The original article posted by Sam was about the 
digital divide in the US-the fact that some 
groups have much easier access to computer 
technology, the Internet, etc. What explains this 
fact? Your suggestion was that some people waste 
their money on big TVs and their time watching 
"mindless entertainment". If that doesn't amount 
to blaming the victim, I don't know what does. 
The fact that some of your best students are 
people of color doesn't make the taste that your 
response leaves in the mouth any less appealing.

If what I am objecting to isn't clear, let me 
draw a simple analogy. Why is there an 
"employment divide" in the US, with unemployment 
rates in minority communities twice the national 
average and for black youth well over 40 percent? 
Is it because members of minority communities 
don't have the right work ethic, don't speak 
standard white English, don't dress in 
appropriate ways, etc.? Or does it have to do 
with racism and other structural factors? The 
first explanation isn't made any better if you 
add that for the past 30 years you have been a 
job coach to minority youth, teaching them the 
skills they need to get and keep employment. Such 
work may be admirable, but it doesn't make an 
individualistic explanation (by which I mean an 
explanation in terms of individual behavior) of 
the divide any more credible.

It is interesting to note that both Eric and 
Michael seem to think that rejecting the blame 
the victim response must commit one to some kind 
of ultra-left lunacy. But there are plenty of 
things one can do to help reduce the digital 
divide aside from emphasizing individualistic 
solutions to a problem that can't be solved on an 
individual basis or calling for the downfall of 
capitalism (even if you think capitalism is the 
root of the problem).


At 12:37 PM -0400 7/25/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>I must express my gratitude to Phil.  I now 
>realize that I have been wrong for the past 30 
>yy during which I have tried to encourage my 
>students (virtually all low-income, mostly of 
>color) to study rather than watch stupid TV 
>shows or play violent video games, and for my 
>involvement in getting thousands of surplus 
>computers into the hands of poor people here and 
>in third-world countries.  The scales have been 
>lifted from mine eyes and I can now admit to 
>having been racist in those endeavors.
>Instead, I should have devoted my full energies 
>to the struggle for the downfall of capitalism, 
>as Phil clearly does.  You are my hero, Phil.  I 
>love you.
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List             
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Talking gently.
>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:31:04 -0500
>Oops--I meant that response to go to Maurice, 
>not to the whole list. Apologies.
>Incidentally, the fact that provocations can 
>sometimes be constructive, doesn't mean they 
>always are or even generally are (unless you 
>believe that every cloud has a silver lining). A 
>racist rant would be highly provocative, but 
>perhaps not very constructive.
>At 10:15 AM +0100 7/25/07, Michael Balter wrote:
>>With all due respect to Phil, whom I admire 
>>greatly, I have problems with the use of the 
>>word "provocation" on this list, and not just 
>>because it was repeatedly aimed at me not so 
>>long ago. A provocation appears to be when 
>>someone on this list says something that others 
>>do not agree with because it appears to violate 
>>some shared assumption that we are all supposed 
>>to have. If so, then we need more provocations 
>>on this list, not fewer, if the left is to 
>>engage in the kind of self-examination it so 
>>badly needs. Sorry Les, but I have not banged 
>>on too much about this lately, have I?
>>love, like Maurice says, but tough love.
>>On 7/25/07, Phil Gasper 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] > 
>>I thought the tone of my first response to what 
>>was, frankly, an ignorant and provocative post 
>>was very "gentle". I also think a little 
>>sarcasm is appropriate when the ignorance is 
>>not only repeated but magnified. I certainly 
>>think it's missing the point in a big way to 
>>equate my response with Eric E.'s double 
>>provocation, but you're entitled to your own 
>>opinion, of course.
>>At 9:44 AM +0200 7/25/07, Maurice Bazin wrote:
>>>Dear all,
>>fascinating for me who will fly from Paris to 
>>Rio de Janeiro (via Florianópolis) in a few 
>>hours, to read a truly American exchange  about 
>>technology and life in America.
>>Claudia's contribution is very illuminating, 
>>technical, social and full of feeling.  She 
>>does not argue! She talks with us all.
>>  I ask our friends Phil and Eric and more male 
>>participants to learn from Claudia.  Learn to 
>>be gentle! Please!  It is so good to read 
>>gentle tones when one is afar and then wishes 
>>one were there, with you all at the next AAAS 
>>Love.  Yours truly,
>>Maurice Bazin, last hours in Paris
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Claudia Hemphill Pine wrote:
>>Umm... maybe we could all back off from 
>>"prescriptive" values and take a more 
>>descriptive look here.
