it has to do with persistent
discrimination. Latinos and African-Americans still get paid less than
whites, and women still
get paid less than men, even though they
recently surpassed men
in the number of advanced degrees they obtain. Though gender
disparities in the workplace are less than they once were, there is
still a
glass ceiling:
women are sorely underrepresented in top corporate positions and
constitute a minuscule fraction of C.E.O.'s.
Discrimination, however, is only a small part of the picture. Probably
the most important reason for lack of equality of opportunity is
education: both
its quantity and quality. After World War II, Europe made a major
effort to democratize its education systems. We did, too, with the
G.I. Bill, which extended
higher education to Americans across the economic spectrum.
But then we changed, in several ways. While racial segregation
decreased, economic segregation increased. After 1980, the poor grew
poorer, the middle
stagnated, and the top did better and better. Disparities widened
between those living in poor localities and those living in rich
suburbs — or rich enough
to send their kids to private schools. A result was a widening gap in
educational performance — the achievement gap between rich and poor
kids born in
2001 was 30 to 40 percent larger than it was for those born 25 years
earlier, the Stanford sociologist Sean F. Reardon found.
Of course, there are other forces at play, some of which start even
before birth. Children in affluent families get more exposure to
reading and less exposure
to environmental hazards. Their families can afford enriching
experiences like music lessons and summer camp. They get better
nutrition and health care,
which enhance their learning, directly and indirectly.
block quote
Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth.
block quote end
Unless current trends in education are reversed, the situation is
likely to get even worse. In some cases it seems as if policy has
actually been designed
to reduce opportunity: government support for many state schools has
been steadily gutted over the last few decades — and especially in the
last few years.
Meanwhile, students are crushed by giant student loan debts that are
almost impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy. This is happening
at the same
time that a college education is more important than ever for getting
a good job.
Young people from families of modest means face a Catch-22: without a
college education, they are condemned to a life of poor prospects;
with a college
education, they may be condemned to a lifetime of living at the brink.
And increasingly even a college degree isn't enough; one needs either
a graduate
degree or a series of (often unpaid) internships. Those at the top
have the connections and social capital to get those opportunities.
Those in the middle
and bottom don't. The point is that no one makes it on his or her own.
And those at the top get more help from their families than do those
lower down
on the ladder. Government should help to level the playing field.
Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth. Grand deceptions of this
magnitude are hard to
maintain for long — and the country has already been through a couple
of decades of self-deception.
Without substantial policy changes, our self-image, and the image we
project to the world, will diminish — and so will our economic
standing and stability.
Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity reinforce each
other — and contribute to economic weakness, as Alan B. Krueger, a
Princeton economist
and the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has
emphasized. We have an economic, and not only moral, interest in
saving the American
dream.
Policies that promote equality of opportunity must target the youngest
Americans. First, we have to make sure that mothers are not exposed to
environmental
hazards and get adequate prenatal health care. Then, we have to
reverse the damaging cutbacks to preschool education, a theme Mr.
Obama emphasized on Tuesday.
We have to make sure that all children have adequate nutrition and
health care — not only do we have to provide the resources, but if
necessary, we have
to incentivize parents, by coaching or training them or even rewarding
them for being good caregivers. The right says that money isn't the
solution. They've
chased reforms like charter schools and private-school vouchers, but
most of these efforts have shown ambiguous results at best. Giving
more money to poor
schools would help. So would summer and extracurricular programs that
enrich low-income students' skills.
Finally, it is unconscionable that a rich country like the United
States has made access to higher education so difficult for those at
the bottom and middle.
There are many alternative ways of providing universal access to
higher education, from Australia's income-contingent loan program to
the near-free system
of universities in Europe. A more educated population yields greater
innovation, a robust economy and higher incomes — which mean a higher
tax base. Those
benefits are, of course, why we've long been committed to free public
education through 12th grade. But while a 12th-grade education might
have sufficed
a century ago, it doesn't today. Yet we haven't adjusted our system to
contemporary realities.
