Perdido 03

Perdido 03
Showing posts with label the best and brightest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the best and brightest. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

There Is Nothing "Powerful" About The Teachers Unions

You often see the word "powerful" in front of the words "United Federation of Teachers" or "New York State Teachers Union" when journalists write about the teachers unions.

A Perdido Street School blog reader wonders why:

I don't understand why they keep using the word 'powerful' to describe the teacher unions.

I agree - nothing powerful about unions that get rolled time and time again in showdowns with the political establishment or corporate powers.

Jessica Bakeman reports at Capital Pro (behind a paywall) that many NYSUT members think the same way these days:

DESPITE RECENT BLOWS, NYSUT VOWS TO KEEP FIGHTING—Capital’s Jessica Bakeman: About nine months ago, members of New York State United Teachers ousted their president, with hope of “reviving” the massive union in the face of a restrictive property-tax cap, performance evaluations based on standardized test scores and a growing charter school sector bolstered by state leaders.

Disgruntled members argued that the union’s former leaders did not fight aggressively enough against the policies of Governor Andrew Cuomo and state education leaders and therefore were partly responsible for new laws they believe are bad for teachers. NYSUT delegates hoped a new president, Karen Magee, along with the re-elected executive vice president Andy Pallotta, would restore the power and strength that the 600,000-member union seemed to have lost. Fast forward to the dawn of the 2015 legislative session, and things haven’t improved. In fact, the union's political situation seems much worse. http://bit.ly/17gRtRd

Indeed, as Cuomo promises to "break" the public school system, impose a 40% VAM tied to test scores, and institute a process that declares teachers incompetent if they come up "ineffective" on two straight years of the VAM, it is difficult to say that the new teachers union leadership has "revived" anything

In fact, the only concession the new NYSUT leadership won from Cuomo was double pensions for themselves - something they got in return for negotiating the Common Core shield bill that Cuomo first pushed, then later vetoed.

We are in dark times here and the teachers union leadership fights too little too late or not at all as the political establishment looks to destroy schools, teachers and the teaching profession.

So my question to journalists out there:

Why do so many of you put the word "powerful" in front of the acronyms "UFT" or "NYSUT" when you're writing your articles?

Surely you know there's nothing powerful about these entities, judging by their track records over the past 10 years.

Perhaps you mean "powerful" ironically, the way David Halberstam meant "Best and Brightest" ironically when he wrote about the geniuses in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who brought us the Vietnam War?

Perhaps you mean "powerful" ironically the way I take "tall" ironically when I order the smallest size coffee at Starbucks?

Because certainly there is nothing in the way the politics has played out between the unions and the political establishment and the corporate interests over the past decade or so that would indicate the word "powerful" can be used to describe the teachers unions over anything.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Arne Duncan - One Of The Best And Brightest Of Our Generation


The phrase "Best and Brightest" doesn't mean what Arne Duncan seems to think it means. 

In modern usage, "Best and Brightest" has a negative connotation.  David Halberstam used it to describe the geniuses in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who, despite their Ivy League pedigrees and high IQ's, managed to take the country into a quagmire of a war that it still hasn't recovered from. 

Halberstam meant the term ironically, but Arne Duncan, who clearly is one of this generation's "Best and Brightest," doesn't understand irony or he would know that the last thing he would want in the teaching profession is the "Best and Brightest" as Halberstam used the phrase.

Of course Duncan could be referring to the Shelley usage of the phrase, which does not have the same negative connotation as the Halberstam usage, but I suspect Duncan neither knows who Percy Shelley was nor has read any of his poetry.

Arne Duncan, along with his genius boss in the White House, is truly one of the "Best and Brightest" this country has to offer, an exemplar of those same geniuses Halberstam wrote about in his book the "Best and Brightest."