>>YES. Both in the micro-universe of this story, 
>>and the wider personal experience of some of 
>>us, low-income households appear to be more 
>>likely to have TV's with cable than computers 
>>with internet.
>>Never mind that access being high-speed. I live 
>>in a grad student/old people's "ghetto" in my 
>>small university town and I only have dial-up. 
>>Why? It's not the cost to me, but the 
>>unwilllingness of either my local phone 
>>provider or rental property owner to provide. 
>>Certainly, my city isn't interested.
>>Not that cost isn't a consideration: I don't 
>>have cable or a big TV, partly because it's an 
>>expense I'm unwilling to pay. But my social and 
>>informational needs are amply satisfied by 
>>internet communities, list-servs and emails; by 
>>the many local RL friends who I tend to see on 
>>campus, or downtown, at the gallery, the 
>>bookshop or the Saturday market; by occasional 
>>trips out of town to see family; by newspapers 
>>(online) and journals (delivered). I can watch 
>>films on my laptop. If I want to see a 
>>favorably-reviewed TV show or an entire season, 
>>my family can often share it on TiVO or DVDs 
>>when I visit.
>>Ahhh.... that's why I can live without TV. It 
>>isn't my source of news or shopping 
>>information. It isn't the common conversational 
>>currency with friends or colleagues. It isn't 
>>my escape from the humdrum of home with kids 
>>during the day, or when hiding inside from 
>>heat, a city's noise or insecurity.  Or the 
>>"only thing there is," as for so many older 
>>people who for health or safety reasons, stay 
>>at home.
>>So, I can turn my nose up at cable TV. But for 
>>others, it's a key connection to news and 
>>neighborhood, as well as recreation. I'd no 
>>more ask them to trade it in for a computer & 
>>the internet - with the associated learning 
>>curve, hardware needs, shorter uselife, and 
>>mainly single-user setup - than I would ask my 
>>Mom to give up watching Wimbledon and Mystery 
>>to listen to NPR and hang out on the internet 
>>like me. Internet doesn't replace cable TV for 
>>her, just augments it. But it added costs and 
>>complications as well.
>>Mom's house is actually wireless now. But she 
>>was driven to the internet more than she was 
>>enticed. She had to get email to stay in touch 
>>with her peripatetic children (who don't write 
>>snail mail letters) and eastern European 
>>friends (whose letters take months).  She can 
>>use it to shop beyond her smallish city.  To 
>>really sweeten the pot, she gets unlimited free 
>>in-home software and hardware support from 2 
>>daughters and a son-in-law with very high 
>>computer skills.
>>I don't think it's as easy for someone like 
>>those in this article to dump cable TV and 
>>shift over to internet. They would lose as much 
>>as, or more than, they gain.
>>On 7/24/07, Phil Gasper 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> 
>>You're digging yourself in deeper, Eric. Why don't all those poor
>>people stop eating at MacDonald's and start eating healthy organic
>>vegetables? And if they just studied harder instead of wasting their
>>money on "mindless entertainment" I bet they could get into Harvard
>>This isn't the Science for Elitists list.
>>At 8:58 PM -0400 7/24/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>>>The article in question starts with this erroneous comment:
>>>"I am low-income and computers are not low-income," says Marcella
>>>Morris, sitting on the front step of her apartment building on a
>>>sweltering day last week.
>>>A $50 used computer and under $20 per month gets one on the internet
>>>with broadband quite adequately, and a dialup connection can be had
>>>for under $40 per year.
>>>My contention is simply that cost is not the cause of the so-called
>>>"digital divide".  And that most low-income people in this country
>>>spend far more than that on mindless entertainment, as do most
>>>people of any income level.  Let's get real here.
>>>----Original Message Follows----
>>>From: Phil Gasper <<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:26:35 -0500
>>>I am uncomfortable with Eric's comment, which seems to be blaming
>>>the poor for their lack of computer access.
>>>I also think that on a list about science it ought to be possible to
>>>do better than make claims that begin "I bet". Why not do a little
>>>research first?
>>>At 1:31 PM -0400 7/24/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>>>>I'll bet a lot of lower-income people have big TVs and cable, but
>>>>no computer or broadband.  A computer that is adequate for
>>>>broadband net access can bought new for little and used for almost
>>>>nothing. The primary computer I use is an old Pentium 3 that has a
>>>>value of maybe $50.  And if need be, cable TV could be sacrificed
>>>>for cable broadband.  So no doubt choice is a big factor here.
