I don't know about you, but I didn't have time at work to listen to more than ten minutes of the live Q & A. But I like the format. I can't imagine a more different president than Obama. He's like the anti-Bush, like Bush was the Bizzaro President to Obama's Superman version.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Monday Kind Of Day
Found this at the end of a short article on kids taking a "field" trip to the boys restroom. No doubt, the quote should lighten your Monday:
"I'm OK with urinals," said Chessy. "It's just another kind of toilet. It makes things easier for boys, and boys need all the help they can get."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Something You Wouldn't Have Heard From GWB
The folks of the Bush Administration were experts at deflecting and playing the blame game, despite their insistence that we not play it. Shoot, it was not for us to play, but when it came time to deflect responsibility, the W, Rove and Co were straight up experts.
In a clearly decisive position, Obama, plays quite differently. By stepping up, you see, there is power to be had by assuming the responsibility:
Obama and his team, in direct contrast, are brilliant. Now let's hope he has a chance to make good on his word. The proof, indeed, will be in the pudding.
The republicans, who voted against the stimulus and are now praying for failure so they can re-win their seats to Congress, have to be squirming in their boots at this point.
In a clearly decisive position, Obama, plays quite differently. By stepping up, you see, there is power to be had by assuming the responsibility:
“Washington is all in a tizzy over who’s at fault,” Mr. Obama said. “Some say it’s the Democrats’ fault, the Republicans’ fault. Listen, I’ll take responsibility. I’m the president.”Even if GWB uttered these words, he and his crack team of propagandists were so good at deflecting responsibility and blame that W's words were not trustworthy. Moreover, we knew W's words were empty based on his follow through and lack of action.
Obama and his team, in direct contrast, are brilliant. Now let's hope he has a chance to make good on his word. The proof, indeed, will be in the pudding.
The republicans, who voted against the stimulus and are now praying for failure so they can re-win their seats to Congress, have to be squirming in their boots at this point.
Monday, March 16, 2009
AIG Top Dogs Set To Get Giant Buckets Of Bonus Money
Welcome to George Bush's America, where the people who lead borrowers down the primrose path to foreclosure are set to reward themselves for one of the biggest failures in corporate America amounting to the biggest governmental bailout in history. Shall these folks be allowed to get their bonuses, or not?
Discuss.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Discuss.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Avoiding the Mahem of the Irish Bars on Tuesday, Here's a Dose of Traditional Irish
Micho Russell died a few years back, and we are all worse off for it. He's the whistle player here:
The Bothy Band Kicked Ass when they were together, their music still fills the set lists of many a trad session:
Altan has been on the circuit for a great long while, and I've seen them live twice. Kick ass smoothness:
And Mary Bergin, perhaps one of the best whistle players of all time. Any time I need an ego check, she humbles me:
A second dose of perfection:
The attraction of traditional Irish is that many people can do it, with a bit of practice, can become quite good:
Lastly, these guys are taking it to a new rockibily level and are playing the Great American Music Hall on Tuesday - get your tix now, they are bound to sell out.
Not only is the band super hot, their box player, Rene, makes playing the accordian look super hot!
Blog on friend.
Blog on all.
And, Erin go Bragh
The Bothy Band Kicked Ass when they were together, their music still fills the set lists of many a trad session:
Altan has been on the circuit for a great long while, and I've seen them live twice. Kick ass smoothness:
And Mary Bergin, perhaps one of the best whistle players of all time. Any time I need an ego check, she humbles me:
A second dose of perfection:
The attraction of traditional Irish is that many people can do it, with a bit of practice, can become quite good:
Lastly, these guys are taking it to a new rockibily level and are playing the Great American Music Hall on Tuesday - get your tix now, they are bound to sell out.
Not only is the band super hot, their box player, Rene, makes playing the accordian look super hot!
Blog on friend.
Blog on all.
And, Erin go Bragh
Friday, March 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Three Pronged Solution For Education in America
Given that Obama and his team have finally seriously broached the subject today, let's take a look at my three ideas for changing education in America. It's a three pronged approach, but there are additional facets to explore later.