The steps I've outlined are not just affordable but imperative. Even
more important, though, is that we cannot afford to let our country
drift farther
from ideals that the vast majority of Americans share. We will never
fully succeed in achieving Mr. Obama's vision of a poor girl's having
exactly the
same opportunities as a wealthy girl. But we could do much, much
better, and must not rest until we do.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."
A version of this article appears in print on 02/17/2013, on page SR4
of the NewYork edition with the headline: Equal Opportunity, Our
National Myth.
On 4/1/18, Ashley Bramlett via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
> I'm also confused as to the identity of Mr. Heim.
> Maybe Jack is his dad or brother.
>
> I think you raise some good points. I would say I'm in between the views of
>
> you and Carl.
> I think some major corporations are way too greedy and do not care about
> their workers. In this view, I sound like Carl. For instance, Wall Mart.
> However, some do. I remember the recent decissions of Dicks Sporting Goods
> stores to stop selling certain guns. IMO this is a good decision and I
> commend them for being proactive rather than waiting for government
> regulations.
> There are definitely positive things corporations do.
>
>
> You make a good point about the nation running on many small businesses and
> their earnings. Also, corporations do have shareholders. But they
> also might exploit their workers.
>
> Personally, I think capitalism can work. But I'd like to see their be more
> regulation of internet selling. Also, with two parents working, we need more
>
> businesses with family friendly policies such as more paid leave and
> flexible work schedules.
>
> On a positive note, I know of many examples of companies offering family
> friendly policies. LL Bean treats its workers well.
>
> As I go forward and continue to face discriminatory practices in employment,
>
> I know we do not have equal opportunity.
> For one thing, not all job applications are accessible to a screen reader.
>
> For another, prospective employers are uncomfortable with a vision impaired
>
> applicant.
> You as the applicant can advocate and try to put them at ease and reassure
> them you can work, but it makes no difference.
>
>
> One thing we do have in common is the belief in Christ.
>
> With that said, I enjoyed my Easter feast today with my brother's family.
>
> So, Happy Easter Bob, and all who honor Jesus rising today!
>
> Ashley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob via acb-chat
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 4:41 PM
> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide range
> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to
>
> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
> Cc: Bob
> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] denial is not a river in Egypt
>
> Hello Carl and Jack/John:
>
> I assume that Jack & John are the same person. It's interesting
> that you have a website with no content on it other than an email
> address to send problems. How can there be problems if there is no
> content?
> I have received three emails that basically speak to the same set of
> issues but are under different subject lines. I, however, will make
> my comments on just one of these email threads.
> Despite differing views from Carl and Jack, I contend that in fact,
> there is equal opportunity for all in this nation.
> Equal opportunity does not equate to equal achievement as Jack and
> Carl suggest for not having equal opportunity. This is a faulty
> rationale for suggesting that there is not equal opportunity. Like
> William, I believe that each individual is responsible for their level
> of achievement in life. Apparently, Carl and Jack believe that this
> is the responsibility of the "state".
> Carl has still not answered my question: why have some people in
> "poverty" achieved and others have not? Still waiting for
> clarification.
> Wikipedia is a source of information but it is certainly not the
> Holy Grail. If you read the disclaimer, information is
> provided/updated by anybody that chooses to post. there is a
> statement to that effect. Information can be added or update by
> anybody.
> Carl, it amazes me that you continue to parrot the left-wing
> propaganda mill without any facts other than your opinions and/or
> emotional perspective.
> When called out on the positions that you take, You accuse me of
> circular thinking while you either ignore the facts that are presented
> to you or come back with your baseless opinions again.
> Examples of these include:
> *. You state that corporations are too large to fail. In the
> past, I provided you with specific examples of numerous corporations
> that have in fact failed.
