Well I be darned if Mr May hasn't inspired a major burst of eloquence, between this response and Mr Young's. As for this comment: "Schools don't educate, but merely serve as a filter for employers to locate those individuals who aren't going to make trouble at the factory." At best. In the inner cities the function of schools is strongly hinted at by the following well-used phrase: "Stay In School!" In other words, schools keep the crime rates down, as is a well-known statistic. They are basically storage facilities. For real schools we white folks with $$$ can move out to the suburbs or send our kids to private school. As for,
Nonetheless, I think we do such people a disservice when we attribute their dislike of the education business to some sort of culturally ingrained sloth, and characterize them as looking to live on handouts of other peoples tax money.
I basically agree with this, though no doubt there are "Leaders" that play on this (and the latent laziness of all teeneagers) to a tune similar to what May is saying. But in most cases, even "good" schools are a joke, and black folks at least realize this. Did anyone notice that there's only 1 or 2 states in the nation that still require Regents endorsements? I'll tell you a story. Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black. I regarded few of them as stupid, but almost none of them saw the point of studying math...they just didn't see how it could benefit them, and they said this to me on a regular basis. In one class I had some relatively young and non-troublemaking students. I told them from the beginning that I would not slip the standards so they could pass...they HAD to do homework in order to pass, as that would be the only way they could practice enough for the tests. For the first couple of tests all of the non-immigrant black kids failed. But I hammered them and told them it was going to continue like this unless they did the homework and studied. I made it absolutely clear what I expected from them. By the end of the semester most of the kids were doing their homework, and passing the quizzes and tests, which I did not make easier in any way. I remember Willie Horne coming in before a test and "complaining" "Mr Durden, I STUDIED last night!". I reached out to feel his forehead and said "Willie? Are you feelin' alright?" Of course, he pulled back and stifled a smile, but he got a 90. -TD
From: Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> To: cypherpunks@minder.net Subject: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Tim May observes:
Meanwhile, the "black folk" kept listening to Rev. Jess Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton tell them that they were owed reparations, that they were owed a series of "entitlements." No suprise that a large fraction of negro teens subscribe to the view that "reading be for whitey." In fact, negroes have invented a whole series of insult terms for those who study too much, for those who break out of the "field worker" status: Uncle Toms, Oreos, etc.
Imagine where the Asians would be if Asian kids who did well in science and math were taunted as race traitors?
"Math be for whitey. Reading be for whitey. We be owed repa-ations for diskiminashun!!"
In the real world, a society can not consist 100% of chip designers. It also requires cooks, toilet and floor scrubbers, and people who lug concrete in wheelbarrows up stairs.
This is no problem in a society with an explicit class system. You just assign jobs to people based on their social class, with the untouchables getting the shit-hauling and scrubbing jobs, and the more attractive jobs going to their betters. Some countries, like the US and Japan, have as a part of their political doctrine that everyone has the opportunity to be wealthy and successful, so they can't openly have a class system. Of course, they still need one to determine who gets the shit-hauling jobs, and the usual method of doing this is to hide the class system in the education system. Now you don't get the shit-hauling job because you are an untouchable. You get it because you "didn't do well" in school, or you "dropped out, and "you could have been successful if you had just tried harder."
Of course, it's a zero sum game. The bottom X% will always be shit-haulers, and the school is just making the proles fight with each other over who those shit-haulers will be. The fact is that the society can't make everyone successful, and the success of the few is at the expense of the failure of the many, determined by the uncompensated rat race and endless toil on the wheel of public education.
The US is an excellent example of this. The AFT and NEA together are the biggest labor organization in the country. THe school system functions not to educate, but as a tool of inculcation in collectivist thinking, and a awarder of certificates which give one the right to work.
Schools don't educate, but merely serve as a filter for employers to locate those individuals who aren't going to make trouble at the factory.
A well known experiment is to take some 10th graders, and divide them randomly into two groups. Send one to college, and make the others finish the remaining two years of high school. THere will be no statistically significant difference in their college performance, thus demonstrating that public schools do not teach, but merely act as filters through which only the most talented and sociable can pass.
Now, minorities in this country, including almost all Asians, and quite a few blacks, have gotten with this program that "education is the way out of poverty," and have successfully turned the vicious education-based class system to their advantage, by trying to beat the dominant class at their own game, with varying degrees of success. This has required them to refrain from criticizing the system itself, because no one wins a beauty contest by having a bad attitude.