First - the cost of education is too expensive. Why? Because the administrative overhead is extremely out of balance, particularly at the executive, top-end level. Thus, idea one: Cut the top first - eliminating the super-level of bureaucratic administration starting at the System or Superintendent's office.
Saving many millions of dollars by cutting those offices and redistributing it to the schools will generate a great investment in the front lines; where the education takes place and with the students. In the mid 1800s, where our modern systemic structure emerged, the most educated person in a school district, indeed, was the Superintendent of Schools. Kids were taught by young, unmarried women who received all their direction from this Superintendent. Today, the teachers could suffice as the superintendents of most school districts in the 1800s. Principals often have Ed.Ds or some long litany of educational credentials. What was the last good thing your Superintendent did that affected the daily education of a student? If your answer is, like many, you have no clue, then why are we spending the enormous overhead to support this bloated infrastructure? If there are administrative staff who will be displaced, send them out to the schools to help with the day-to-day operations, where the kids are.
Cutting the top first works at the collegiate level as well. Cutting the State System Offices - for example the CSU Chancellor's office - will save the system a great sum of money. Redistribute the funds to the colleges and universities in the system. Each college and university has their own governing boards, independent of the CSU dignitaries. The CSU maintains it's own expensive board. These systems are redundant. Again, if there are administrative staff that will be displaced by closing down the Long Beach operation of the CSU, redistribute them to the various campus and have them help in teaching or administrating locally, where the students are. If you don't add value to the student experience, then you are in jeopardy of losing your job.
Second - we need to expand the academic curriculum so that it harmonizes with the culture and needs of today's students and families. Thus idea 2 - introduce a year round calendar that engages students and teaching staff for a full year, with some time for a good break to rejuvenate for a family holiday (hopefully harmonizing with a corresponding work vacation).
Back over 150 years ago, we were a largely agrarian nation. This when the school systems and district systems were created. The calendar, reflected the nation at the time, and the needs to sustain the population. Indeed, children were needed to work the family farm over the summer. Aside from a large chunk of the mid-west and some other agricultural geographies (e.g. Central Valley of California), the nature of childhood doesn't involve plowing the fields, picking rock, or being involved in animal husbandry.
Contrarily, there is no substitute today for both parents working in the urban environments in many States. Most families are comprised of parents who don't work on the farm, but are otherwise gainfully employed year round. Moreover with the farms becoming more and more absorbed by major business conglomerates, and modernized, farm life these days is a year round affair. To think that students should be let loose for an extended summer break, to help on the family farm, or for whatever reason is a quaint, and antiquated notion. Why not move the school calendar - with some well placed extended breaks not more than a month at a time - to a year round format? This will decrease the length of time it takes for people to graduate provided schools don't take the opportunity to fill up the curricula with more, rather than focusing on creating efficiencies in an effective curriculum.
Third - the idea of life-time employment in any industry is suffering a swift demise in this economy, but why should it be protected in academic settings? Thus prong 2 - invert the tenure rules and decouple it from any form of supervisor/evaluative measures for teaching staff.
Tenure evolved over time, mainly during the mid 1900s as a direct reaction to the threat to faculty of being fired for speaking heresy on a campus if the President didn't like the findings of your last study. There was also a threat of prosecution by the government and in particular the communist witch hunts, mainly familiar to us as McCarthyism. It has evolved from a pure protection of academic freedom to a de facto personnel policy, a decision point typically five to seven years after initial employment where the person receives an up or out vote.
Today, a person's freedom of speech, and more importantly, the protection of Academic Freedom (separate from tenure as a vehicle for this protection) is well grounded in the legal system. Tenure has become obsolete. Moreover, tenure offers no equal protection for the people who need it the most - the junior faculty who are trying to obtain tenure. In fact, the policy effectively grants tenure to the people who need it the least - senior faculty with a well established publication and teaching record - and does not provide it for the people who need it the most - the junior faculty member who may otherwise be plowing into new and innovative ends of the knowledge development. And as a result, we get isomorphic tendencies in both the development of new knowledge and the propagation of old antiquated teaching practice. There is no protection for innovations in both research and pedagogy for all the new folks entering the field are afraid that if they don't fall into line, they will not be granted the holy grail of tenure.