Duncan shows that with each utterance to the press and each tweet that emanates from his Twitter account.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Just Keep Drugging The Students

Another article in a very good series of articles the NY Times has done on the Drugging of the Millennial Generation:

Nearly one in five high school age boys in the United States and 11 percent of school-age children over all have received a medical diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to new data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These rates reflect a marked rise over the last decade and could fuel growing concern among many doctors that the A.D.H.D. diagnosis and its medication are overused in American children.
The figures showed that an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had received an A.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 53 percent rise in the past decade. About two-thirds of those with a current diagnosis receive prescriptions for stimulants like Ritalin or Adderall, which can drastically improve the lives of those with A.D.H.D. but can also lead to addiction, anxiety and occasionally psychosis. 

“Those are astronomical numbers. I’m floored,” said Dr. William Graf, a pediatric neurologist in New Haven and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. He added, “Mild symptoms are being diagnosed so readily, which goes well beyond the disorder and beyond the zone of ambiguity to pure enhancement of children who are otherwise healthy.” 

And even more teenagers are likely to be prescribed medication in the near future because the American Psychiatric Association plans to change the definition of A.D.H.D. to allow more people to receive the diagnosis and treatment. A.D.H.D. is described by most experts as resulting from abnormal chemical levels in the brain that impair a person’s impulse control and attention skills. 

While some doctors and patient advocates have welcomed rising diagnosis rates as evidence that the disorder is being better recognized and accepted, others said the new rates suggest that millions of children may be taking medication merely to calm behavior or to do better in school. Pills that are shared with or sold to classmates — diversion long tolerated in college settings and gaining traction in high-achieving high schools — are particularly dangerous, doctors say, because of their health risks when abused.

Yes, but if the test scores go up and Big Pharma's profits go up, what could possibly be the problem with the Drugging of a Generation?

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Be Very Afraid

David Stockman in full from today's NY Times:

 The Dow Jones and Standard & Poor’s 500 indexes reached record highs on Thursday, having completely erased the losses since the stock market’s last peak, in 2007. But instead of cheering, we should be very afraid.

Over the last 13 years, the stock market has twice crashed and touched off a recession: American households lost $5 trillion in the 2000 dot-com bust and more than $7 trillion in the 2007 housing crash. Sooner or later — within a few years, I predict — this latest Wall Street bubble, inflated by an egregious flood of phony money from the Federal Reserve rather than real economic gains, will explode, too. 

Since the S.&P. 500 first reached its current level, in March 2000, the mad money printers at the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheet sixfold (to $3.2 trillion from $500 billion). Yet during that stretch, economic output has grown by an average of 1.7 percent a year (the slowest since the Civil War); real business investment has crawled forward at only 0.8 percent per year; and the payroll job count has crept up at a negligible 0.1 percent annually. Real median family income growth has dropped 8 percent, and the number of full-time middle class jobs, 6 percent. The real net worth of the “bottom” 90 percent has dropped by one-fourth. The number of food stamp and disability aid recipients has more than doubled, to 59 million, about one in five Americans. 

So the Main Street economy is failing while Washington is piling a soaring debt burden on our descendants, unable to rein in either the warfare state or the welfare state or raise the taxes needed to pay the nation’s bills. By default, the Fed has resorted to a radical, uncharted spree of money printing. But the flood of liquidity, instead of spurring banks to lend and corporations to spend, has stayed trapped in the canyons of Wall Street, where it is inflating yet another unsustainable bubble.
When it bursts, there will be no new round of bailouts like the ones the banks got in 2008. Instead, America will descend into an era of zero-sum austerity and virulent political conflict, extinguishing even today’s feeble remnants of economic growth. 

THIS dyspeptic prospect results from the fact that we are now state-wrecked. With only brief interruptions, we’ve had eight decades of increasingly frenetic fiscal and monetary policy activism intended to counter the cyclical bumps and grinds of the free market and its purported tendency to underproduce jobs and economic output. The toll has been heavy. 

