Britney Spears on Wall Street? AIG Bonuses and the End of Trickle Down Economics
Dr Mark Naison
Fordham University
The revelation that AIG has paid out more that 185 million dollars in bonuses after receiving 170 billion in bailout money, much of it to going to employees of the London Unit whose credit default swaps helped created the world financial crisis, has aroused outrage and disbelief among millions of America, from the President and Congress down to the press and ordinary citizens
So great has been the outrage that in less than two days after the bonuses were made public, the House of Representatives passed a bill slapping a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees making over $250,000 in any financial institution that has received more than 5 billion dollars in bailout funds
What is most amazing to me is that executives of AIG, and officials in the Treasury Department in both the Bush and Obama administrations, didn't anticipate the level of public revulsion these bonuses would inspire. They were more worried about lawsuits by AIG employees and defections of AIG financial
"wizards" ( even though they were the very people who contributed most to the crisis) than they were about the political fallout of using taxpayer money to reward executives of a failing companies.
Wall Street insiders all, they did not understand that the world they had lived in for the last twenty years, where the accumulation of enormous wealth was not only viewed as just compensation for talent and hard work, but the best way to assure prosperity for all, had suddenly come crashing down. Not only did Americans no longer see Wall Street "Masters of the Universe" as people who assured full employment and economic growth, they increasingly saw them as unfeeling, self interested predators who continued to enrich themselves while people lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.
Because the new executive AIG, Edward Libby, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both were products of an extraordinarily insular Wall Street culture, they could not imagine how much people like them were hated, and how much they were under a scrutiny once reserved for entertainers athletes and politicians Since they lived, worked, went on vacation, and served on boards of corporations and on profit organizations with other Wall Street people, they viewed bonuses as an excellent way to reward and motivate talented, civic minded people. To them, bonus money was not only necessary to fuel the expensive Wall Street lifestyle, needed to pay mortgages on homes and apartments, and keep kids in private school, it was a critical ingredient of New York's financial health, creating employment for an army of nannies, house cleaners, restaurant workers and personal trainers, while funneling much needed contributions to museums, hospitals, universities and a host of other non profits providing critical services to the city's poor and needy
For years, media figures, heads of non profit organizations and political leaders in both parties had welcomed the explosion of Wall Street bonus money and had hailed it as a critical engine of New York's revival . It was impossible to imagine that in six short months, those receiving bonus money would go from objects of public admiration, even heroes of a sort, to objects of suspicion, derision and contempt, their every move scrutinized, and their every misstep publicized, as if they were Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears
But that is exactly what has happened. As bank after bank has collapsed, requiring enormous infusions of government money to keep them afloat, and the economy has plunged into the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people have lost their faith in Trickle Down Economics
What has trickled down to them, as some of the largest corporations in the nation have collapsed, is unemployment, lost savings, plunging house values and shattered dreams of a secure retirement. As they struggle to buy food, keep the electricity on, stay in their homes and their apartments, pay medical bills and make sure their kids stay in school, the last thing they want to hear about is brokers and executives in companies kept alive by government funding, flying in private jets, buying expensive furniture, or getting bonuses for activities that drove their companies to the brink of failure.
As ordinary Americans make unprecedented sacrifices just to keep themselves housed and clothed and fed, they want to see comparable sacrifices from people in positions of leadership, especially those who getting subsidized by their hard earned tax money.
They understand something that their counterparts understood 70 years ago, during the heart of the Great Depression- that there is no way of getting out of an economic crisis this severe unless we are all in this together and that the wealth of the society must be shared, not hoarded at the top
An economy is more than a set of mechanical processes that assure the distribution of goods and services, it is also a moral framework for human interaction that people must accept if it is to work
properly Right now, the moral framework of our economy is broken, and people have lost their faith that its normal functioning will produce just outcomes or assure them a minimum of economic security In this very dangerous time, it would serve people in positions of leadership well to make sure that if they are asking sacrifices by ordinary citizens, they will be asking comparable, or greater sacrifices of economic elites.
The AIG bonus debacle ought to put wealthy Americas, especially those working for companies receiving government subsidies, on notice- everything they do is being watched!