> *. You claim that corporations control the courts. Again, I
> provided you several examples to the contrary.
> *. You claim that corporations make the laws. Again, I provided
> you evidence to the contrary. Legislators make the laws: corporations
> obey the laws or are severely penalized.
> *. You claim that corporations control religion. When
> questioned, you ignore my curiosity for your statement.
> *. You totally ignore the fact that corporations are comprised of
> shareholders which include individuals and/or other entities.
> Corporations are not the faceless monsters that you contend. In
> essence, they are individuals.
> *. You claim that corporations own the media but ignore the power
> of the internet.
> *. You claim that corporations control the jobs but ignore my
> statement that small businesses are responsible for the majority of
> job growth, not corporations.
> This nation is no longer an agrarian society. You are living in the
> past. This nation has moved from an agrarian society to an
> industrialized society to an information society. Of course, this
> transition mandated the need for evolution.
> This nation evolved to capitalism. Again, I am waiting for you to
> tell me, given the evolution of this society, what is a better
> political structure?
> Finally, the Denial river flows through Washington and I believe
> that it flows right through your property. You are in perpetual
> denial.
> You have an idealistic view of the way society should be, (an
> agrarian society) and the left-wing propaganda that you constantly
> promote. Of course, that is your right. However, it would be nice if
> you dealt on a logical/factual basis rather than an emotional or
> idealistic basis.
> Are you suggesting that we should revert back to an agrarian society
> and do away with the industrialized and now information revolution?
> Happy Easter. Of course, if I were politically correct like the
> leftist want me to be, I would wish you a happy holiday instead.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
>
> On 4/1/18, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> denial is not a river in Egypt.
>> In fact, denial is a Wall. When we don't want to discuss an issue, we
>> simply put up the Wall.
>> William demonstrates this technique well. When presented with an
>> article that contains statistics he disagrees with, his first instinct
>> is to deny the authenticity of the article. He writes, "...Wikipedia
>> is not a trustworthy source of information. They are a
>> non-profit organization that uses donations and volunteers. They are
>> fundamentally opposed to capitalism as are many of their editors."
>> And just to make certain your attention is on the unworthiness of
>> Wikipedia, he drives home his point by writing, "...But all these
>> statistics mean nothing".
>> Done and done! William hath spoken. His statistics are well
>> grounded. But statistics to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.
>> Finally, after a great amount of what we in government used to call,
>> "Fog"(miles of verbiage to say absolutely nothing), William ends by
>> saying, "The fact of the
>> matter is that no science can prove that people are not responsible
>> for themselves and their lives. Whatever their circumstances, they
>> can always work hard to raise themselves above it. No one is stopping
>> you from going to the public library and reading books on your own for
>> your own education. No one is stopping you from saving your money and
>> investing it instead of spending it on drugs and alcohol."
>> Denial. Denial and blame. Refuse to accept that the System needs
>> reforming and turn the blame for failure back onto the victims.
>> Capitalism is never to blame, say its Worshipers, the blame is on all
>> of those lazy or drugged up bums. In fact, Capitalism also points the
>> finger at Government as being responsible for our troubles. And far
>> too often we go right along, believing that government is incompetent
>> or corrupt...or both, in spite of that same government being so
>> clever that it can build a mighty military force. And in the same
>> breath it can't solve its poverty issue? Does that mean that the
>> poverty exists because those living in poverty just are too damn lazy
>> or drugged up to care?
>> Remember, this nation was founded back in a time when Capitalism did
>> not exist.
>> It's high time we stopped allowing ourselves to be blamed for a
>> government that does not care about the majority of its people.
>> William tells us that we must be responsible for ourselves. But that
>> goes equally for the government. It must be held responsible for its
>> actions, too. At the moment the government is owned by Capitalism,
>> and it is responsible for keeping Capitalism in power.