As the federal government and its central-bank sidekick, the Fed, have groped for one goal after another — smoothing out the business cycle, minimizing inflation and unemployment at the same time, rolling out a giant social insurance blanket, promoting homeownership, subsidizing medical care, propping up old industries (agriculture, automobiles) and fostering new ones (“clean” energy, biotechnology) and, above all, bailing out Wall Street — they have now succumbed to overload, overreach and outside capture by powerful interests. The modern Keynesian state is broke, paralyzed and mired in empty ritual incantations about stimulating “demand,” even as it fosters a mutant crony capitalism that periodically lavishes the top 1 percent with speculative windfalls. 

The culprits are bipartisan, though you’d never guess that from the blather that passes for political discourse these days. The state-wreck originated in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for fiat money (currency not fundamentally backed by gold), economic nationalism and capitalist cartels in agriculture and industry. 

Under the exigencies of World War II (which did far more to end the Depression than the New Deal did), the state got hugely bloated, but remarkably, the bloat was put into brief remission during a midcentury golden era of sound money and fiscal rectitude with Dwight D. Eisenhower in the White House and William McChesney Martin Jr. at the Fed. 

Then came Lyndon B. Johnson’s “guns and butter” excesses, which were intensified over one perfidious weekend at Camp David, Md., in 1971, when Richard M. Nixon essentially defaulted on the nation’s debt obligations by finally ending the convertibility of gold to the dollar. That one act — arguably a sin graver than Watergate — meant the end of national financial discipline and the start of a four-decade spree during which we have lived high on the hog, running a cumulative $8 trillion current-account deficit. In effect, America underwent an internal leveraged buyout, raising our ratio of total debt (public and private) to economic output to about 3.6 from its historic level of about 1.6. Hence the $30 trillion in excess debt (more than half the total debt, $56 trillion) that hangs over the American economy today. 

This explosion of borrowing was the stepchild of the floating-money contraption deposited in the Nixon White House by Milton Friedman, the supposed hero of free-market economics who in fact sowed the seed for a never-ending expansion of the money supply. The Fed, which celebrates its centenary this year, fueled a roaring inflation in goods and commodities during the 1970s that was brought under control only by the iron resolve of Paul A. Volcker, its chairman from 1979 to 1987.
Under his successor, the lapsed hero Alan Greenspan, the Fed dropped Friedman’s penurious rules for monetary expansion, keeping interest rates too low for too long and flooding Wall Street with freshly minted cash. What became known as the “Greenspan put” — the implicit assumption that the Fed would step in if asset prices dropped, as they did after the 1987 stock-market crash — was reinforced by the Fed’s unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management. 

That Mr. Greenspan’s loose monetary policies didn’t set off inflation was only because domestic prices for goods and labor were crushed by the huge flow of imports from the factories of Asia. By offshoring America’s tradable-goods sector, the Fed kept the Consumer Price Index contained, but also permitted the excess liquidity to foster a roaring inflation in financial assets. Mr. Greenspan’s pandering incited the greatest equity boom in history, with the stock market rising fivefold between the 1987 crash and the 2000 dot-com bust. 

Soon Americans stopped saving and consumed everything they earned and all they could borrow. The Asians, burned by their own 1997 financial crisis, were happy to oblige us. They — China and Japan above all — accumulated huge dollar reserves, transforming their central banks into a string of monetary roach motels where sovereign debt goes in but never comes out. We’ve been living on borrowed time — and spending Asians’ borrowed dimes. 

This dynamic reinforced the Reaganite shibboleth that “deficits don’t matter” and the fact that nearly $5 trillion of the nation’s $12 trillion in “publicly held” debt is actually sequestered in the vaults of central banks. The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan — one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985 — was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism — for the wealthy. 

The explosion of the housing market, abetted by phony credit ratings, securitization shenanigans and willful malpractice by mortgage lenders, originators and brokers, has been well documented. Less known is the balance-sheet explosion among the top 10 Wall Street banks during the eight years ending in 2008. Though their tiny sliver of equity capital hardly grew, their dependence on unstable “hot money” soared as the regulatory harness the Glass-Steagall Act had wisely imposed during the Depression was totally dismantled. 