They would be wise to comport themselves accordingly and set a standard of frugality in their private lives that fairness and generosity in their public lives, that would elicit admiration rather than contempt.
Mark Naison
March 20,2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Britney Spears on Wall Street? AIG Bonuses and the End of Trickle Down Economics
Britney Spears on Wall Street? AIG Bonuses and the End of Trickle Down Economics
Dr Mark Naison
Fordham University
The revelation that AIG has paid out more that 185 million dollars in bonuses after receiving 170 billion in bailout money, much of it to going to employees of the London Unit whose credit default swaps helped created the world financial crisis, has aroused outrage and disbelief among millions of America, from the President and Congress down to the press and ordinary citizens
So great has been the outrage that in less than two days after the bonuses were made public, the House of Representatives passed a bill slapping a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees making over $250,000 in any financial institution that has received more than 5 billion dollars in bailout funds
What is most amazing to me is that executives of AIG, and officials in the Treasury Department in both the Bush and Obama administrations, didn't anticipate the level of public revulsion these bonuses would inspire. They were more worried about lawsuits by AIG employees and defections of AIG financial
"wizards" ( even though they were the very people who contributed most to the crisis) than they were about the political fallout of using taxpayer money to reward executives of a failing companies.
Wall Street insiders all, they did not understand that the world they had lived in for the last twenty years, where the accumulation of enormous wealth was not only viewed as just compensation for talent and hard work, but the best way to assure prosperity for all, had suddenly come crashing down. Not only did Americans no longer see Wall Street "Masters of the Universe" as people who assured full employment and economic growth, they increasingly saw them as unfeeling, self interested predators who continued to enrich themselves while people lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.
Because the new executive AIG, Edward Libby, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both were products of an extraordinarily insular Wall Street culture, they could not imagine how much people like them were hated, and how much they were under a scrutiny once reserved for entertainers athletes and politicians Since they lived, worked, went on vacation, and served on boards of corporations and on profit organizations with other Wall Street people, they viewed bonuses as an excellent way to reward and motivate talented, civic minded people. To them, bonus money was not only necessary to fuel the expensive Wall Street lifestyle, needed to pay mortgages on homes and apartments, and keep kids in private school, it was a critical ingredient of New York's financial health, creating employment for an army of nannies, house cleaners, restaurant workers and personal trainers, while funneling much needed contributions to museums, hospitals, universities and a host of other non profits providing critical services to the city's poor and needy
For years, media figures, heads of non profit organizations and political leaders in both parties had welcomed the explosion of Wall Street bonus money and had hailed it as a critical engine of New York's revival . It was impossible to imagine that in six short months, those receiving bonus money would go from objects of public admiration, even heroes of a sort, to objects of suspicion, derision and contempt, their every move scrutinized, and their every misstep publicized, as if they were Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears
But that is exactly what has happened. As bank after bank has collapsed, requiring enormous infusions of government money to keep them afloat, and the economy has plunged into the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people have lost their faith in Trickle Down Economics
What has trickled down to them, as some of the largest corporations in the nation have collapsed, is unemployment, lost savings, plunging house values and shattered dreams of a secure retirement. As they struggle to buy food, keep the electricity on, stay in their homes and their apartments, pay medical bills and make sure their kids stay in school, the last thing they want to hear about is brokers and executives in companies kept alive by government funding, flying in private jets, buying expensive furniture, or getting bonuses for activities that drove their companies to the brink of failure.
As ordinary Americans make unprecedented sacrifices just to keep themselves housed and clothed and fed, they want to see comparable sacrifices from people in positions of leadership, especially those who getting subsidized by their hard earned tax money.
They understand something that their counterparts understood 70 years ago, during the heart of the Great Depression- that there is no way of getting out of an economic crisis this severe unless we are all in this together and that the wealth of the society must be shared, not hoarded at the top
An economy is more than a set of mechanical processes that assure the distribution of goods and services, it is also a moral framework for human interaction that people must accept if it is to work
properly Right now, the moral framework of our economy is broken, and people have lost their faith that its normal functioning will produce just outcomes or assure them a minimum of economic security In this very dangerous time, it would serve people in positions of leadership well to make sure that if they are asking sacrifices by ordinary citizens, they will be asking comparable, or greater sacrifices of economic elites.