>> We began as an Agrarian Class Structure. In Colonial America,
>> agriculture
>> was the primary livelihood for 90% of the population, and most towns
>> were shipping points for the export of agricultural products. Even
>> with the establishment of our Republic, democracy continued to govern
>> local politics. But with the advent of Capitalism, democracy was
>> unable to compete. As Capitalists began to gather enough wealth to
>> buy politicians, Capitalism spread like a cancer, eating up all the
>> wealth it touched.
>> The current System is not offering equal opportunity. The 1% of
>> Americans are in control of over 60% of the nation's wealth, and
>> growing. Laws are set to favor the wealthy. Courts are becoming far
>> too costly for the average citizen to use. Public holdings are being
>> given over to private corporations to exploit, and public services
>> such as the VA and Public Education is being Privatized. Even
>> sections of interstate highways are being sold to private foreign
>> interests. The mass media has long been the puppet of Capitalism.
>> Not only pushing products, but creating discontent and suspicion by
>> one group of citizens toward others. Union has become a dirty word.
>> Socialism is believed to be a sign of weakness. We are being taught
>> to live in "the now", and to "take care of ourselves first, last and
>> always". We even defend the right of the Capitalists to set our wages
>> and working conditions. Already we are faced with Corporations that
>> are Too Big To Fail. In other words, they are more powerful than the
>> government they should be answerable to. As this transference comes
>> to pass, Corporations will write their own rules, laws and
>> regulations. Corporations will replace those entities we now call
>> Nations. And as these Mega Corporations turn on one another, our
>> children will pledge allegiance to the Flag of their chosen
>> Corporation, and take up arms to defend it. But just like the Cancer
>> that it is, Capitalism will suck up all life until there is no more,
>> and then it too will die.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
eldest Nephew Joe, who turned 64 today...no joke!
And below find an article that speaks to the myth of equal opportunity.
Carl Jarvis
******
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."
The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today,
the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any
other advanced
industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that
America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While
Americans may differ
on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal
consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew
Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe
that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of
opportunity.
Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to
have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was
more opportunity
than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio
Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but
given how they've
lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.
It's not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly
mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to
research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans
born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that
category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the
top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of
Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.
Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what
extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and
income of his
parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated
parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone
born to middle-class
parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the
answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more
dependent on the
income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced
country for which there is data.
How do we explain this? Some of it has to do with persistent
discrimination. Latinos and African-Americans still get paid less than
whites, and women still
get paid less than men, even though they
recently surpassed men
in the number of advanced degrees they obtain. Though gender
disparities in the workplace are less than they once were, there is
still a
glass ceiling:
women are sorely underrepresented in top corporate positions and
constitute a minuscule fraction of C.E.O.'s.
Discrimination, however, is only a small part of the picture. Probably
the most important reason for lack of equality of opportunity is
education: both
its quantity and quality. After World War II, Europe made a major
effort to democratize its education systems. We did, too, with the
G.I. Bill, which extended
higher education to Americans across the economic spectrum.
But then we changed, in several ways. While racial segregation
decreased, economic segregation increased. After 1980, the poor grew
poorer, the middle
stagnated, and the top did better and better. Disparities widened
between those living in poor localities and those living in rich
suburbs — or rich enough
to send their kids to private schools. A result was a widening gap in
educational performance — the achievement gap between rich and poor
kids born in
2001 was 30 to 40 percent larger than it was for those born 25 years
earlier, the Stanford sociologist Sean F. Reardon found.
Of course, there are other forces at play, some of which start even
before birth. Children in affluent families get more exposure to
reading and less exposure
to environmental hazards. Their families can afford enriching
experiences like music lessons and summer camp. They get better
nutrition and health care,
which enhance their learning, directly and indirectly.
block quote
Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth.
block quote end
Unless current trends in education are reversed, the situation is
likely to get even worse. In some cases it seems as if policy has
actually been designed
to reduce opportunity: government support for many state schools has
been steadily gutted over the last few decades — and especially in the
last few years.