Within weeks of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, Washington, with Wall Street’s gun to its head, propped up the remnants of this financial mess in a panic-stricken melee of bailouts and money-printing that is the single most shameful chapter in American financial history.
There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction. Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved. The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding. 

Instead, the White House, Congress and the Fed, under Mr. Bush and then President Obama, made a series of desperate, reckless maneuvers that were not only unnecessary but ruinous. The auto bailouts, for example, simply shifted jobs around — particularly to the aging, electorally vital Rust Belt — rather than saving them. The “green energy” component of Mr. Obama’s stimulus was mainly a nearly $1 billion giveaway to crony capitalists, like the venture capitalist John Doerr and the self-proclaimed outer-space visionary Elon Musk, to make new toys for the affluent. 

Less than 5 percent of the $800 billion Obama stimulus went to the truly needy for food stamps, earned-income tax credits and other forms of poverty relief. The preponderant share ended up in money dumps to state and local governments, pork-barrel infrastructure projects, business tax loopholes and indiscriminate middle-class tax cuts. The Democratic Keynesians, as intellectually bankrupt as their Republican counterparts (though less hypocritical), had no solution beyond handing out borrowed money to consumers, hoping they would buy a lawn mower, a flat-screen TV or, at least, dinner at Red Lobster. 

But even Mr. Obama’s hopelessly glib policies could not match the audacity of the Fed, which dropped interest rates to zero and then digitally printed new money at the astounding rate of $600 million per hour. Fast-money speculators have been “purchasing” giant piles of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, almost entirely by using short-term overnight money borrowed at essentially zero cost, thanks to the Fed. Uncle Ben has lined their pockets.
If and when the Fed — which now promises to get unemployment below 6.5 percent as long as inflation doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent — even hints at shrinking its balance sheet, it will elicit a tidal wave of sell orders, because even a modest drop in bond prices would destroy the arbitrageurs’ profits. Notwithstanding Mr. Bernanke’s assurances about eventually, gradually making a smooth exit, the Fed is domiciled in a monetary prison of its own making. 

While the Fed fiddles, Congress burns. Self-titled fiscal hawks like Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, are terrified of telling the truth: that the 10-year deficit is actually $15 trillion to $20 trillion, far larger than the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of $7 trillion. Its latest forecast, which imagines 16.4 million new jobs in the next decade, compared with only 2.5 million in the last 10 years, is only one of the more extreme examples of Washington’s delusions.
Even a supposedly “bold” measure — linking the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments to a different kind of inflation index — would save just $200 billion over a decade, amounting to hardly 1 percent of the problem. Mr. Ryan’s latest budget shamelessly gives Social Security and Medicare a 10-year pass, notwithstanding that a fair portion of their nearly $19 trillion cost over that decade would go to the affluent elderly. At the same time, his proposal for draconian 30 percent cuts over a decade on the $7 trillion safety net — Medicaid, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit — is another front in the G.O.P.’s war against the 99 percent. 

Without any changes, over the next decade or so, the gross federal debt, now nearly $17 trillion, will hurtle toward $30 trillion and soar to 150 percent of gross domestic product from around 105 percent today. Since our constitutional stasis rules out any prospect of a “grand bargain,” the nation’s fiscal collapse will play out incrementally, like a Greek/Cypriot tragedy, in carefully choreographed crises over debt ceilings, continuing resolutions and temporary budgetary patches. 

The future is bleak. The greatest construction boom in recorded history — China’s money dump on infrastructure over the last 15 years — is slowing. Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and all the other growing middle-income nations cannot make up for the shortfall in demand. The American machinery of monetary and fiscal stimulus has reached its limits. Japan is sinking into old-age bankruptcy and Europe into welfare-state senescence. The new rulers enthroned in Beijing last year know that after two decades of wild lending, speculation and building, even they will face a day of reckoning, too. 