The AIG bonus debacle ought to put wealthy Americas, especially those working for companies receiving government subsidies, on notice- everything they do is being watched!
They would be wise to comport themselves accordingly and set a standard of frugality in their private lives that fairness and generosity in their public lives, that would elicit admiration rather than contempt.
Mark Naison
March 20,2009
Dr Mark Naison
Fordham University
The revelation that AIG has paid out more that 185 million dollars in bonuses after receiving 170 billion in bailout money, much of it to going to employees of the London Unit whose credit default swaps helped created the world financial crisis, has aroused outrage and disbelief among millions of America, from the President and Congress down to the press and ordinary citizens
So great has been the outrage that in less than two days after the bonuses were made public, the House of Representatives passed a bill slapping a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees making over $250,000 in any financial institution that has received more than 5 billion dollars in bailout funds
What is most amazing to me is that executives of AIG, and officials in the Treasury Department in both the Bush and Obama administrations, didn't anticipate the level of public revulsion these bonuses would inspire. They were more worried about lawsuits by AIG employees and defections of AIG financial
"wizards" ( even though they were the very people who contributed most to the crisis) than they were about the political fallout of using taxpayer money to reward executives of a failing companies.
Wall Street insiders all, they did not understand that the world they had lived in for the last twenty years, where the accumulation of enormous wealth was not only viewed as just compensation for talent and hard work, but the best way to assure prosperity for all, had suddenly come crashing down. Not only did Americans no longer see Wall Street "Masters of the Universe" as people who assured full employment and economic growth, they increasingly saw them as unfeeling, self interested predators who continued to enrich themselves while people lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.
Because the new executive AIG, Edward Libby, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both were products of an extraordinarily insular Wall Street culture, they could not imagine how much people like them were hated, and how much they were under a scrutiny once reserved for entertainers athletes and politicians Since they lived, worked, went on vacation, and served on boards of corporations and on profit organizations with other Wall Street people, they viewed bonuses as an excellent way to reward and motivate talented, civic minded people. To them, bonus money was not only necessary to fuel the expensive Wall Street lifestyle, needed to pay mortgages on homes and apartments, and keep kids in private school, it was a critical ingredient of New York's financial health, creating employment for an army of nannies, house cleaners, restaurant workers and personal trainers, while funneling much needed contributions to museums, hospitals, universities and a host of other non profits providing critical services to the city's poor and needy
For years, media figures, heads of non profit organizations and political leaders in both parties had welcomed the explosion of Wall Street bonus money and had hailed it as a critical engine of New York's revival . It was impossible to imagine that in six short months, those receiving bonus money would go from objects of public admiration, even heroes of a sort, to objects of suspicion, derision and contempt, their every move scrutinized, and their every misstep publicized, as if they were Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears
But that is exactly what has happened. As bank after bank has collapsed, requiring enormous infusions of government money to keep them afloat, and the economy has plunged into the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people have lost their faith in Trickle Down Economics
What has trickled down to them, as some of the largest corporations in the nation have collapsed, is unemployment, lost savings, plunging house values and shattered dreams of a secure retirement. As they struggle to buy food, keep the electricity on, stay in their homes and their apartments, pay medical bills and make sure their kids stay in school, the last thing they want to hear about is brokers and executives in companies kept alive by government funding, flying in private jets, buying expensive furniture, or getting bonuses for activities that drove their companies to the brink of failure.
As ordinary Americans make unprecedented sacrifices just to keep themselves housed and clothed and fed, they want to see comparable sacrifices from people in positions of leadership, especially those who getting subsidized by their hard earned tax money.