What we really should do is, instead of the current practice, give tenure to new faculty for a duration not to amount to more than 5 or 7 years. Once you reach that point, you get a decision as to if you should remain as a qualified teacher, and you should stand on your own record. Once you reach that point, the meritocracy should kick in. If you have been doing well, publishing and developing new veins of research, and teaching in effective ways, you should be retained, but not promised lifetime employment.
Any high quality faculty member should have, by then, cultivated a means by which you would not need tenure and you stand on the quality of your past and continued work instead of on the promise of what you might do - which is what we see in tenured ranks around the globe. There is a great deal of deadwood in the tenured faculty ranks. People cling to the status as if it was their only justification for employment - as in, "I'm tenured, you cannot touch me. I'll do whatever I want." Which many times over means, hell, no, I'm not going to teach differently or offer a new course, or take on any responsibility that might require more work on my part.
This practice leaves our schools, colleges, and universities stagnant and tenure serves not as a facilitator of but roadblock to innovation and creativity, particularly in some of the oldest disciplines. America does not run in a siloed environment. Students and parents should insist that their education is not offered in a siloed environment as well.
Well, there you have it. Let me summarize. We could greatly improve our system if we attacked the system as we know it using three prongs (all three tend to be sacred cows, but shoot, this is a blog and what fun is if if we can't slay a few of those every so often).
Prong 1 - Cut the bloated administrative overhead, starting with the top levels first, and flatten the organizational structures by funneling the saved funds direct to the schools where the real action of teaching and learning occurs.
Prong 2 - Expand the school calendar to extend it across the year so that it no longer reflects an old-world, agrarian mentality. Yes, students (and teachers and administrators for that matter) need substantial breaks, but not three months over the summer. In fact, we could finish up educating our students in a much more compressed time frame if we were both efficient and effective with our curricula.
Prong 3 - Invert the tenure model to give it to the new folks who more need the protection and those who need it the least are given the liberty to stand on their own records and work to continually improve and advance. Tenure as a de facto personnel policy and surrogate for accountability and supervision in America should be abolished. Instead, we should be actively promoting the improvement of our teaching faculty, and it should not stop after the first seven years of employment once, as is customary, tenure is granted. Indeed, there is proven research that suggests that faculty productivity post tenure declines, very rarely rising to the same levels of productivity demonstrated before hand. The days of deadwood faculty leaning on tenure as the only reason and rationale for their continued employment are over.
Tenure should, in no way and in no uncertain terms, be the only means of supervision of professional teaching staff. However, as it sits Tenure as a principle and a policy currently stands as the only means of holding teachers accountable, unless your school or college has post-tenure review; a discussion of which could constitute a whole other post. Never mind figuring out what actually qualifies as "high quality" teaching, and how to wrangle a system that rewards for merit.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
First - the cost of education is too expensive. Why? Because the administrative overhead is extremely out of balance, particularly at the executive, top-end level. Thus, idea one: Cut the top first - eliminating the super-level of bureaucratic administration starting at the System or Superintendent's office.
Saving many millions of dollars by cutting those offices and redistributing it to the schools will generate a great investment in the front lines; where the education takes place and with the students. In the mid 1800s, where our modern systemic structure emerged, the most educated person in a school district, indeed, was the Superintendent of Schools. Kids were taught by young, unmarried women who received all their direction from this Superintendent. Today, the teachers could suffice as the superintendents of most school districts in the 1800s. Principals often have Ed.Ds or some long litany of educational credentials. What was the last good thing your Superintendent did that affected the daily education of a student? If your answer is, like many, you have no clue, then why are we spending the enormous overhead to support this bloated infrastructure? If there are administrative staff who will be displaced, send them out to the schools to help with the day-to-day operations, where the kids are.