THE state-wreck ahead is a far cry from the “Great Moderation” proclaimed in 2004 by Mr. Bernanke, who predicted that prosperity would be everlasting because the Fed had tamed the business cycle and, as late as March 2007, testified that the impact of the subprime meltdown “seems likely to be contained.” Instead of moderation, what’s at hand is a Great Deformation, arising from a rogue central bank that has abetted the Wall Street casino, crucified savers on a cross of zero interest rates and fueled a global commodity bubble that erodes Main Street living standards through rising food and energy prices — a form of inflation that the Fed fecklessly disregards in calculating inflation.
These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it can’t happen. It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy. It would require a renunciation of crony capitalism and its first cousin: Keynesian economics in all its forms. The state would need to get out of the business of imperial hubris, economic uplift and social insurance and shift its focus to managing and financing an effective, affordable, means-tested safety net. 

All this would require drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending. 

It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms. 

It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism. 

That, of course, will never happen because there are trillions of dollars of assets, from Shanghai skyscrapers to Fortune 1000 stocks to the latest housing market “recovery,” artificially propped up by the Fed’s interest-rate repression. The United States is broke — fiscally, morally, intellectually — and the Fed has incited a global currency war (Japan just signed up, the Brazilians and Chinese are angry, and the German-dominated euro zone is crumbling) that will soon overwhelm it. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse. If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is. 

David A. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.”


Thursday, January 10, 2013

Cuomo Misuses "Best and Brightest" In His State Of The State Speech

We're back to that old "Best and Brightest" phrase.

Governor Cuomo used it yesterday in his State of the State speech when he was drum-beating teachers as stupid people:

ALBANY — Ignorant, unqualified teachers won’t be able to get a job in New York classrooms if Gov. Cuomo has his way.

The governor used his State of the State address Wednesday to announce plans for a “bar exam” that all new teachers would have to pass to get a job in the state.

The tough new test was among a host of education initiatives announced by Cuomo in a sweeping address as he starts his third year in office.
...
Cuomo said the moves would ensure that only the “best and brightest are teaching our students.”

Now we've been over this before, but apparently Andrew Cuomo didn't get the lesson, so let's try it again.

The "Best and Brightest" as used in the 20th Century is a pejorative.

David Halberstam, the author who published the "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972, was using the phrase ironically to expose the geniuses in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - the so-called "best and brightest" the country had to offer - as arrogant, short-sighted elitist fools who continued to pursue a murderous and disastrous foreign policy in Vietnam long after they knew the war could not be won.

According to Wikipedia, the phrase first showed up in a letter Junius wrote to a newspaper in 1769 that disparaged George III's advisers.

In both cases, the phrase "Best and Brightest" was meant ironically - as in, the geniuses you have surrounded yourself with in the corridors of power are allegedly the "Best and Brightest" but really are just arrogant, short-sighted fools pursuing disastrous policies that will bring us all to ruin.

Percy Shelley did use the phrase in a poem in a way that wasn't meant to disparage, but I guarantee you that Andrew Cuomo wasn't channeling Percy Shelley in his State of the State address yesterday.

Wikipedia puts the phrase "Best and Brightest" as used by Halberstam into context:

In the introduction to the 1992 edition, Halberstam states that he had used the title in an article for Harper's Magazine, and that Mary McCarthy criticized him in a book review for incorrectly referencing the line in the Shelley poem. Halberstam claims he had no knowledge of that earlier use of the term found in the Shelley hymn. Halberstam also observed regarding the "best and the brightest" phrase, that "...hymn or no, it went into the language, although it is often misused, failing to carry the tone or irony that the original intended." In a 2001 interview, Halberstam claims that the title came from a line in an article he had written about the Kennedy Administration. The phrase referred to President John F. Kennedy's "whiz kids"—leaders of industry and academia brought into the Kennedy administration—whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on "brilliant policies that defied common sense" in Vietnam, often against the advice of career U.S. Department of State employees.