They understand something that their counterparts understood 70 years ago, during the heart of the Great Depression- that there is no way of getting out of an economic crisis this severe unless we are all in this together and that the wealth of the society must be shared, not hoarded at the top
An economy is more than a set of mechanical processes that assure the distribution of goods and services, it is also a moral framework for human interaction that people must accept if it is to work
properly Right now, the moral framework of our economy is broken, and people have lost their faith that its normal functioning will produce just outcomes or assure them a minimum of economic security In this very dangerous time, it would serve people in positions of leadership well to make sure that if they are asking sacrifices by ordinary citizens, they will be asking comparable, or greater sacrifices of economic elites.
The AIG bonus debacle ought to put wealthy Americas, especially those working for companies receiving government subsidies, on notice- everything they do is being watched!
They would be wise to comport themselves accordingly and set a standard of frugality in their private lives that fairness and generosity in their public lives, that would elicit admiration rather than contempt.
Mark Naison
March 20,2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Is "Schwartze" A Racial Slur? Reflections on Jackie Mason's Comedy and Yiddish Vernacular Speech
Is "Schwartze" A Racial Slur? Reflections on Jackie Mason's Comedy and Yiddish Vernacular Speech
Jackie Mason is in trouble again . The folksy comedian, whose conservative politics are as in your face as his humor ( he now claims "white people in America no longer have freedom of speech "), says, after being criticized for calling President Obama a "schwartze" in a stand up comedy routine, that the word "schwartze" is merely a Yiddish slang expression for blacks, not a racial slur.
Although I am a little younger than Jackie Mason, like him, I grew up in a family where Yiddish was spoken along with English. In my family, the word "schwartze" was a common expression, one which my parents used with some regularity, but for the life of me I can't think of a single context in which they used it which was positive
They never said
" The schwartzes at the local high school are making it a much better school. They are wonderful students!"
" I love having "schwartzes" as our neighbors. They are so well mannered, and so polite."
" I am so excited, we're having the Jones family for dinner on Sunday afternoon. Whenever the shwartzes come over, I make my best pot roast.""
"The schwartzes loves Jewish deli almost as much as I love grits!"
" The Concord is my favorite hotel. At least half of the guests there are schwartzes, so you know everyone is going to have a good time."
But I heard plenty of the following"
If the schwartzes keep coming into the neighborhood,, I am moving to Queens"
"Even when the schwartzes are educated, they don't have the same moral standards we do"
" I am not letting my daughter go to Wingate. It's full of schwartzes!"
" He married a schwartze and his family disowned him. They are sitting shiva right now!"
Lest I be accused of fomenting anti-Semitism, let me make one thing perfectly clear- not all Jews of that generation were closet or open racists At a left wing summer camp I attended, Camp Taconic and at Erasmus Hall High School in Flatbush, where I transferred after getting in a fight at my local high school, I met many Jewish young people whose parents were militant anti-racists, and participated in civil rights protests well before they became fashionable. Some of those people, whose houses I occasionally went to, spoke Yiddish as fluently as my parents, and sent their children to left wing Yiddish "shules," but none of them EVER used the word "schwartze" in conversation. It was not a part of their family's vocabulary
The refusal of left wing or anti-racist Jews to use the term casts doubt on Mason's claims that the word "schwartze" lacks pejorative connotations..While the word"schwartze" doesn't have the same awful history as the "N" word, or the same rage filled connotations, it conveys a level of discomfort about Jewish encounters with Blacks that cannot be dismissed as "neutral." Given the history of Jews as an oppressed people, it is a discomfort tinged with ambivalence,but is discomfort nonetheless. "Schwartze" was a term rarely used in anger, but often used in fear. It reflected a perception of Blacks as a dangerous "other.," an alien people who might subject Jews to the same danger they had been in throughout most of their history.
Although I understand the experiences, and the emotions, that might lead some Jews to express their racial fears and animosities through a term like "schwartze," I would never use the word "schwartze "in conversation, and would not accept it's usage from a casual acquaintance, much less from a friend
Jackie Mason is on shaky ground in arguing that the word lacks negative connotations.. "Schwartze" is a term loaded with racial meanings, and none of them are positive.
