Professor Woody spent 20 years, more or less, on this problem. Here's my conclusions in a nutshell:
Teaching is an intransitive verb.
"Teaching" only names the act of "pointing with purpose."
Learning occurs when those who have observed what has been pointed at gather to cooperatively discuss what they saw.
That can occur in person, or in company with a book.
Such discussion IS "education." Any education is necessarily "self-education." It's the only kind there is.
Since Nam: Woody'z detested this ass-licker since he helped try to cover up the My Lai massacre.
So my question isn't congratulatory or grateful. He isn't saying anything nobody doesn't already know.
My question is: why the FUCK, Colon, is it STILL "your party," you craven shitheel? Gettin' yer fill of the ol' 'self-hate?' Do ya enjoy the abuse?
(Note: Somebody asked me what "Chuy jodido" means. First, let me explain: If you're saying it, it sounds like "Chewy Ho-DEEDoh!" As to meaning: "Chuy" is a nickname for an hispanic fella named "Jesus," of whom there are many. "Jodido" is a vernacular term in Spanish loosely translated as "Fuck!" There's a widely repeated aphorism: "Jodido, pero contento." It connotes: "Yeah, I'm fucked, but I'm okay widdit."
So "Chuy jodido" is my international way of saying: "Jeezis FUCK, man!?"
Then one further caveat: I cannot attest to ever having heard it uttered or seen it in print by anyone except me.
The "C" Word:
Today (Thursday, 5/16), in a piece on his "blog" for the NYTimes, Nobel-winning economist and gadfly Paul Krugman in which he approved and even endorsed the following sentiments:
I conjecture that “austerians” are concerned that anti-recessionary macro policy will allow a country to “muddle through” a crisis without improving its institutions. In other words, they fear that a successful stimulus would be wasting a good crisis.(Aside: "Austerians" is a great word. I think Krugman himself coined it. It's genius is that is draws together the two contributing skeins of the meme and, having blended them, ridicules them: "Austerity" obviously, but thaen also the "Vienna School" economists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the "Austrians," whose theories, when implemented, such as in post-Soviet Russia, have NEVER shown the SLIGHTEST evidence of "success. A fine mockery...but I digress)
Krugman then says: "What Smith (the author of the quote) didn’t note, somewhat surprisingly, is that his argument is very close to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, with its argument that elites systematically exploit disasters to push through neoliberal policies even if these policies are essentially irrelevant to the sources of disaster."
I wrote, in reply: "What neither Klein nor Krugman--nor ANYONE in the lapdog/corpoRat "press" on any side, of any stripe, and not at ALL not surprisingly--will venture to discuss is the consequent/subsequent speculation/possibility (probability?), that the 'elite' (because of their consonant and intimately shared interests and influences) will/might POSSIBLY have incentives to actually PROMOTE and/or PERMIT, even PERPETRATE crises in order to provide the public stimuli needed to ENACT their structural reforms.
Unthinkable, yeah. I know. What would YOU call the 400 or so people/families--which collectively own more of the national wealth than the 150 MILLION citizens occupying the 47%, combined--who might have reason, or at least opportunity and interest in colluding with one another to ensure their continued good fortune?
Elite interests are self-avowedly "trans" or "extra--national." They trade in passports like used apparel. They have no loyalties except to their own/class interests." Health INSURANCE suits their needs--not for care, but got spare change. Right-to-Work suits their interests: unions are SUCH a bother, and even the imported help are getting uppity. As Leona Helmsley remarked: "Rules are for the little people."
In precis: Capitalism and democracy are incompatible. Capitalism--the corpoRat kind we now know, which is the only kind there is-- is authoritarian, arguably totalitarian, rigidly hierarchical. The very antithesis of democracy.
Marx said--and many others repeated--that capitalism is an intermediary step, during which the necessary wealth is created and thence directed into building civilization, thereupon to be overthrown by the proletariat and managed for the common good.
You can already see the problem widdat, I guess. Capitalism refuses to be overthrown, and has the means to resist.