prole

Link.

BEWARE!!!

Jay's graph illustrates a point, it just doesn't include any data that's relevant to a discussion about inequalities in access to education (the discussion at hand). Where is the difficulty here?

You don't, and that's the point.

THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME!!

It's all about emotion. And then insulting the other side. Judging from the chart above, it looks like it's still about dodging questions about equality of access and what that's likely to look like as costs continue to outstrip the ability for many people to pay.

Ideology posing as science is awesome. "We're all good then? The chicken and the egg thang? Check. Can't know anything, y'all got that, right? So the status quo is good to go? Cool, I'm out!" Is it bizarre how Jay's "findings" never result in anything other than re-validation of the status quo? Amazing stuff!

Homeopathics!

"Hey, I know this guy, he didn't go to college but he's real smart." Apparently, "the math" is unnecessary on this one...

We're talking bakeries on every corner, yo!

Don't get me wrong, I'm psyched that those folks can get back to doing whatever it is they were doing and free up some resources better spent somewhere else. But after spending time in Los Angeles over the last couple years and seeing plenty of the homeless and destitute with joints to their lips instead of pints of MD 20/20, I'm skeptical about the broader impacts. Real good marijuana-infused baked goods down there though...

Nobody argued that. The shelf-life of any discussion will last longer when words aren't put in people's mouths. But yes of course, content is important. The single minded focus on math and science in primary education and the corporatization of the university system isn't doing us any favors when it comes to the subjects that contribute to a wider field of understanding.

Market Democracy: No public, no citizenry necessary. Just technocrats and consumers.

And it's funny, looking back now with Germany's success in navigating the new global economy in mind, it appears that none of the above was actually as inevitable as the globo-cheerleaders now make it sound....

Hoo-boy, things sure have changed haven't they? I'm surprised you didn't notice some of the key differences between then and now given that you were such a keen promoter of the neoliberal globalization that accounts for many of those differences. Then, university systems and the access to them developed in tandem with a dynamic American capitalism that required educated scientists, engineers and middle managers within a kind of managed capitalism that actually gave a fuck if workers could buy its products. Those workers, though struggles for better wages and benefits and leisure time and the development of a consumer capitalism that catered to them actually did resemble the noble savage you invoke. College actually could be a kind of take it or leave it proposition when labor intensive industries, employing large numbers of people organized to protect wage gains, health and benefits reigned supreme. Now, in the hyper-competitive global economy and the widening gaps between skilled, educated managers, marketers, tech and content providers and the postindustrial, increasingly redundant population of low wage service providers providing services to service providers, college (and you better bet your ass the more the better) is pretty much a must. BTW, ranking the end of Prohibition with women's suffrage and Civil Rights? Total douche move, bro...

Correlation or Causality? No supporting data, so no problem! Typical Jay: muddy the waters, obfuscate the obvious, paralyze with pseudo-science and selective relativism. "Is education good, really? Have you considered the chicken and the egg? How can we ever really know anything, really?" They're creepy and they're kooky, Mysterious and spooky...

The Myth of Market as Neutral Exchange Between Equal Parties. A contextless, ahistorical, mechanistic model. It's all voluntary!

Which people? In your work, don't you operate under the assumption that everyone should have equal protections under the law? Maybe I misunderstood you, but your statements on this board implied that you thought everyone should have access to health care. Maybe our fields of should are just more or less wide. As far as politics go, politics (when defined as a field of struggle over power) is all there is, I've never posted anything here that would suggest otherwise.

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

Maybe a celebrity endorsement from Jon Stewart would do the trick!

If that's how you feel, then it sounds like we're mostly misunderstanding each other. I'm neither arguing that our present compares to the Dark Ages (though the global ecological picture is certainly worse than it's ever been in human history) or that we should look to replicate an imagined past (though it's clear America is in generational decline). What I am arguing is that in terms of medium-term trends (30-50 years) we are witnessing a number of interrelated crises generated from, yes the dominant, very specific paradigm of laissez-faire capitalism. And you are exactly right, apart from rolling back the deregulation, privatization, concentrated corporate political power, America's role as policeman for global capital, etc. we (by we I mean the broad Left) lacks the kind of vision and program necessary both for instituting these reforms and long term paradigm change. What is frustrating is that, in the absence of a programs and strategies capable of presenting immediate solutions that offer real alternatives to the status quo, much of the broad Left is simply accepting the narratives and prescriptions presented by the very same actors that created and seek to benefit from crisis. Further austerity, diminished life expectations, acceptance of a cynical and debased political system coupled with a narrowed definition of freedom visited upon citizenry that frankly hasn't really benefited from the wealth that was created, are not really answers in the immediate, medium, or long term. If you care about people and in long term change, and it sounds like you do, then it's as much up to you to imagine and present visions, strategies, and solutions that challenge the current configurations of power instead demanding ones cut from whole cloth and then turning away from your better impulses when they're not forthcoming.

How does one square this statement: ...with this one:

I would think free-marketeers would be the biggest advocates for education given the burden they place on individuals for knowing absolutely everything before they can come to a rational decision about anything.

You're a real gem.

What's Michelle Bachmann's position on all this?