Mark Naison
March 17,2009
Jackie Mason is in trouble again . The folksy comedian, whose conservative politics are as in your face as his humor ( he now claims "white people in America no longer have freedom of speech "), says, after being criticized for calling President Obama a "schwartze" in a stand up comedy routine, that the word "schwartze" is merely a Yiddish slang expression for blacks, not a racial slur.
Although I am a little younger than Jackie Mason, like him, I grew up in a family where Yiddish was spoken along with English. In my family, the word "schwartze" was a common expression, one which my parents used with some regularity, but for the life of me I can't think of a single context in which they used it which was positive
They never said
" The schwartzes at the local high school are making it a much better school. They are wonderful students!"
" I love having "schwartzes" as our neighbors. They are so well mannered, and so polite."
" I am so excited, we're having the Jones family for dinner on Sunday afternoon. Whenever the shwartzes come over, I make my best pot roast.""
"The schwartzes loves Jewish deli almost as much as I love grits!"
" The Concord is my favorite hotel. At least half of the guests there are schwartzes, so you know everyone is going to have a good time."
But I heard plenty of the following"
If the schwartzes keep coming into the neighborhood,, I am moving to Queens"
"Even when the schwartzes are educated, they don't have the same moral standards we do"
" I am not letting my daughter go to Wingate. It's full of schwartzes!"
" He married a schwartze and his family disowned him. They are sitting shiva right now!"
Lest I be accused of fomenting anti-Semitism, let me make one thing perfectly clear- not all Jews of that generation were closet or open racists At a left wing summer camp I attended, Camp Taconic and at Erasmus Hall High School in Flatbush, where I transferred after getting in a fight at my local high school, I met many Jewish young people whose parents were militant anti-racists, and participated in civil rights protests well before they became fashionable. Some of those people, whose houses I occasionally went to, spoke Yiddish as fluently as my parents, and sent their children to left wing Yiddish "shules," but none of them EVER used the word "schwartze" in conversation. It was not a part of their family's vocabulary
The refusal of left wing or anti-racist Jews to use the term casts doubt on Mason's claims that the word "schwartze" lacks pejorative connotations..While the word"schwartze" doesn't have the same awful history as the "N" word, or the same rage filled connotations, it conveys a level of discomfort about Jewish encounters with Blacks that cannot be dismissed as "neutral." Given the history of Jews as an oppressed people, it is a discomfort tinged with ambivalence,but is discomfort nonetheless. "Schwartze" was a term rarely used in anger, but often used in fear. It reflected a perception of Blacks as a dangerous "other.," an alien people who might subject Jews to the same danger they had been in throughout most of their history.
Although I understand the experiences, and the emotions, that might lead some Jews to express their racial fears and animosities through a term like "schwartze," I would never use the word "schwartze "in conversation, and would not accept it's usage from a casual acquaintance, much less from a friend
Jackie Mason is on shaky ground in arguing that the word lacks negative connotations.. "Schwartze" is a term loaded with racial meanings, and none of them are positive.
Mark Naison
March 17,2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Revenge of the Nerds? Why I Love Having a Professor As President of the United States
Revenge of the Nerds? Why I Love Having a Professor As President Of The United States!
Dr Mark NaisonFordham University
Today, I was once again reminded why I love having a former professor, as president of the United States
Because I am spending several days at my vacation house marking papers, I decided for a break, to join the 7 AM doubles game at the local tennis club The people in this game are Italian American businessmen--, restaurant owners, construction contracters and the like-- who grew up in working class families and they are a lot of fun to play with because of the good natured teasing that seems to accompany every shot. The atmosphere of their game is much more like that of a handball or basketball game in Brooklyn than that of a tennis game in East Hampton. I spend most of the two hours we are playing laughing at their comments
There's only one problem. Wherever I play in this game, I don't have a name. I am "the professor." Everyone else is addressed by their name-Tony, Fabrio,John etc- but I am referred to by my occupation.. If I hit a good short, especially one that involves deception and skill, my partner will say to our opponents "the professor really took you to school on that one."
This is not accidental. My friends in this game, along with many other of the better players at this club, seem to be absolutely atonished that someone who teaches college for a living is a good athlete and a fierce competitor.