Cutting the top first works at the collegiate level as well. Cutting the State System Offices - for example the CSU Chancellor's office - will save the system a great sum of money. Redistribute the funds to the colleges and universities in the system. Each college and university has their own governing boards, independent of the CSU dignitaries. The CSU maintains it's own expensive board. These systems are redundant. Again, if there are administrative staff that will be displaced by closing down the Long Beach operation of the CSU, redistribute them to the various campus and have them help in teaching or administrating locally, where the students are. If you don't add value to the student experience, then you are in jeopardy of losing your job.
Second - we need to expand the academic curriculum so that it harmonizes with the culture and needs of today's students and families. Thus idea 2 - introduce a year round calendar that engages students and teaching staff for a full year, with some time for a good break to rejuvenate for a family holiday (hopefully harmonizing with a corresponding work vacation).
Back over 150 years ago, we were a largely agrarian nation. This when the school systems and district systems were created. The calendar, reflected the nation at the time, and the needs to sustain the population. Indeed, children were needed to work the family farm over the summer. Aside from a large chunk of the mid-west and some other agricultural geographies (e.g. Central Valley of California), the nature of childhood doesn't involve plowing the fields, picking rock, or being involved in animal husbandry.
Contrarily, there is no substitute today for both parents working in the urban environments in many States. Most families are comprised of parents who don't work on the farm, but are otherwise gainfully employed year round. Moreover with the farms becoming more and more absorbed by major business conglomerates, and modernized, farm life these days is a year round affair. To think that students should be let loose for an extended summer break, to help on the family farm, or for whatever reason is a quaint, and antiquated notion. Why not move the school calendar - with some well placed extended breaks not more than a month at a time - to a year round format? This will decrease the length of time it takes for people to graduate provided schools don't take the opportunity to fill up the curricula with more, rather than focusing on creating efficiencies in an effective curriculum.
Third - the idea of life-time employment in any industry is suffering a swift demise in this economy, but why should it be protected in academic settings? Thus prong 2 - invert the tenure rules and decouple it from any form of supervisor/evaluative measures for teaching staff.
Tenure evolved over time, mainly during the mid 1900s as a direct reaction to the threat to faculty of being fired for speaking heresy on a campus if the President didn't like the findings of your last study. There was also a threat of prosecution by the government and in particular the communist witch hunts, mainly familiar to us as McCarthyism. It has evolved from a pure protection of academic freedom to a de facto personnel policy, a decision point typically five to seven years after initial employment where the person receives an up or out vote.
Today, a person's freedom of speech, and more importantly, the protection of Academic Freedom (separate from tenure as a vehicle for this protection) is well grounded in the legal system. Tenure has become obsolete. Moreover, tenure offers no equal protection for the people who need it the most - the junior faculty who are trying to obtain tenure. In fact, the policy effectively grants tenure to the people who need it the least - senior faculty with a well established publication and teaching record - and does not provide it for the people who need it the most - the junior faculty member who may otherwise be plowing into new and innovative ends of the knowledge development. And as a result, we get isomorphic tendencies in both the development of new knowledge and the propagation of old antiquated teaching practice. There is no protection for innovations in both research and pedagogy for all the new folks entering the field are afraid that if they don't fall into line, they will not be granted the holy grail of tenure.
What we really should do is, instead of the current practice, give tenure to new faculty for a duration not to amount to more than 5 or 7 years. Once you reach that point, you get a decision as to if you should remain as a qualified teacher, and you should stand on your own record. Once you reach that point, the meritocracy should kick in. If you have been doing well, publishing and developing new veins of research, and teaching in effective ways, you should be retained, but not promised lifetime employment.
Any high quality faculty member should have, by then, cultivated a means by which you would not need tenure and you stand on the quality of your past and continued work instead of on the promise of what you might do - which is what we see in tenured ranks around the globe. There is a great deal of deadwood in the tenured faculty ranks. People cling to the status as if it was their only justification for employment - as in, "I'm tenured, you cannot touch me. I'll do whatever I want." Which many times over means, hell, no, I'm not going to teach differently or offer a new course, or take on any responsibility that might require more work on my part.