I think that mentality is changing, and when you hear comments like "Reading be for whitey," what is being said is not that literacy and calculus and physics and chemistry are bad, in and of themselves, but that a system which rewards only "getting ahead by playing along" is not a arena in which these people choose to compete.
Learning by doing is always vastly superior to learning by listening to someone else talk about doing.
Now in a world where most jobs are not skilled people individually producing something in demand, but are the very lowest form of commoditized labor, the opportunity to screw such dissenters probably exceeds their ability to avoid being sent made to the back of the line.
Nonetheless, I think we do such people a disservice when we attribute their dislike of the education business to some sort of culturally ingrained sloth, and characterize them as looking to live on handouts of other peoples tax money.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
_________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:
I'll tell you a story.
Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black. I regarded few of them as stupid, but almost none of them saw the point of studying math...they just didn't see how it could benefit them, and they said this to me on a regular basis.
First, please stop including the full text of the message you are replying to. Learn to use an editor, whether you ultimately top-post or bottom-post to edited fragments. Second, we are fast-moving toward a society and economy where only those who _wanted_ to study math and science by the time they were in high school will have anything more than a menial, makework job. Now whether they go the full course and get a college degree or advanced degree is not so much the point as it is that they were intrinsically interested. So if a kid in high school can't see the "benefit" of studying math, he shouldn't be. It's as simple as that. The parallel I like is one we developed (in Ted Kaehler's nanotechnology study group in the early 90s) for looking at what a society and economy might look like where the costs of material production are as close to zero as one might imagine. That is, a society with full-blown general assemblers, i.e., von Neumann replicators at the molecular, mechano-synthesis, Drexler-type scale. How would goods be produced and sold? How would markets exist/ The analogy I drew, in an essay, and that Howard Landman, Ted Kaehler, Mike Korns, and others added to was this: * We already have an example of an entire town and an entire industry where essentially the costs of material production are nearly zero. * Namely, Hollywood. Film stock is essentially free...bits even more so. Cameras remain expensive, but are vastly less so than they were a decade ago. Basically, everything material in Hollywood is nearly free. What is expensive is the creative talent, the know-how, the ensembles of actors and directors and writers and all. (And writing is itself a perfect example of material abundance. All of the money is in the writing and distribution, virtually none of it in the materials, or in the low skill segment.) Which is why some writers and some Hollywood types make tens of millions a year and most don't. * The society we are heading towards is one of an increasingly sharp division between the "skilled and in demand" end of the spectrum and the bulk of droids who have few skills in demand. (I argued this, circa 1991-2, to a bunch of people who basically bought the line that technology would bring wealth to the masses, blah blah. I argued that yes, the masses would have great material goods, just as the masses today have color tvs in their cribs. But the big money would elude them. Libertarian rhetoric about everybody being wealthy is only meaningful in the sense that even the poorest today are wealthy by Roman or Middle Ages or even Renaissance standards. But the split between those with talents in demand--the Peter Jacksons, the Stephen Kings, the Tim Berners-Lees, etc. and the "reading be for whitey" and "I don't see any benefit to studying math" vast bulk will widen.) Much more could be said on this. I recall I wrote some long articles along these lines in the early years of the list. In conclusion, your Bedford-Stuy student who doesn't see the point to studying math will never be a math researcher, or a physicist, or a chemist, or anything else of that sort. So no point in trying to convince him to study his math. It's like convincing a kid to start writing so he'll stand a chance of being the next Stephen King: if he needs convincing, he won't be. The burnoff of useless eaters will be glorious. --Tim May
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:
I'll tell you a story.
Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford snip snip
Second, we are fast-moving toward a society and economy where only those who _wanted_ to study math and science by the time they were in high school will have anything more than a menial, makework job. Now whether they go the full course and get a college degree or advanced degree is not so much the point as it is that they were intrinsically interested.
