Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by bricktop, Jan 17, 2017.
Are you Karl Marx?
Many of those questions are the same you get on the politicalcompass.org site and damn near most non-hardcore right wing inbreds, at least that I've come across, wind up in the leftist categories. I think your political leanings are way too complicated to answer in 40 questions, but at the same time I think that this is where so many of us slam on heads against the wall at how a single payer government ran healthcare system is now popular but you can't even get Nancy Pelosi to show a spine even once and acknowledge it.
If you frame issues of higher taxes on the rich and social service funding as altruistic you get massive buy-in.
(insert overton curve)
Yeah and it even has few of those questions were I'm not sure what they were getting at like the left right plot one. For instance the one that said something like "the government should do what is correct, even if it's not popular" which I could see going in a bunch of different directions so I just stayed neutral on that one
What kind of list did I put myself on by taking that quiz?
Truman ordered the deficit myth and sent it to my friend. We will see how it goes.
The one where everyone on it gets tons of pussy
Oh god its going to happen too
Yeah but she is the first girl boss.
I need this translated to me
Army recruiters and pedos on discord agree on the quoted sentiment
What does it mean
I hate this so so much
You Can’t Trust the Businessmen on the Board of Trustees
A century ago, Thorstein Veblen explained why
The Granger Collection
Just over a century ago, the same year that the Spanish flu struck millions around the world, the American sociologist Thorstein Veblen diagnosed a malady of a different sort: the control of universities by businessmen. “Plato’s classic scheme of folly,” he wrote, “which would have the philosophers take over the management of affairs, has been turned on its head; the men of affairs have taken over the direction of the pursuit of knowledge. To anyone who will take a dispassionate look at this modern arrangement it looks foolish, of course — ingeniously foolish.”
Veblen was the first sociologist of academe to notice the enormous and pernicious power wielded by university trustees from the business world. Many criticize the inflated salaries and power of university administrators and presidents, but for the first time in recent history there is a growing recognition that universities should not be run by the corporate executives who sit on their boards of trustees. Many academics are perpetually shocked by the depredations of corporate boards — the defunding of university presses, the adjunctification of the faculty, and the evisceration of the liberal arts — but Veblen would not have been surprised. The thesis he defended in 1918 is still true today: Scientific and scholarly inquiry are incompatible with the business values of profit maximization, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.
Boards of trustees still have almost complete authority to choose university presidents, and determine budget allocations and the administrative structure of the university.
Today, Veblen is best remembered for his Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), in which he coined the term "conspicuous consumption." But we ought also to remember him for The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men, his prescient study of American higher education, first published in 1918. He observed the destructive effects of many phenomena that could easily come from contemporary headlines: extravagant salaries for athletic coaches and presidents, efforts by administrators to privilege campus amenities and nonacademic diversions, increasing reliance on underpaid part-time instructors, the elimination of core requirements under the mantra of student choice, overreliance on dubious statistical measures of teaching and learning efficiency, a vast proliferation of bureaucratic administrators, and the substitution of careerism for the pursuit of knowledge.
When Veblen published The Higher Learning, wealthy industrial barons were funneling their fortunes into a new system of higher education, and the universities where Veblen worked — Cornell, the University of Chicago, Stanford — were all founded by the wealth of the new American Gilded Age. Ezra Cornell was a telegraph mogul, John D. Rockefeller an oil magnate, and Leland Stanford a railroad tycoon. The 20th-century American university was built by a new type of patron.
Veblen saw that the wealth of industrial capitalism promoted universities dedicated to advancing business interests. This led to an irresolvable contradiction between “the pursuit of learning and the work of preparation for the professions,” since “the training given by these two lines of endeavor — science and business — is wholly divergent.” While the pursuit of wealth seeks profit and prestige, the pursuit of knowledge seeks the fulfillment of curiosity.
This contradiction is what Richard F. Teichgraeber III, editor of the 2015 edition of The Higher Education, calls the “thesis of cultural incompatibility.” In Veblen’s time, this contradiction manifested itself in the university’s adoption of new managerial forms of training and evaluation. Letter grades and course-credits were introduced to provide precise calculations of intellectual inquiry; the current dominance of standardized and multiple-choice testing is largely an inheritance of the same early 20th-century “science” of management that nearly all universities now accept. Veblen protested the use of letter grades and statistical appraisals of knowledge or learning; he would randomly switch As to Cs and vice versa. "My grades are like lightning," he once said. "They are liable to strike anywhere."
While such protests might appear quixotic, they stem from Veblen’s decades-long study of the sociology of higher education. Veblen’s pedagogy, like his scholarship, takes a stand against the corporatization of the pursuit of knowledge. When boards of trustees are almost entirely composed of “bankers” and “businessmen,” business values control the very functioning of the university itself: its financial structure, the nature of campus life, and its ultimate purpose. Veblen believed the encroachment of these values must be fought on every front.
Such a sweeping critique of the university might sound anachronistic. But contemporary statistics tell an alarming story. Today, on the boards of trustees at the universities where Veblen worked, business professionals — almost exclusively corporate financiers and "businessmen," with little to no experience in higher education — make up over 80 percent of governing boards. Faculty members make up less than 2 percent of the board of trustees at Yale, Cornell, Stanford, and the University of Chicago. Corporate financiers and business professionals outnumber the faculty by a magnitude greater than 100 to 4. Boards of trustees still have almost complete authority to choose university presidents, determine budget allocations, and set the administrative structure of the university.
These trustees bring the managerial models of the business world, prioritizing growth, customer satisfaction, and optics. Thus colleges are transformed into vocational schools under the mantra of practicality; undergraduates are entertained with “scholastic accessories” that prepare them to live lives of conspicuous consumption; and the university — because it is modeled on the culture of business — becomes committed to the all-consuming manufacture of prestige, publicity, and the management of endowments.