As self made businessmen, who had to fight hard to get their piece of the American pie, they seem to look upon professors as people who have no idea what "the real world" is like and who are so physically uncoordinated that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
The prevalence of this professor stereotype is far more widespread than most people imagine.
As a skilled, but by no means world class athlete and coach,, I have run into it over and over for much of my adult life.
From the time I took my first college teaching job in 1970 at age 24, the "professor" label has followed me, from schoolyard basketball games in Harlem, the West Side and the Bronx, to touch football leagues in Central Park, to sandlot baseball and CYO basketball games I coached in Brooklyn, to tennis games and golf outings all over New York City, Westchester and Long Island. If I was a cop, a lawyer, or a small businessman, even a doctor, a dentist or a school teacher, no one would have given my occupation a second thought, but a "professor" who displays the most minimum level of physical skill or toughness is viewed as an oddity. Physical accomplishments securely within the range of most good athletes- hitting a golf ball 280 yards, serving a tennis ball 100 miles an hour, leaping and grabbing the rim in basketball ( which I lost the ability to do after the age of 30!)- when performed by someone teaching college will become the subject of considerable surprise and more than a little sarcasm.
When applied to sports, the "icompetant savant" stereotype is merely amusing, or irritating, depending on your perspective,,but the view of professors as out of touch with the real world has been a staple of conservative political commentary at least since the late sixties.when George Wallace began using "pointy headed intellectuals" as an epithet
This cliche has been repeated enough, especially on talk radio, to convince many people that a lifetime of studying history, economics, or political science, is far less valuable training for political leadership than building your own business or amassing great wealth. Because their own lives are often led within highly stressful, competitive settings, Americans tend to be mistrustful of people whose lives are insulated from competition by a level of job security(i.e. tenure) they could never hope to attain,and their first instinct is to view such individuals with skepticism and contempt.
However, events of the last two years have sharply eroded the image of the business executive as American hero, giving professors new traction as a potential leadership stratum. The revelation that leaders of top American banks, hedge funds and insurance companies, aided and abedded by ratings agencies and government agencies appointed to regulate them,, have siphoned off a huge perecentage of national wealth to enhance their own personal fortunes, destroying the foundations of our entire economy in the process, have made Americans take a hard look at those who argue that that the pursuit of great wealth inevitably enhances the greater good
As leaders of corporate America have been exposed as self interested predators, unable to give up bonuses and private jets even as the institutions they manage are requiring multibillion dollar government bailouts, Americans are becoming more receptive to accepting leadership from a group who has been more interested in using knowledge to solve societal problems rather than to acquire personal wealth.
So when Barack Obama, a former law professor, with very modst personal assets, ran against John McCain, person who parlayed his political career into a multimillion dollar fortune and who owned seven houses, Obama's professorial demeanor, fascination with big ideas, and carefully researched policy statements did not undermine his appeal On the contrary,it may actually have convinced many voters that here, finally, was someone in public life who cared more about what was happening to them than in ,seeking opportunities to build his personal fortune.
Many Republicans could not believe that a someone whose persona was a scholarly as Obama could actually sway the public to his side. During a CNN round table discussion following the third debate, conservative pundit William Bennett said, contemptously, about Obama' " he sounded just like a professor." But what Bennett saw as a fatal flaw many American may have seen as an asset Every major poll showed a majority of American thought Obama won the debate. Substance trumped sloganeering.Ideas, and idealism, generated hope
This is truly a new day in American politics. A person of great intelligence and drive and ambition who did not use those skills to acquire wealth is president of the United States, trying desperately to rescue our country, from the damage that unregulated private wealth has inflicted upon all of us. He is showing, by example, that the passion and creativity and hard work needed in our political leaders doesn't require the incentive of multimillion dollars bonuses, ,multiple residences and private jets.
And President Obama is not alone. There are tens of thousands of brilliant people in our country who work hard and long for the love of ideas and the hope of building a better world
You don't have to look very hard to find them. They are on the faculty of every American college and university.