>>>>But, of course, much more needs to be done toward the provision of
>>>>technology education and low-cost broadband.  And more public
>>>>access to computers on the internet as alternatives to libraries
>>>>and schools and Starbucks.  For example, when I visited Tucson
>>>>three yy ago, I was pleased to find the Univ. of AZ computer center
>>>>to be open long hours and to have free public access with no time
>>>>limit. Every computer even had a CD burner available for downloads.
>>>>----Original Message Follows----
>>>>From: Sam Anderson < <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >
>>  >>To: 
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:38:17 -0400
>>>>Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>>By Jose Antonio Vargas
>>>>Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>Monday, July 23, 2007; C01
>>>>CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Less than a mile and a half from the Citadel,
>>>>the  site of the Democratic presidential debate tonight, sits
>>>>Cooper River  Courts, a public housing project. Forget the Web.
>>>>Never mind YouTube,  the debate's co-sponsor. Here, owning a
>>>>computer and getting on the  Internet (through DSL or cable or
>>>>Wi-Fi) is a luxury.
>>>>"I am low-income and computers are not low-income," says Marcella
>>>>Morris, sitting on the front step of her apartment building on a
>>>>sweltering day last week.
>>>>The unemployed 45-year-old adds: "I know how to use a computer. I
>>>>just can't afford one right now."
>>>>There exists "two Americas," as John Edwards, South Carolina's own
>>>>son, likes to say: an America for the rich and an America for the
>>>>poor. But what Edwards and the rest of the presidential field have
>>  >>yet to adequately address are the two Americas online: one that's
>>>>connected to high-speed Internet -- socializing, paying bills,
>>>>uploading debate questions to presidential candidates on YouTube --
>>>>and one that's not. This is the digital divide, now more than a
>>>>decade old, a rarely discussed schism in which the unconnected are
>>>>second-class citizens. In some parts of this so-called Internet
>>>>ghetto, the screech of a telephone modem dialing up to get online
>>>>is not uncommon. And with dial-up, YouTube is impossible to use.
>>>>Between 40 to 45 percent of Charlestonians, city officials here
>>>>estimate, subscribe to high-speed Internet. That figure is nearly
>>>>in line with the national average, according to the nonpartisan
>>>>group Free Press. And though a study released last month by the Pew
>>>>Internet & American Life Project found that broadband use among
>>>>African American adults increased from 14 percent in 2005 to 40
>>>>percent this year, blacks continue to lag behind whites and
>>>>English- speaking Latinos. In fact, a great number of American
>>>>households , especially in rural areas and poorer parts of cities
>>>>such as Charleston, are without broadband.
>>>>And in a presidential election that's being fought as much online
>>>>as off it -- all campaigns employ Web strategies -- some say the
>>>>candidates have generally ignored the issue.
>>>>"I would argue that the digital divide is worse than it was 10
>>>>years ago. Back then everyone -- schools, businesses -- was trying
>>>>to get online. These days every single Fortune 500 company has its
>>>>employees, its customers and its suppliers connected 24 hours a
>>>>day, seven days a week. In the meantime, while our students have
>>>>online access at school, many of them don't have it at home," says
>>>>Andrew Rasiej, a member of a panel studying universal Internet
>>>>access in New  York, and co-founder of TechPresident, a nonpartisan
>>>>blog that tracks  the online campaign.
>>>>"Our presidential candidates may all have BlackBerrys, but they
>>>>have no vision when it comes to bringing all our citizens to the
>>>>21st century. If you go to look at the presidential candidate Web
>>>>sites, the word 'Internet' practically doesn't exist. Breaking the
>>>>digital divide has not been recognized as a critical issue," Rasiej
>>>>Two months ago, TechPresident challenged the candidates to adopt
>>>>specific policies to get everyone online. "Declare the Internet a
>>>>public good in the same way we think of water, electricity,
>>>>highways," reads a policy statement. "Commit to providing
>>>>affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide," reads
>>>>another. So far most of the candidates have not adopted any of it,
>>>>Rasiej says.
>>>>"At one level, the YouTube debate shows that the Web has really
>>>>become a centerpiece of American political culture," adds Lee
>>>>Rainie,  director of Pew Internet. "At another level, it also shows
>>>>that the  debate is not for everybody. It's certainly not available
>>  >>to all  Americans."