Shoot, Sign me UP for that menial, makework job. For the first time in YEARS, I finally saw ditchdiggers at work, Guess it's finally cheaper again to use "guest workers" than to rent a ditchwitch. The equipment rental houses aren't too happy about that I'll bet. So much for the information super-hiway. The "guest workers" were pulling conduit for fiber through the muck. Mom always said I was going to be a ditch digger, I was cool with that. Turns out, that it made more sense to build equipment that did a much better job at ditching in less time than manual ditching. Nearly half a century later, I ended up a network administrator. Kinda like digging ditches, but not as healthy. Now, thanks to the Best and Brightest, The elite, and the fundamental masters of the universe, where all folks get what they deserve, Good honest, hard labor, that was so hard to find, -because it makes so much more sense to take that "can-do" redneck tool-spinning attitude and put it to work building equipment rather than wasting it on the task better served by equipment- is now back, and back in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported. For a short while, it was almost possible to earn a living wage doing real work. Oh well, that's all over now. As for math and physics, I like to say I "audited Feyman's freshman physics lecture series" because I bought the CDs and listend to them alot, but without a good functional understanding of physics and math, you are not as able to do good, productive physical work, be that swamping, or ditch digging. On the other hand, I have always thought that someone who can sink a 16d nail in 3 swings of a hammer is a damned site more useful in a *society* than yet still another chip designer. We got to the fucking moon without chip designers, and what have we done since? nothing worth remembering.
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:48, cubic-dog wrote:
in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported.
This kind of rhetoric is extremely irritating. If they can be deported, they are neither slaves or indentured servants. If they voluntarily came to this country, and voluntarily accepted 90 cents/hr,
Aargh, damn computer... I apologize for my incomplete post. On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 00:20, bgt wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:48, cubic-dog wrote:
in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported.
This kind of rhetoric is extremely irritating. If they can be deported, they are neither slaves or indentured servants.
If they voluntarily came to this country, and voluntarily accepted 90 cents/hr,
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 00:20, bgt wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:48, cubic-dog wrote:
in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported.
This kind of rhetoric is extremely irritating. If they can be deported, they are neither slaves or indentured servants.
... Anyway... "be productive or be deported" does not constitute slavery, and neither does the fact that someone is willing to work for substantially less than you. In fact, it is only Free people who can sell their product (including their own labor) for whatever they want (and, obviously, that someone will pay). --bgt
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 00:20, bgt wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:48, cubic-dog wrote:
in force, because, we finally get slave, indentured servants who will either take the 90 cents and hour or be deported.
This kind of rhetoric is extremely irritating. If they can be deported, they are neither slaves or indentured servants.
... Anyway... "be productive or be deported" does not constitute
I don't think I said that, you put it in quotes, implying I did. It's an okay paraphrase though, so we'll take it like that. More like I said, without regard to what you DEALT for, the is no impetus on the "man" to pay what was agreed to. If you don't like it, you will be deported. This does a nice job of creating a new, even lower class. It substantially lowers the bar for wage negotiation. The US Department of Labor has already published guides for business outlining how to avoid paying overtime. http://www.thetip.org/art_689_icle.html This new work of the Bush, just really helps cap the issue. The ditch diggers in question, were -as a group- being paid (I asked) $500 to put in that run of conduit. As there were six of them, and it took a couple of days, well, do the math. Much cheaper than renting a ditchwitch and operator. They had done this before, and would do it again. Some runs go better than others, and I'll be some days they might actually make as much as a 7/11 clerk. But not many. What happens when the "man" arbitrarily decides to stiff them from their payment? Will the labor department come to mitigate? Or will immigration come to deport? What's more likely under the proposed "guest worker" rule?
slavery, and neither does the fact that someone is willing to work for substantially less than you. In fact, it is only Free people who can sell their product (including their own labor) for whatever they want (and, obviously, that someone will pay).
Who can sell their labour for whatever they want? I am only aware of folks who can sell their labour for what the market will bear. As long as they only want the status quo, well, then that's fine. When the market will only bear 90p, Well, making the note on the townhouse is gonna be kinda tricky, ain't it?
--bgt
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 14:15, cubic-dog wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:
... Anyway... "be productive or be deported" does not constitute
I don't think I said that, you put it in quotes, implying I did. It's an okay paraphrase though, so we'll take it like that.
Yes, it was intended as a paraphrase.