Meanwhile, students are crushed by giant student loan debts that are
almost impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy. This is happening
at the same
time that a college education is more important than ever for getting
a good job.
Young people from families of modest means face a Catch-22: without a
college education, they are condemned to a life of poor prospects;
with a college
education, they may be condemned to a lifetime of living at the brink.
And increasingly even a college degree isn't enough; one needs either
a graduate
degree or a series of (often unpaid) internships. Those at the top
have the connections and social capital to get those opportunities.
Those in the middle
and bottom don't. The point is that no one makes it on his or her own.
And those at the top get more help from their families than do those
lower down
on the ladder. Government should help to level the playing field.
Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth. Grand deceptions of this
magnitude are hard to
maintain for long — and the country has already been through a couple
of decades of self-deception.
Without substantial policy changes, our self-image, and the image we
project to the world, will diminish — and so will our economic
standing and stability.
Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity reinforce each
other — and contribute to economic weakness, as Alan B. Krueger, a
Princeton economist
and the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has
emphasized. We have an economic, and not only moral, interest in
saving the American
dream.
Policies that promote equality of opportunity must target the youngest
Americans. First, we have to make sure that mothers are not exposed to
environmental
hazards and get adequate prenatal health care. Then, we have to
reverse the damaging cutbacks to preschool education, a theme Mr.
Obama emphasized on Tuesday.
We have to make sure that all children have adequate nutrition and
health care — not only do we have to provide the resources, but if
necessary, we have
to incentivize parents, by coaching or training them or even rewarding
them for being good caregivers. The right says that money isn't the
solution. They've
chased reforms like charter schools and private-school vouchers, but
most of these efforts have shown ambiguous results at best. Giving
more money to poor
schools would help. So would summer and extracurricular programs that
enrich low-income students' skills.
Finally, it is unconscionable that a rich country like the United
States has made access to higher education so difficult for those at
the bottom and middle.
There are many alternative ways of providing universal access to
higher education, from Australia's income-contingent loan program to
the near-free system
of universities in Europe. A more educated population yields greater
innovation, a robust economy and higher incomes — which mean a higher
tax base. Those
benefits are, of course, why we've long been committed to free public
education through 12th grade. But while a 12th-grade education might
have sufficed
a century ago, it doesn't today. Yet we haven't adjusted our system to
contemporary realities.
The steps I've outlined are not just affordable but imperative. Even
more important, though, is that we cannot afford to let our country
drift farther
from ideals that the vast majority of Americans share. We will never
fully succeed in achieving Mr. Obama's vision of a poor girl's having
exactly the
same opportunities as a wealthy girl. But we could do much, much
better, and must not rest until we do.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."
A version of this article appears in print on 02/17/2013, on page SR4
of the NewYork edition with the headline: Equal Opportunity, Our
National Myth.
On 4/1/18, Ashley Bramlett via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
> I'm also confused as to the identity of Mr. Heim.
> Maybe Jack is his dad or brother.
>
> I think you raise some good points. I would say I'm in between the views of
>
> you and Carl.
> I think some major corporations are way too greedy and do not care about
> their workers. In this view, I sound like Carl. For instance, Wall Mart.
> However, some do. I remember the recent decissions of Dicks Sporting Goods
> stores to stop selling certain guns. IMO this is a good decision and I
> commend them for being proactive rather than waiting for government
> regulations.
> There are definitely positive things corporations do.
>
>
> You make a good point about the nation running on many small businesses and
> their earnings. Also, corporations do have shareholders. But they
> also might exploit their workers.
>
> Personally, I think capitalism can work. But I'd like to see their be more
> regulation of internet selling. Also, with two parents working, we need more
>
> businesses with family friendly policies such as more paid leave and
> flexible work schedules.
>
> On a positive note, I know of many examples of companies offering family
> friendly policies. LL Bean treats its workers well.