This practice leaves our schools, colleges, and universities stagnant and tenure serves not as a facilitator of but roadblock to innovation and creativity, particularly in some of the oldest disciplines. America does not run in a siloed environment. Students and parents should insist that their education is not offered in a siloed environment as well.
Well, there you have it. Let me summarize. We could greatly improve our system if we attacked the system as we know it using three prongs (all three tend to be sacred cows, but shoot, this is a blog and what fun is if if we can't slay a few of those every so often).
Prong 1 - Cut the bloated administrative overhead, starting with the top levels first, and flatten the organizational structures by funneling the saved funds direct to the schools where the real action of teaching and learning occurs.
Prong 2 - Expand the school calendar to extend it across the year so that it no longer reflects an old-world, agrarian mentality. Yes, students (and teachers and administrators for that matter) need substantial breaks, but not three months over the summer. In fact, we could finish up educating our students in a much more compressed time frame if we were both efficient and effective with our curricula.
Prong 3 - Invert the tenure model to give it to the new folks who more need the protection and those who need it the least are given the liberty to stand on their own records and work to continually improve and advance. Tenure as a de facto personnel policy and surrogate for accountability and supervision in America should be abolished. Instead, we should be actively promoting the improvement of our teaching faculty, and it should not stop after the first seven years of employment once, as is customary, tenure is granted. Indeed, there is proven research that suggests that faculty productivity post tenure declines, very rarely rising to the same levels of productivity demonstrated before hand. The days of deadwood faculty leaning on tenure as the only reason and rationale for their continued employment are over.
Tenure should, in no way and in no uncertain terms, be the only means of supervision of professional teaching staff. However, as it sits Tenure as a principle and a policy currently stands as the only means of holding teachers accountable, unless your school or college has post-tenure review; a discussion of which could constitute a whole other post. Never mind figuring out what actually qualifies as "high quality" teaching, and how to wrangle a system that rewards for merit.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
No Matter The Outcome, No Harm Done To Straight Marriage
Look, here's the fundamental burden of proof not offered by Ken Starr or any of the other Prop H8 supporters - where's the harm if two men or two women marry each other? Regardless of the outcome of the California Supreme Court case we already have positive proof that same sex marriage neither diminishes the institution of marriage nor harm existing heterosexual marriages. The very fact that 18,000 or so couples have been married in the window of opportunity offered by justice and the heterosexual community has, as of yet, not offered one shred off proof that their marriages have been harmed by it aught to be proof positive that their argument is false.
Really, we are in a surreal time where the bigotry of the slim "majority," is forcing it's values on the liberties of a minority. This is why the constitution exists - to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Really, shouldn't the rhetorical mashing and mincing of definitions be irrelevant when it comes down to it? What's the harm if two old ladies want to get hitched? How does it hurt heterosexual marriage if Phylis Lyon can actually claim she was able to marry her life long love, now deceased?
It's time to stop standing on bigotry to foist a relic of puritanical values upon a people who should be allowed to marry if they wish. Really, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry some one of your same gender. But, simply because you believe something so strongly doesn't make your position correct, or right (we learned that the hard way in Iraq).
I ask one more time - where's the harm & what is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection? A very legitimate argument to be made is the exact opposite position - that when you open up the legal system to allow gays, lesbians and transgendered people to be married, heterosexual marriage is strengthened, not harmed. Ultimately, the irony of the yes on H8 crowd is that they suggest that they are "protecting" marriage by preventing marriage. Is that really a tenable position no matter how strongly a person believes that gays should not be married?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Really, we are in a surreal time where the bigotry of the slim "majority," is forcing it's values on the liberties of a minority. This is why the constitution exists - to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
It's the moment when the anti-marriage-equality forces might want to coast downhill, to revel in their courtroom comeback, to finally savor their 52.47% victory at the polls last November. To the most smug among them, I will be able to say this:
I'm still married.
A $50-million election battle, two high-court showdowns, and what do the pro-Proposition 8 folks have to show for it? California still has what is likely the largest population of married same-sex couples -- an estimated 18,000 -- anywhere in the world. That's 18,000 raspberry seeds stuck in their teeth for years to come. California won't be a gay-marriage-free zone again unless we all die or move. If they believe Proposition 8 hollows out my marriage, well, my marriage hollows out their political victory.