>>>>That is especially true at Cooper River Courts, where Tiara Reid,
>>>>14,  in her jeans shorts and pink striped top, runs up and down the
>>>>complex asking friends if anyone wants to go the library. Finally
>>>>her  mom, Jossie, who works at a deli, drives her and a neighbor's
>>>>daughter. With school out and without Internet access at home, the
>>>>library is the only place where she can go on the Web -- for a
>>>>maximum of two hours a day. Says Tiara: "It's 10 minutes to get to
>>>>the library if someone drives you. It's 15 minutes if you take the
>>>>30  bus. It's about 30 minutes if you walk." On the library's
>>>>second floor, she folds herself up on a chair and updates her
>>>>MySpace profile, sends e-mails on her Yahoo! account and, if
>>>>there's time, surfs <>
>>>>Across from the Reids' apartment stands LaToya Ferguson, holding
>>>>her grandson Marquis. She's one of the few residents here to have
>>>>Internet access at home. It's a sense of pride for her. "You're
>>>>falling behind if you're not online, now that's the truth," says
>>>>Ferguson, a nail technician in her 30s.
>>  >>
>>>>Nearby Marcella Morris runs after her son Donny, who's nearly 2.
>>>>Morris says she relies on "the three F's" -- food stamps, family
>>>>and friends -- to provide for Donny and her 7-year-old daughter,
>>>>Jordan. Money's tight. She has a phone, subscribes to cable, but
>>>>that's it. No cellphone, no car, no computer. At 3 in the morning,
>>>>when an infomercial about the Web-based Specialty Merchandise
>>>>Corp.comes on TV, she dreams of owning a business, she says.
>>>>A few weeks ago, she signed up for a computer program at Trident
>>>>Literacy Association, a 10-minute walk from her apartment. At the
>>>>end  of the 10-week program, she will receive a refurbished
>>>>computer, free.
>>>>"Never too late to start, right?" Morris says. "But after I get the
>>>>computer I have to worry about the Internet."
>>>>It's a familiar story around the country, even in places as
>>>>Internet- savvy as San Francisco, Chicago and the District. Who can
>>>>get online?  Who can't? And what can be done about it?
>>>>Charlestonians pay as little as $20 or as much as $99 (which covers
>>>>phone, cable and the Internet) a month to get online, depending on
>>>>the package. There are a few free Wi-Fi "hot spots" in town, such
>>>>as the Cereality cafe on King Street, where a cappuccino costs
>>>>Nearly two years ago, officials vowed to spread Internet access
>>>>across the city. An initiative called the Charleston Digital
>>>>Corridor  selected a proposal to build a citywide Wi-Fi grid. It
>>>>was meant to  give everybody free Wi-Fi -- and the city didn't even
>>>>have to pay for  it. As in other municipalities that are developing
>>>>public Wi-Fi  projects, now numbering around 400, the goal is
>>>>twofold: to empower  small businesses and to plug poorer
>>>>neighborhoods such as Cooper  River Courts into the online world.
>>>>But like other cities, including San Francisco, Charleston has
>>>>struggled with its Wi-Fi project. The city originally said the
>>>>service would be up and running at the end of 2005. It was delayed.
>>>>Twice. When it finally was launched last spring, the Wi-Fi reached
>>>>only about 30 to 40 percent of its intended coverage.
>>>>And the Charlestonians tapping into the free Wi-Fi network --
>>>>sometimes more than 200 surfers a day -- were largely the ones who
>>>>could already afford to pay for it.
>>>>Now the citywide Wi-Fi project is in limbo. But Ernest Andrade,
>>>>head of the Digital Corridor, is optimistic: "We're evaluating
>>>>right now and I know that we'll bring Wi-Fi access to the rest of
>>>>this city," he pledges. Morris sounds upbeat, too. She plans on
>>>>sticking with her  10-week computer course. "Not having the
>>>>Internet in this day and  time makes me feel disconnected from a
>>>>whole other world. Things I  could see, things I could hear, things
>>>>I could do.
>>>>"I could take my kids to other places on the Internet," says Morris
>>>>as Donny naps on her lap. "Sometimes I feel shortchanged. Not
>>>>envious, but shortchanged."
>>>>She just turned 45 three days ago. By her 46th birthday, she hopes
>>  >>to  own a computer -- and be online.
>>>>s. e. anderson (author of "The Black Holocaust for Beginners" -
>>>>Writers + Readers) + 
>>>>Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in
>>>>one place! 
>>Michael Balter
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving 
>directions - all in one place!