>
> As I go forward and continue to face discriminatory practices in employment,
>
> I know we do not have equal opportunity.
> For one thing, not all job applications are accessible to a screen reader.
>
> For another, prospective employers are uncomfortable with a vision impaired
>
> applicant.
> You as the applicant can advocate and try to put them at ease and reassure
> them you can work, but it makes no difference.
>
>
> One thing we do have in common is the belief in Christ.
>
> With that said, I enjoyed my Easter feast today with my brother's family.
>
> So, Happy Easter Bob, and all who honor Jesus rising today!
>
> Ashley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob via acb-chat
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 4:41 PM
> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide range
> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to
>
> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
> Cc: Bob
> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] denial is not a river in Egypt
>
> Hello Carl and Jack/John:
>
> I assume that Jack & John are the same person. It's interesting
> that you have a website with no content on it other than an email
> address to send problems. How can there be problems if there is no
> content?
> I have received three emails that basically speak to the same set of
> issues but are under different subject lines. I, however, will make
> my comments on just one of these email threads.
> Despite differing views from Carl and Jack, I contend that in fact,
> there is equal opportunity for all in this nation.
> Equal opportunity does not equate to equal achievement as Jack and
> Carl suggest for not having equal opportunity. This is a faulty
> rationale for suggesting that there is not equal opportunity. Like
> William, I believe that each individual is responsible for their level
> of achievement in life. Apparently, Carl and Jack believe that this
> is the responsibility of the "state".
> Carl has still not answered my question: why have some people in
> "poverty" achieved and others have not? Still waiting for
> clarification.
> Wikipedia is a source of information but it is certainly not the
> Holy Grail. If you read the disclaimer, information is
> provided/updated by anybody that chooses to post. there is a
> statement to that effect. Information can be added or update by
> anybody.
> Carl, it amazes me that you continue to parrot the left-wing
> propaganda mill without any facts other than your opinions and/or
> emotional perspective.
> When called out on the positions that you take, You accuse me of
> circular thinking while you either ignore the facts that are presented
> to you or come back with your baseless opinions again.
> Examples of these include:
> *. You state that corporations are too large to fail. In the
> past, I provided you with specific examples of numerous corporations
> that have in fact failed.
> *. You claim that corporations control the courts. Again, I
> provided you several examples to the contrary.
> *. You claim that corporations make the laws. Again, I provided
> you evidence to the contrary. Legislators make the laws: corporations
> obey the laws or are severely penalized.
> *. You claim that corporations control religion. When
> questioned, you ignore my curiosity for your statement.
> *. You totally ignore the fact that corporations are comprised of
> shareholders which include individuals and/or other entities.
> Corporations are not the faceless monsters that you contend. In
> essence, they are individuals.
> *. You claim that corporations own the media but ignore the power
> of the internet.
> *. You claim that corporations control the jobs but ignore my
> statement that small businesses are responsible for the majority of
> job growth, not corporations.
> This nation is no longer an agrarian society. You are living in the
> past. This nation has moved from an agrarian society to an
> industrialized society to an information society. Of course, this
> transition mandated the need for evolution.
> This nation evolved to capitalism. Again, I am waiting for you to
> tell me, given the evolution of this society, what is a better
> political structure?
> Finally, the Denial river flows through Washington and I believe
> that it flows right through your property. You are in perpetual
> denial.
> You have an idealistic view of the way society should be, (an
> agrarian society) and the left-wing propaganda that you constantly
> promote. Of course, that is your right. However, it would be nice if
> you dealt on a logical/factual basis rather than an emotional or
> idealistic basis.
> Are you suggesting that we should revert back to an agrarian society
> and do away with the industrialized and now information revolution?
> Happy Easter. Of course, if I were politically correct like the
> leftist want me to be, I would wish you a happy holiday instead.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
>
> On 4/1/18, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> denial is not a river in Egypt.