Boards of trustees should include undergraduates, graduate students, community members, and professors from all departments.
Corporate influence also directly affects the nature of scholarly research. To take just one example, research on psychiatric medication is routinely funded and shaped by the corporations who sell these medications. As John P.A. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford’s School of Medicine, wrote in an article in 2011, “Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. . . . This is an embarrassment. Increased investment in evidence-based clinical and population research, for instance, should be designed not by industry but by scientists free of material conflicts of interest.”
In a time of crisis, it’s tempting merely to identify the disparate symptoms of dysfunction without perceiving a fundamental cure or cause. Veblen, however, suggests that there is one principal disease at the heart of higher education — the businessmen who hold near complete power over the university. If we want to champion a democratic higher education, we must also democratize the composition of boards of trustees. They should include undergraduates, graduate students, community members, and professors from all departments. If universities want to preserve a distinctive identity based on the pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of intellectual curiosity and freedom, the values of corporate America cannot be allowed to permeate the academy.
Otherwise, the postpandemic university will be shaped entirely in the image of the boards of trustees. Already, faculty, staff, and students across the country are being asked to bear the burden of drastic austerity measures which aim to further restructure higher education. Veblen teaches us that there is an unavoidable conflict between the interests of businessmen and the interests of knowledge. The pandemic will force us to choose which side we are on.
Nick Romeo writes for The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and many other publications. Follow him @Nickromeoauthor. Ian Tewksbury, a Classics Ph.D. student at Stanford University, researches ancient philosophy and also writes for the Daily Beast and Newsweek. Follow him @TewksburyIan.
This framing is gd fire
AT&T argues being misleading about data plans isn't misleading because reporters caught them
Ajit Pai is a lawyer, which begs the question: What exactly IS intelligence?
One of the grand tricks the telecom industry was able to achieve by getting its henchman, Ajit Pai, into the majority chairman position in the FCC was to kill net neutrality protections. The most special part of this was Pai’s argument that the FCC did not have the power to enforce, and should not have the power to enforce, any regulations on the telecommunications landscape. Of course, this was something that Pai then argued against when states like California and local governments began taking the argument to its logical conclusion and moving towards creating consumer protections for their citizens. It has also meant that any move Pai and his worthless FCC have made is merely a suggestion that most internet service providers (ISP) can ignore depending on how they’re feeling.
One of the battles fought before Trump came to office and destroyed net neutrality protections was getting companies like AT&T and Verizon to pony up for misleading consumers about their “unlimited” data plans. These plans would subsequently get throttled (i.e., the consumer’s service would be greatly slowed down) if the person paying for the unlimited plan had the audacity to take advantage and try to use their unlimited data. The point of actions like the FCC’s 2014 lawsuit against AT&T was to point out that you cannot tell consumers something is “unlimited” and then put very real caps and limits on it. That is, by definition, fraud.
In 2019, AT&T was able to settle with Ajit Pai’s FCC for a “wrist slap” of $60 million while being allowed to say they admitted no fault on their part. Keep in mind that in 2015, AT&T was fined $100 million by a Democratic-led FCC for the very same behavior.
In the neutered FCC era under Trump, cities and states have had to band together to sue the big telecommunications companies in order to try and get some consumer satisfaction. They have had to fight against the FCC, a body that is supposed to be on the consumer’s side, at every turn. TechDirt reports that AT&T is taking the “nothing is real” propaganda of our current White House administration and FCC into the court room to fight against its decades of consumer abuses and misleading advertising.
In a May filing, AT&T now argues that because reporters and other consumer watchdogs were reporting on the telecom giant’s misleading and abusive behavior towards consumers by offering up “unlimited” plans that were everything except “unlimited,” they can’t be have been misleading. You see how that works? People reported on AT&T throttling the speeds of consumers with unlimited plans, and therefore these things weren’t a secret!
AT&T promised cheap TV service in order to get their merger through: They just ended that
AT&T is a prime example of how the conservative economic view of the world does not work out for anyone other than the top one percent. After being gifted tens of billions of dollars in the Republican tax giveaway, the telecom giant has proceeded to layoff thousands upon thousands of workers. In fact, since the 2017 tax “cuts,” every couple of months AT&T announces new rounds of layoffs and store closures. When AT&T was set to merge with Time Warner at the beginning of 2017, the Trump administration put up a big theatrical production about being tough on the clear monopoly, all the while never really having any seeming intention of blocking it. In fact, it came out later that many of Trump’s closest allies were wetting their beaks, getting some of that famed pay to play money behind the scenes, from AT&T.
There were all kinds of reasons to not allow AT&T and Time Warner to merge, not least of all the terrible track record that AT&T (and frankly every other telecom in the United States) has of failing to complete any of the promises they make. Promises they break when taking taxpayer money to do things like deliver low-income internet access. But AT&T made a lot of promises and they got their merger through. Now, Jared Newman over at Fast Company reports that AT&T promise to offer up a cheap streaming service, Watch TV, has been abandoned. In one respect, having offered the service for over a year, AT&T almost tripled the amount of time it pretended to keep one of its promises!
In order to get the merger through, AT&T argued that there would not be price hikes—there have been and continue to be relentless price hikes. They promised that their ownership of the new content they would acquire in the merger would not lead to leveraging that content to drive viewership away from other streaming services in competition with them—that was a lie.
AT&T’s merger has not helped the telecom company make the television splash they had hoped. The billions in debt that they acquired in the merger has been the main reason cited for the tens of thousands of layoffs they have made over the past two years. Maybe they just need another $42 billion tax break?
June 25th called...
If it wasn’t in the 8 Political Values Test, I didn’t see it. ;-)
guess i need to read this book