Really, shouldn't the rhetorical mashing and mincing of definitions be irrelevant when it comes down to it? What's the harm if two old ladies want to get hitched? How does it hurt heterosexual marriage if Phylis Lyon can actually claim she was able to marry her life long love, now deceased? It's time to stop standing on bigotry to foist a relic of puritanical values upon a people who should be allowed to marry if they wish. Really, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry some one of your same gender. But, simply because you believe something so strongly doesn't make your position correct, or right (we learned that the hard way in Iraq).
I ask one more time - where's the harm & what is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection? A very legitimate argument to be made is the exact opposite position - that when you open up the legal system to allow gays, lesbians and transgendered people to be married, heterosexual marriage is strengthened, not harmed. Ultimately, the irony of the yes on H8 crowd is that they suggest that they are "protecting" marriage by preventing marriage. Is that really a tenable position no matter how strongly a person believes that gays should not be married?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Case Closed - Who Wins?
If you have been watching the case for equal rights being made this morning, you know that it's now in the hands of the CA Supreme Court. Let's hope the good guys win this one. Perhaps this will sway your thinking on the matter.
Of course, you can plow through the mountain of material on this case on your own, but here's a slice from the NCLR blogger on site:
If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, it's clear who the losers will be. What's not clear is will the people of America have lost or won? I know where I sit on this question. What say you?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
P.S. Here's a fun clip - Enjoy:
Of course, you can plow through the mountain of material on this case on your own, but here's a slice from the NCLR blogger on site:
a decision upholding prop 8 will have on same-sex couples and families, answering that “having their families singled out on basis of characteristic bearing no relationship to their ability to contribute to society marks [same-sex couples] as second-class citizens.” This gets us back to the core of this case, and the core of what is wrong with Proposition 8: no minority group should be singled out in the Constitution, on the basis of a characteristic like sexual orientation, race, sex, or religion, without at least receiving the procedural protections that the Constitution provides through the revision process.
If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, it's clear who the losers will be. What's not clear is will the people of America have lost or won? I know where I sit on this question. What say you?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
P.S. Here's a fun clip - Enjoy:
Is Forest Regeneration Possible?
Found this on the TED location.
Thoughts?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Thoughts?
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tweaking The Model for "Higher" Education: Faculty Free Agency - the way it used to be
I posted the following initially as a comment over at Brad Delong's location. I do think that we need a serious retooling of education across the board. There is an enormous amount of wasted funds expended in administrative overhead, and the model used today, built in the late 19th century and early 20th century doesn't really work in the New Millennium. Here's my thinking on what I call "Faculty Free Agency."
It's really a throw back to how it was done back in the dawn of civilization. As you read this, imagine Euclid or Socrates walking along the shores of Alexandria or Greece with students trailing behind as they etched ideas into the sands, while the waves followed behind washing the board for a new idea.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
It's really a throw back to how it was done back in the dawn of civilization. As you read this, imagine Euclid or Socrates walking along the shores of Alexandria or Greece with students trailing behind as they etched ideas into the sands, while the waves followed behind washing the board for a new idea.
We are about a decade away from faculty free agency. The Universities will be the granters of diplomas and may have a raft of faculty certified to offer courses that qualify the credits to be cobbled together for a fee to build whatever diploma you like.
If you are a good faculty member, you would be accredited by a dozen universities, not one. You could teach from your cyber studio in Kauai with a small local studio classroom, and a world wide reach. You would charge 99 cents per student for the class session. You would get a retainer based on the number of students who filed for diplomas at your dozen affiliated institutions. And, most importantly, if you were good, you could have 1000 - 10K students or more if the bandwidth let it at each class session. Thus, you stand to make serious bucks if you are any good.
Yes, this is the old Greek Model. Near as I can tell, it's just me thinking this way - and perhaps one or two others...but the idea will gel as the traditional university model collapses under it's own administrative burden (not to mention extremely expensive overhead).
