From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed May 4 19:14:27 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 23:14:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Chimp Channel than doing homework under the proposed plan. Last week's cover story for US News & Report, "Why Computers Fail As Teachers," even cited child experts saying as much, arguing that kids 7 and under are probably better off watching TV than playing computer. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000925/nycu/computers.htm Which reminds me, for an EXCELLENT critique of computer use in early education, see "The Computer Delusion" from Atlantic Monthly http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm For fear of boring everyone not in New York (and besides, I want to go watch LA Confidential...) , I'll spare you the details of the New York plan, some of which you can find in this less-than-stellar Village Voice column: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0032/murphy.shtml However, those curious to know more should email me and I'll gladly add you to our "action" list. Also please: --> Call School Board President William C. Thompson, Jr. at (718) 935-3300 and tell him you want to know more about this "Cyberspace" Deal! Let him know your concerns about the commercialism of education. Demand full public hearings and ask that approval of the business plan be delayed until the public can give feedback. --> Come to these School Board meetings (110 Livingston in Brooklyn): * Wed. Sept. 27, 1-3 p.m. * Wed. Oct. 18, 6 p.m. - - - - - - - LINKS OF THE MOMENT Pepsi has been classified alongside bombs, knives and other dangerous weapons by officials at the main Olympic Park venue in Sydney. http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/sport/story/0,3604,369810,00.html Post something worthwhile on Stay Free!'s bulletin board: http://discserver.snap.com/Indices/113575.html bye, carrie From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed May 4 19:14:27 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 23:14:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: old as mankind. In some cases, they are explicitly told that "advertisements in some shape or form have existed not only from time immemorial, but almost for all time," that it "flourished" three thousand years ago and "played an important role in the development of countless societies and cultures." Inserted amid such nonsense is "proof" in the form of examples. One encounters the same examples in one text after another. The repetition suggests a good deal of inbreeding or, perhaps, despite the statements to the contrary, the true paucity of advertisements in the ancient world. Further, many of the examples were not advertisements at all. Some were mere on-premise identifying signs. Others were personal selling. One text even claims that the wall inscriptions on Hammurabi's temple in Uruk were early examples of corporate billboard advertising, and that the Rosetta Stone was an early poster. Of course, one of the best ways to legitimatize anything is to say that it is as old as mankind-that, as Kleppner says of advertising, it is "human nature." An interesting variation on that theme is the inclusion of an out-of-context discussion of advertising in the Soviet Union-presumably to show that even communists can't get along without it. Only one text explains that advertising is associated with market activity and even more so with market economies, and that until very recently there was very little of the former and none of the latter. The explanation is far too brief, however, to enable the beginning student, who has never known anything but capitalism, to understand the fundamental differences. Every society, even a group of castaways, must cope with two basic economic problems: how to allocate scarce resources, and how to distribute output (wealth). By far, most of the "countless societies and cultures" humankind has developed during its time on this planet solved both of those problems according to principles of reciprocity, redistribution, and householding-types of economic organization in which there is no place for advertising. Reciprocity, simply, is gift-giving, according to traditional, well-defined patterns, so that every member of the society knows his assigned tasks and receives his rightful share of the wealth. Neither giver nor receiver has any reason to advertise. Redistribution is based on central authority, and functions much like the public sector of modern economies. The people, motivated by loyalty, respect, and ultimately by the threat of force, give some part of their produce to the leader as tribute or taxes. Some in turn is redistributed (hence the name) in the form of feasts, public works, and so forth. There is no need for advertising in this system, either. Householding is economic self-sufficiency by families or other small groups who produce for their own consumption, engaging in little or no exchange. The absence of need or opportunity to advertise is obvious. THE COMING OF ECONOMIC SOCIETY Since virtually all the texts fail to point out that the economies of the ancient world and medieval Europe were fundamentally different from modern free-enterprise capitalism, it is not surprising that little is said about the arrival of capitalism in the western world a few centuries ago, or about the historical forces associated with its birth, or even about how a capitalist economy is supposed to function. Although two texts mention the guilds in passing, not one mentions the Commercial Revolution. Nothing is said of the Reformation or of the Protestant Ethic and how it differed from the Catholic Church's view of commercial activity. The word "mercantilism" is not mentioned in a single text. Not one text mentions the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment, and only one discusses (too briefly) the classical liberal Weltanschau-ung and its important role in developing capitalism. Neither do the texts explain that, even after the market assumed an important role in Western economies, householding remained the predominant feature of economic life for the majority of the population. Much is made of Benjamin Franklin as though he exemplified the Americans of his day. But in Franklin's time it required many farmers to produce a sufficient surplus beyond their own needs to feed and clothe a single city dweller. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, more than 90 percent of the population lived on farms, householding. They sold their small surplus and bought the few things they could not produce, but money played a tiny part in their lives. They did not earn a living, they made a living. One New England farmer, far more typical of his contemporaries than was Franklin, wrote in his diary: My farm gave me and my whole family a good living on the produce. One year it left me with another $150 dollars, for I never spent more than ten dollars a year, which was for salt, nails and the like. Nothing to eat, drink, or wear was bought as my farm produced it all. So, while it was possible for authors to reproduce advertisements from early newspapers, their importance in the lives of the general population is exaggerated unless the reader is told how little advertising and commerce there were. Even among merchants, advertising was of little importance. As Max Weber said, "the advertisement as a notice by the merchant, directed toward finding a market, first becomes an established phenomenon at the end of the eighteenth century." He was speaking of England, where the Industrial Revolution was well underway by that time. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL ADVERTISING The Industrial Revolution not only made possible the quantity and forms of advertising we have today, it transformed every aspect of the economy and of life in general. From a society in which more than nine out of ten families lived substantially like the New England farmer quoted above, America became in only two lifetimes a society in which only one family in 25 lives on a farm. And that family, like those in towns and cities, earns rather than makes its living, selling virtually all its produce and buying virtually everything it consumes. Householding is now so rare as to be a curiosity, practiced only by those who have "dropped out" of society. Most of the texts do not note these effects, characterizing the Industrial Revolution merely as a period of increased production. Neither do the texts show how the Revolution led to national advertising, nor even that national advertising is fundamentally different from retail advertising-a matter I will discuss later. One book does mention the population growth of a few cities but fails to explain the significance of urbanization. Only at the end of the chapter does one find any reference to the most important changes of the Industrial Revolution, but merely in the form of a disconnected list of "Forces Behind the Facts." Thus the growth of the middle class is brushed off in a one-sentence afterthought, while P. T. Barnum receives two paragraphs. Most of the texts provide an even less satisfactory treatment of the Industrial Revolution. Continued at: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/18/norris.html -- Tech note: Email to my stayfreemagazine.org address often bounces, for whatever reason. If you email me and it comes back, send it to stay.free at verizon.net From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed May 4 19:14:27 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 23:14:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Some officials in the Bush administration have changed their mind about global warming and are finally acknowledging its existence. But now they're saying the problem is so bad, there's nothing they can do about it.