> At 08:06 AM 9/2/2011, Alan Rudy wrote:
>
>> But the glib dismissal ("Yeah, well,
>> whatever, higher ed's always sucked… just look what Adam Smith said.") of
>> the real consequences for real people of the neoliberal and
>> neoconservative
>> attack on education - primary, secondary or higher - is pretty irritating.
>>
>
> oh get some boudreaux's butt paste for your chapped ass for fuck's sake.
> geez.
>
> i wasn't saying that. i was just noting that there was a time when people
> in academia felt the discpline of the market much more directly.
>
I know, I wasn't writing about your post… I guess I shoulda named names, but I was trying to avoid that… didn't expect a defensive response from you.
>
> and yeah, you're right: i don't feel sorry for your or anyone in academia
> or elsewhere who *feels* they were once somehow sheltered from the market
> and are no longer. this shit has been going on since the early 90s, nearly 2
> decades. what rock have you lived under?
>
where in my post did I say anything whiny like what you're attributing to me? do you remember anything about my professional history or my research on the corporatization of the university? think, babe, just exactly who's ass is chapped here?
>
> you are workers, just fucking like everyone else in this world, and your
> plight is no different than the plight of anyone else who has to work to
> live. i don't give a shit about doctors who talk about the loss of autonmy
> after HMO, PPOs, etc either. It sucks to be them, it has certainly
> contributed to horrible things that happen to the healthcare system, but
> there's nothing about their professions or yours that means exposure to the
> market is aqny more tragic than the rest of the world.
>
Um, that was exactly my point. And we're differentiated workers, some way more privileged than others… The attack on us is part and parcel of a larger attack on all elements of public space, didn't I say that? I see your point as a friendly amendment/extension not some devastating corrective since its what I meant in the first place.
>
> that doesn't mean i don't support the labor struggles of the professoriate.
>
which I know. at the same time, I made the faculty-are-workers argument early on in my time on the list and a number of folks - though not you, as I recall - sought to rip me a new one for my bougie audacity… if its not clear by now, Carrol nailed it, it was the apolitical drift of the conversation that pissed me off (and, yes, I know, it was the conversation that was getting, not the people who are, apolitical.
> it just means i support the labor struggles of *any*
> profession/group/union/**whatever and it has nothing to do with the
> boohoo-lawd-amercy what is happening to the world because i feel sorry for
> people who are supposed to, what?, be sheltered from the market because of
> the, what?, nature of what they fucking do for a living and oh my gosh it's
> about the chillen and their edumacations. we cant' let this happen!
>
Again, where the hell was the boohoo or whiny "but, but, I/we used to be protected from this" crap? Most of what I focused on was the ahistorical "same as it ever was"-ness. Did I need to be explicit about the political passivity of such a stance - and, again, I wasn't responding to your post.
>
> no fucking way to that latter view.
>
> none of us should be subject to the discipline of a market which means we
> have to be worried about keeping our jobs every minute lest we can't keep a
> roof over our head. it doesn't matter whether you push a broom, push pixels,
> or push pomo litcrittery.
duh, where did I say otherwise or did you just feel the need to read that into it?
>
> shag
>
>
>