>> In fact, denial is a Wall. When we don't want to discuss an issue, we
>> simply put up the Wall.
>> William demonstrates this technique well. When presented with an
>> article that contains statistics he disagrees with, his first instinct
>> is to deny the authenticity of the article. He writes, "...Wikipedia
>> is not a trustworthy source of information. They are a
>> non-profit organization that uses donations and volunteers. They are
>> fundamentally opposed to capitalism as are many of their editors."
>> And just to make certain your attention is on the unworthiness of
>> Wikipedia, he drives home his point by writing, "...But all these
>> statistics mean nothing".
>> Done and done! William hath spoken. His statistics are well
>> grounded. But statistics to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.
>> Finally, after a great amount of what we in government used to call,
>> "Fog"(miles of verbiage to say absolutely nothing), William ends by
>> saying, "The fact of the
>> matter is that no science can prove that people are not responsible
>> for themselves and their lives. Whatever their circumstances, they
>> can always work hard to raise themselves above it. No one is stopping
>> you from going to the public library and reading books on your own for
>> your own education. No one is stopping you from saving your money and
>> investing it instead of spending it on drugs and alcohol."
>> Denial. Denial and blame. Refuse to accept that the System needs
>> reforming and turn the blame for failure back onto the victims.
>> Capitalism is never to blame, say its Worshipers, the blame is on all
>> of those lazy or drugged up bums. In fact, Capitalism also points the
>> finger at Government as being responsible for our troubles. And far
>> too often we go right along, believing that government is incompetent
>> or corrupt...or both, in spite of that same government being so
>> clever that it can build a mighty military force. And in the same
>> breath it can't solve its poverty issue? Does that mean that the
>> poverty exists because those living in poverty just are too damn lazy
>> or drugged up to care?
>> Remember, this nation was founded back in a time when Capitalism did
>> not exist.
>> It's high time we stopped allowing ourselves to be blamed for a
>> government that does not care about the majority of its people.
>> William tells us that we must be responsible for ourselves. But that
>> goes equally for the government. It must be held responsible for its
>> actions, too. At the moment the government is owned by Capitalism,
>> and it is responsible for keeping Capitalism in power.
>> We began as an Agrarian Class Structure. In Colonial America,
>> agriculture
>> was the primary livelihood for 90% of the population, and most towns
>> were shipping points for the export of agricultural products. Even
>> with the establishment of our Republic, democracy continued to govern
>> local politics. But with the advent of Capitalism, democracy was
>> unable to compete. As Capitalists began to gather enough wealth to
>> buy politicians, Capitalism spread like a cancer, eating up all the
>> wealth it touched.
>> The current System is not offering equal opportunity. The 1% of
>> Americans are in control of over 60% of the nation's wealth, and
>> growing. Laws are set to favor the wealthy. Courts are becoming far
>> too costly for the average citizen to use. Public holdings are being
>> given over to private corporations to exploit, and public services
>> such as the VA and Public Education is being Privatized. Even
>> sections of interstate highways are being sold to private foreign
>> interests. The mass media has long been the puppet of Capitalism.
>> Not only pushing products, but creating discontent and suspicion by
>> one group of citizens toward others. Union has become a dirty word.
>> Socialism is believed to be a sign of weakness. We are being taught
>> to live in "the now", and to "take care of ourselves first, last and
>> always". We even defend the right of the Capitalists to set our wages
>> and working conditions. Already we are faced with Corporations that
>> are Too Big To Fail. In other words, they are more powerful than the
>> government they should be answerable to. As this transference comes
>> to pass, Corporations will write their own rules, laws and
>> regulations. Corporations will replace those entities we now call
>> Nations. And as these Mega Corporations turn on one another, our
>> children will pledge allegiance to the Flag of their chosen
>> Corporation, and take up arms to defend it. But just like the Cancer
>> that it is, Capitalism will suck up all life until there is no more,
>> and then it too will die.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)