More like I said, without regard to what you DEALT for, the is no impetus on the "man" to pay what was agreed to. If you don't like it, you will be deported. This does a nice job of creating
For currently illegal immigrants, you're right: the contract (the agreement to do x work for y money is a contract, however informal) is illegal and so unenforceable. This leaves these workers open to theft by "stiffing" as you put it. The guest worker program will legalize these immigrants (for a period of time), so the contract will be legal and become enforceable. Why do you think the guest worker program will make it worse in this regard for currently illegal immigrants? This is the weakest objection to this program I've heard yet.
The ditch diggers in question, were -as a group- being paid (I asked) $500 to put in that run of conduit. As there were six of them, and it took a couple of days, well, do the math.
Much cheaper than renting a ditchwitch and operator.
They had done this before, and would do it again. Some runs go better than others, and I'll be some days they might actually make as much as a 7/11 clerk. But not many.
If both parties agreed and adhered to these terms, I see no problem with any of that. Employers and employees should be free to negotiate their own terms without the coercive interference by the State (via minimum wage, overtime, maximum work week, etc regulations).
What happens when the "man" arbitrarily decides to stiff them from their payment?
Will the labor department come to mitigate? Or will immigration come to deport?
What's more likely under the proposed "guest worker" rule?
See above for my answers to this.
for substantially less than you. In fact, it is only Free people who can sell their product (including their own labor) for whatever they want (and, obviously, that someone will pay).
Who can sell their labour for whatever they want? I am only aware of folks who can sell their labour for what the market will bear.
Oh please, did you not read the last 6 words of my sentence? "(and, obviously, that someone will pay)" means "what the market will bear". Of *course* there has to be a willing buyer to complete the transaction. --bgt
On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:51 PM, bgt wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 14:15, cubic-dog wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote:
... Anyway... "be productive or be deported" does not constitute
I don't think I said that, you put it in quotes, implying I did. It's an okay paraphrase though, so we'll take it like that.
Yes, it was intended as a paraphrase.
More like I said, without regard to what you DEALT for, the is no impetus on the "man" to pay what was agreed to. If you don't like it, you will be deported. This does a nice job of creating
For currently illegal immigrants, you're right: the contract (the agreement to do x work for y money is a contract, however informal) is illegal and so unenforceable. This leaves these workers open to theft by "stiffing" as you put it.
Most workers are paid bimonthly, and many are paid weekly. Some day laborers are even paid daily. This makes the "float" a maximum of a couple of weeks, and more likely a week or less. Any laborer who has not been paid can walk away and be out the week or less in pay. (Personally, I would not want to be an employer who stiffed a Mexican...one might find one's tires slashed or one's daughter's throat slashed ear to ear...or just a bullet in the dark. This kind of "stiffing" such as you two are debating almost never happens, for various good reasons.
The guest worker program will legalize these immigrants (for a period of time), so the contract will be legal and become enforceable. Why do you think the guest worker program will make it worse in this regard for currently illegal immigrants? This is the weakest objection to this program I've heard yet.
The wholesale opening of the door to those who "cut in line" (ahead of those from England, Denmark, Romania, India, etc. who waited patiently in line by submitting their immigration requests) is deplorable. Either open the borders or not, but surely don't reward those who cut in line. Oh, and the march of 2.5 million Mexicans and Latins from the south is already underway...they got the message the last time when the Simpson-Mazzoli "one time amnesty, just this one time!" happened, and millions more arrived. Now that the new Mexican immigration is happening, several million more will arrive. By the way, there is no acceptable hospital in the region near me because "legal but won't pay their bills" Mexicans have utterly swamped the W*ts*nv*ll* Community Hospital. It is unable to collect from those who show up at its emergency room (and must be treated, by law) that it is now running short on so many things that it is not safe to use. (They'll probably threaten to sue me, so I'll disguise the above name.) I'd favor letting all in who want to get in, provided nobody demands that I pay for any services for them. Any services, not just "few" services. There are a couple of billion in the world who would gladly come to America if the borders were open...I'm not exaggerating at all. Between 1 and 2 billion, at least. Let them come. But let them starve when 950 million of them find no work and a limit to charity by the do-gooder minority. Let piles of their corpses fertilize our crops...it's why God made bulldozers.
--Tim May "Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" --Unknown Usenet Poster
participants (4)
-
bgt -
cubic-dog -
Tim May -
Tyler Durden