And now Andrew Cuomo, who says there are too many ignorant people working as teachers in NY State, who only surrounds himself with the "Best and Brightest" in his own government (often the intellectual and moral heirs of the very geniuses and "whiz kids" Kennedy and Johnson surrounded themselves with back in the Sixties), is apparently ignorant of the irony intended by the phrase "Best and Brightest" and continues to use it as if it's a good thing to want to bring in arrogant, short-sighted, elitist fools to do important work.

Barack Obama suffers from the same ignorance.

The last thing we need is the "Best and Brightest" teaching our children.

Haven't the "Best and Brightest" done enough damage to the economy with their CDO's and credit default swaps, to the environment with their wonderful innovations like hydrofracking, to humanity with their fabulous inventions like drone bombs, and to world peace with their policies of Endless War and constant Surveillance?

Isn't it time we give the "Wise and the Humble" a chance to see what they can do to clean up the messes the "Best and Brightest" have caused?

Do we really want the intellectual and moral heirs of Robert McNamara, Maxwell Taylor and Dean Rusk in charge of anything or doing anything truly important in our society?

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Windows 8 - A Christmas Gift For Someone You Hate

Microsoft has bet its future on the Windows 8 system, but that bet doesn't seem to be paying off:

BELLEVUE, Wash. — It used to be that a new version of the Windows operating system was enough to get people excited about buying a new computer, giving sales a nice pop. 

Not this time. Windows 8, the latest edition of Microsoft’s software, failed to pack shoppers into a Microsoft store in a mall here last week, at a time when parking lots in the area were overflowing. The trickle of shopping bags leaving the store with merchandise was nothing like the steady stream at a bustling Apple store upstairs. 

Weak PC sales this holiday season suggest that the struggles of Microsoft and other companies that depend heavily on the computer business will not abate soon. Plenty of consumers already own PCs and seem content to make do with what they have, especially in a shaky economy in which less expensive mobile devices are bidding for a share of their wallets. 

While there are also many tablets running Microsoft’s new, touch-friendly Windows, they have so far failed to emerge from the shadow of competing products from Apple and Amazon and other devices that are being snapped up by holiday shoppers. 

Emmanuel Fromont, president of the Americas division of Acer, the world’s No. 4 PC maker, said sales of the company’s Windows 8 PCs had been lower than expected. He said one factor was the system’s unfamiliar design, which appeared to be making consumers cautious.

“There was not a huge spark in the market,” Mr. Fromont said. “It’s a slow start, there’s no question.”
The clearest evidence of Windows 8’s disappointing introduction comes from the research firm NPD, which estimates that sales of Windows machines have actually dropped from a year ago. 

According to NPD, stores in the United States sold 13 percent fewer Windows devices from late October, when Windows 8 made its debut, through the first week in December, than in the same period last year. 

Those figures do not include sales in Microsoft’s own stores, which were the only place to buy a Surface tablet during that period, but because the stores are scarce, analysts believe it is unlikely they made a big difference. 

“I think everybody would have hoped for a better start,” said Stephen Baker, an analyst at NPD. “The thing is, this market is not the same market that Windows 7 or Vista or even XP launched into.” 

There you have it - people hate Windows 8, people aren't buying the new Microsoft Surface tablet, Microsoft stores are bereft of shoppers, and Windows-based PC sales are down from last year to this year, partly because people don't like Windows 8.

And I mean people really don't like Windows 8.  There have been some really harsh reviews of the system, including one by the Nielson Norman Group that panned every part of the Windows 8 system in a usability study.