Mark Naison
March 16, 2009
Dr Mark NaisonFordham University
Today, I was once again reminded why I love having a former professor, as president of the United States
Because I am spending several days at my vacation house marking papers, I decided for a break, to join the 7 AM doubles game at the local tennis club The people in this game are Italian American businessmen--, restaurant owners, construction contracters and the like-- who grew up in working class families and they are a lot of fun to play with because of the good natured teasing that seems to accompany every shot. The atmosphere of their game is much more like that of a handball or basketball game in Brooklyn than that of a tennis game in East Hampton. I spend most of the two hours we are playing laughing at their comments
There's only one problem. Wherever I play in this game, I don't have a name. I am "the professor." Everyone else is addressed by their name-Tony, Fabrio,John etc- but I am referred to by my occupation.. If I hit a good short, especially one that involves deception and skill, my partner will say to our opponents "the professor really took you to school on that one."
This is not accidental. My friends in this game, along with many other of the better players at this club, seem to be absolutely atonished that someone who teaches college for a living is a good athlete and a fierce competitor.
As self made businessmen, who had to fight hard to get their piece of the American pie, they seem to look upon professors as people who have no idea what "the real world" is like and who are so physically uncoordinated that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
The prevalence of this professor stereotype is far more widespread than most people imagine.
As a skilled, but by no means world class athlete and coach,, I have run into it over and over for much of my adult life.
From the time I took my first college teaching job in 1970 at age 24, the "professor" label has followed me, from schoolyard basketball games in Harlem, the West Side and the Bronx, to touch football leagues in Central Park, to sandlot baseball and CYO basketball games I coached in Brooklyn, to tennis games and golf outings all over New York City, Westchester and Long Island. If I was a cop, a lawyer, or a small businessman, even a doctor, a dentist or a school teacher, no one would have given my occupation a second thought, but a "professor" who displays the most minimum level of physical skill or toughness is viewed as an oddity. Physical accomplishments securely within the range of most good athletes- hitting a golf ball 280 yards, serving a tennis ball 100 miles an hour, leaping and grabbing the rim in basketball ( which I lost the ability to do after the age of 30!)- when performed by someone teaching college will become the subject of considerable surprise and more than a little sarcasm.
When applied to sports, the "icompetant savant" stereotype is merely amusing, or irritating, depending on your perspective,,but the view of professors as out of touch with the real world has been a staple of conservative political commentary at least since the late sixties.when George Wallace began using "pointy headed intellectuals" as an epithet
This cliche has been repeated enough, especially on talk radio, to convince many people that a lifetime of studying history, economics, or political science, is far less valuable training for political leadership than building your own business or amassing great wealth. Because their own lives are often led within highly stressful, competitive settings, Americans tend to be mistrustful of people whose lives are insulated from competition by a level of job security(i.e. tenure) they could never hope to attain,and their first instinct is to view such individuals with skepticism and contempt.
However, events of the last two years have sharply eroded the image of the business executive as American hero, giving professors new traction as a potential leadership stratum. The revelation that leaders of top American banks, hedge funds and insurance companies, aided and abedded by ratings agencies and government agencies appointed to regulate them,, have siphoned off a huge perecentage of national wealth to enhance their own personal fortunes, destroying the foundations of our entire economy in the process, have made Americans take a hard look at those who argue that that the pursuit of great wealth inevitably enhances the greater good
As leaders of corporate America have been exposed as self interested predators, unable to give up bonuses and private jets even as the institutions they manage are requiring multibillion dollar government bailouts, Americans are becoming more receptive to accepting leadership from a group who has been more interested in using knowledge to solve societal problems rather than to acquire personal wealth.
So when Barack Obama, a former law professor, with very modst personal assets, ran against John McCain, person who parlayed his political career into a multimillion dollar fortune and who owned seven houses, Obama's professorial demeanor, fascination with big ideas, and carefully researched policy statements did not undermine his appeal On the contrary,it may actually have convinced many voters that here, finally, was someone in public life who cared more about what was happening to them than in ,seeking opportunities to build his personal fortune.