So while Bill Gates spends all his time trying to privatize the public education system, make all of Africa and Asia eat genetically modified food, and solve global warming by whitening the clouds in the sky, the company he helped found has become a bigger object of ridicule than during the darkest days of Vista:

Microsoft (MSFT) is no stranger to criticism these days, and the company’s new Windows 8 platform is once again the target of a scathing review from a high-profile user. Well-known Internet entrepreneur and MIT professor Philip Greenspun handed Windows 8 one of its most damning reviews yet earlier this week, calling the new operating system a “Christmas gift for someone you hate.” Greenspun panned almost every aspect of Microsoft’s new software, noting that Microsoft had four years to study Android and more than five to examine iOS, but still couldn’t build a usable tablet experience.



“The only device that I can remember being as confused by is the BlackBerry PlayBook,” Greenspun wrote on his blog after using Windows 8 on a Dell (DELL) XPS One All-in-One desktop PC. The acclaimed computer scientist noted that Microsoft omitted all of the best features from the most popular touch-focused platforms and instead created a user interface he describes as a “dog’s breakfast.”

“Suppose that you are an expert user of Windows NT/XP/Vista/7, an expert user of an iPad, and an expert user of an Android phone… you will have no idea how to use Windows 8,” Greenspun wrote.
He continued, “Some functions, such as ‘start an application’ or ‘restart the computer’ are available only from the tablet interface. Conversely, when one is comfortably ensconced in a touch/tablet application, an additional click will fire up a Web browser, thereby causing the tablet to disappear in favor of the desktop. Many of the ‘apps’ that show up on the ‘all apps’ menu at the bottom of the screen (accessible only if you swipe down from the top of the screen) dump you right into the desktop on the first click.”

Bill Gates seems to know as much about computers, tablets and operating systems these days as he does about what works in a school classroom - he thinks Windows 8 is fabulous:

Bill Gates is giving some initial feedback about Windows 8, and it's no shocker that he thinks the operating system is pretty nifty.
 
The Microsoft co-founder and chairman, speaking in a video interview with Microsoft's Steve Clayton, echoes CEO Steve Ballmer in calling Windows 8 an "absolutely critical product" that combines "the best" of tablets and traditional PCs.

  Gates noted that people will be "amazed at the energy" Microsoft is putting behind its new products, and he said Windows 8 "is key to where personal computing is going."

"This is the big time for us," Gates said.

He added that he has been using his Surface tablet nonstop, calling it "unbelievably great."

Gate also hinted that the PC/tablet version of Windows and the phone version will eventually merge over time.

"We're certainly sharing between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8," Gates said. "Over time, we do more and more of that. It's evolving literally to be a single platform."

Microsoft can merge the Windows 8 phone and computer systems into one single platform all they want - people can then hate one big operating systems instead of two little ones.

And I love how Gates thinks Windows 8 takes all of what is great from every other system while Greenspun the MIT professor and the Nielson Norman Group says it is just the opposite - Microsoft took the worst parts of every system and put them into Windows 8.

It's amazing to me that the people give credence to anything Bill Gates says about poverty, education or the environment when it is becoming increasingly clear that he can't even get computer and phone operating systems right - and that's a business he supposedly knows about.

What's worse, he seems to really think the system is fabo, showing just how clueless he truly is.

Microsoft Windows 8 is a nightmare system designed by people who think they're geniuses but who actually are clueless incompetents.

Pretty much like the people at the Gates Foundation who are involved in education policy, food policy, disease eradication and poverty alleviation.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Best And Brightest Cheat Once Again: Harvard Edition

Earlier this year, seventy of the "Best and Brightest" students this city has to offer were implicated in a test cheating scandal at Stuyvesant High School.

Now comes word that the college many of those kids would love to go to - Harvard - has a cheating scandal of its own:

Harvard College’s disciplinary board is investigating nearly half of the 279 students who enrolled in Government 1310: "Introduction to Congress" last spring for allegedly plagiarizing answers or inappropriately collaborating on the class’ final take-home exam.

Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay M. Harris said the magnitude of the case was “unprecedented in anyone’s living memory.”

Harris declined to name the course, but several students familiar with the investigation confirmed that Professor Matthew B. Platt's spring government lecture course was the class in question.


The exam was a take home and students were allowed to use their notes, books, Internet, etc. to respond to the questions, but they weren't supposed to collaborate with anybody else - not classmates, dorm mates, tutors, etc.

It seems half of the students enrolled did collaborate, however, since many of the test reponses were similar.

If found guilty of academic dishonesty, these students could be forced to withdraw from the college for a year.

But since they are the "Best and Brightest' this country has to offer, no doubt what happened at Stuyvesant is what will happen here - a pat on the wrist and a stern admonition not to cheat again.

No wonder these "Best and Brightest" go into government, finance, business, or whatever and cheat their asses off.

They've learned their lessons well from childhood.

They're special and nothing bad happens to them, no matter how badly they act.

The Best and Brightest indeed.

Friday, March 4, 2011

What's Up With This "Best and Brightest" Garbage?

I hear this phrase - the "best and brightest" - everywhere these days.

Obama says we need to attract the 'best and brightest" to be teachers.

TPM says Obama hands out awards to the "best and brightest."

Marxist funk-punk rockers Gang of Four are described as post-punk's "best and brightest" by NPR.

I dunno, google "best and brightest" and you'll see hundreds more recent examples.

But as Michael Fiorillo pointed out in a comment thread once, David Halberstam, the person who used that phrase as the title of a book about the geniuses who started the Vietnam War and dug in year after year after year, meant the phrase ironically.:

Here is wikipedia:

The title may have come from a line by Percy Bysshe Shelley in his work "To Jane: The Invitation" (1822):

Best and brightest, come away!

Shelley's line may have originated from English bishop and hymn writer Reginald Heber in his 1811 work, "Hymns. Epiphany":

Brightest and best of the sons of the morning,
Dawn on our darkness, and lend us thine aid.

A still earlier – and more pertinent – use of the phrase is in the letter of Junius published February 7, 1769 in the Public Advertiser. There Junius uses it mockingly and ironically in reference to King George III's ministers, whose capacities he had disparaged in his first letter the previous month. In response to Sir William Draper's letter defending one of Junius' targets and attacking their anonymous critics, Junius wrote:

To have supported your assertion, you should have proved that the present ministry are unquestionably the best and brightest characters of the kingdom; and that, if the affections of the colonies have been alienated, if Corsica has been shamefully abandoned, if commerce languishes, if public credit is threatened with a new debt, and your own Manilla ransom most dishonourably given up, it has all been owing to the malice of political writers, who will not suffer the best and brightest characters (meaning still the present ministry) to take a single right step, for the honour or interest of the nation.

In the introduction to the 1992 edition, Halberstam states that he had used the title in an article for Harper's magazine, and that Mary McCarthy criticized him in a book review for incorrectly referencing the line in the hymn. Halberstam claims he had no knowledge of that earlier use of the term. Halberstam also observed regarding the "best and the brightest" phrase, that "...hymn or no, it went into the language, although it is often misused, failing to carry the tone or irony that the original intended." In a 2001 interview Halberstam claims that the title came from a line in an article he had written about the Kennedy Administration. The phrase referred to President John F. Kennedy's "whiz kids" – leaders of industry and academia brought into the Kennedy administration – whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on "brilliant policies that defied common sense" in Vietnam, often against the advice of career US Department of State employees.


Given that most people who use the term "best and brightest" these days are NOT referencing Shelley but are instead referencing Halberstam's use of the phrase, they just might want to stop using it.

I would say, however, that the phrase works quite well for the arrogant, hubristic education reformers who - like the geniuses around LBJ - insist on brilliant policies that defy common sense and are bringing the current to disaster.

Gates, Broad, Bloomberg, Rhee, Klein, McNamara, Maxwell Taylor, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Dean Acheson...

...the nation's "best and brightest."