Many Republicans could not believe that a someone whose persona was a scholarly as Obama could actually sway the public to his side. During a CNN round table discussion following the third debate, conservative pundit William Bennett said, contemptously, about Obama' " he sounded just like a professor." But what Bennett saw as a fatal flaw many American may have seen as an asset Every major poll showed a majority of American thought Obama won the debate. Substance trumped sloganeering.Ideas, and idealism, generated hope
This is truly a new day in American politics. A person of great intelligence and drive and ambition who did not use those skills to acquire wealth is president of the United States, trying desperately to rescue our country, from the damage that unregulated private wealth has inflicted upon all of us. He is showing, by example, that the passion and creativity and hard work needed in our political leaders doesn't require the incentive of multimillion dollars bonuses, ,multiple residences and private jets.
And President Obama is not alone. There are tens of thousands of brilliant people in our country who work hard and long for the love of ideas and the hope of building a better world
You don't have to look very hard to find them. They are on the faculty of every American college and university.
Mark Naison
March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen is the Future of Feminism! And It's Bright!
Imagine: Over five hundred people, ninety percent of them people of color, at a feminist gathering in the heart of the South Bronx
Imagine: A crowd that includes at least two hundred high school students shouting, chanting and raising fists to cheer performers celebrating women's power, creativity, and resistance to sexual violence and assault
Imagine: Over fifty brilliant performers ranging in age from 11 to 70 plus, some in groups, some solo,celebrating traditions ranging from Bomba and slam poetry to hip hop lyricism and dance, inspired by a sound track created by two slammin women DJ's
Imagine: Lyrics and beats and movements that transform hip hop, into a prophetic discourse of women's empowerment, creating art of such poweras to make much what we hear on the radio and see on MTV and BETseem pathetic as well as destructive
Imagine: Women of all sizes and shapes and colors, speaking many languages, affirming their diverse sexualities and the beauty of their bodies, rendering commercially disseminated standards of beauty irrelevant, an atavistic legacy of a time when greed and consumerism smothered the human capacity to love and the spirit within
THAT was what was happening yesterday between 2 PM and 5 PM at Hostos College at Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen
As I sat there, I thought to myself that my wife Liz, who has been a feminist since I met her, and the members of her socialist feminist study group, which has been in existence for nearly 30 years, needed to see this, along with the faculty of every women's studies program in New York city
This is what our feminist founding mothers fought for. This is their legacy reinvented for a new day.
I have seen the future and it's Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen!
A Big Shout Our to Lah Tere of Rebel Diaz, Kathleen Adams , Patty Dukes and all the others who worked so hard to make this possible!
Y'all made history yesterday afternoon and I was so glad I was there to see it
Peace
Mark Naison/Notorious Phd
Imagine: A crowd that includes at least two hundred high school students shouting, chanting and raising fists to cheer performers celebrating women's power, creativity, and resistance to sexual violence and assault
Imagine: Over fifty brilliant performers ranging in age from 11 to 70 plus, some in groups, some solo,celebrating traditions ranging from Bomba and slam poetry to hip hop lyricism and dance, inspired by a sound track created by two slammin women DJ's
Imagine: Lyrics and beats and movements that transform hip hop, into a prophetic discourse of women's empowerment, creating art of such poweras to make much what we hear on the radio and see on MTV and BETseem pathetic as well as destructive
Imagine: Women of all sizes and shapes and colors, speaking many languages, affirming their diverse sexualities and the beauty of their bodies, rendering commercially disseminated standards of beauty irrelevant, an atavistic legacy of a time when greed and consumerism smothered the human capacity to love and the spirit within
THAT was what was happening yesterday between 2 PM and 5 PM at Hostos College at Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen
As I sat there, I thought to myself that my wife Liz, who has been a feminist since I met her, and the members of her socialist feminist study group, which has been in existence for nearly 30 years, needed to see this, along with the faculty of every women's studies program in New York city
This is what our feminist founding mothers fought for. This is their legacy reinvented for a new day.
I have seen the future and it's Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen!
A Big Shout Our to Lah Tere of Rebel Diaz, Kathleen Adams , Patty Dukes and all the others who worked so hard to make this possible!
Y'all made history yesterday afternoon and I was so glad I was there to see it
Peace
Mark Naison/Notorious Phd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)