Would you rather have some Grad Student TA teaching your philosophy course, or Socrates? Now, of course Socrates is dead, but there are some smart folks, like the philosophers doing the radio show on NPR who may capture that market.
Again, we find, that content is king. If your content is no good, you won't have any students. The free market does work if it is indeed a free market. Adam Smith would like this idea, but he's dead too.
Indeed, if you are a smart student, you would cobble together a set of courses taught by the best and brightest from around the globe and then obtain your "diploma" from the best school you can persuade would be appropriate. But the degree then becomes somewhat meaningless - indeed, knowledge and wisdom offer their proof only in the wake of our actions. The proof is in what you do, not in what you retain, based on your accrued acumen in whatever subject you pursue.
Of course, I'm a heretic for even suggesting that there is some tweaking to be done in the existing models for delivery of education, but no one got famous for being safe.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Andrew Sullivan Gives Us The "Un-Rove"
Sully's been blogging a great long while, and well, frankly must be good at it because he's getting paid to do it (unlike the rest of us saps who keep "yelling into the wind"). I like his paragraph here:
Think about it. If you voted no on the stimulus package, your whole future as a politician rests in its failure. What are the GOP going to do now, work to make it a success? Doubtful. Effectively, they have bet on political and economic Armageddon. Which would you hope for?
Karl Rove mastered the art of petty and nasty political tactics in the South of the post-Reagan era. And he never had a solid grip on conservatism as a political philosophy or of political strategy. And so Rove today endures as the architect of the biggest and deepest political implosion since the Democrats in the 1970s. It was all tactics, no strategy; all politics, no governance. He remains the worst single political strategist of modern times.Click on over to read the article for the point. As to why the GOP unanimously voted simultaneously against Obama's stimulus package and thus America is beyond me.
Think about it. If you voted no on the stimulus package, your whole future as a politician rests in its failure. What are the GOP going to do now, work to make it a success? Doubtful. Effectively, they have bet on political and economic Armageddon. Which would you hope for?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
See How The Taxpayer Got Screwed In The Front End, and Will be Screwed in the Back End Of The Credit Crunch
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
No doubt, this is a fun and entertaining visualization of the credit madness. There's no element about government bail outs, but it seems like a whole host of people who have been making goo-gobs of money for many years off the backs of the homeowner, and now going to be making goo-bobs of money off the taxpayers, and it inherently and patently seems unfair.
When Will the Celebrities Get Fiscally Spanked Like The Rest of Us?
The economic downturn is forcing America's households to learn a tough lesson: how to fend for themselves.We don't need a new term for what Americans knew how to do and have been doing since the dawn of the Nation. We've all be pulling ourselves up by our own boot straps for a great long while. Trouble is when you don't have any bootstraps or your boots are stolen by the greedy sonsofbitches who are treating themselves to fancy reward holidays in the over abundant and opulent swank hotels of Vegas or elsewhere.
Sales of starter sewing kits have shot up by 30 percent at Wal-Mart as families forgo the tailor. Landscaping companies have suffered a 7 percent drop in revenue over the past year. Procter & Gamble said that it has noticed more questions from customers about how to dye their hair at home to match salon coloring.
The recession has had a powerful effect on the American state of mind. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday shows Americans have grown increasingly insecure about their finances since mid-September, as fears about making mortgage payments have spread and more believe the economy is in a long-term, serious decline.
These feelings have helped set off a change in behavior so pronounced marketers and businesses have coined a name for it. They call it "insourcing": doing yourself what you once gladly paid others to do.
I don't know about you, but I'm Sure Happy It's Thursday (acronym is self explanatory). Just some quick questions for today. Sure, we know the average schmo is getting spanked economically. When does the economic crisis hit our celebrities? I would love to see Brad or Angelina up to their elbows in excrement dredging the plumbing in their own home. Or is that a sight unfit for those who gawk at celebrities in fancy gowns strolling nonchalantly down red carpets.
I just heard a report about Tiger Woods coming back to the golf gambit after reconstructive surgery on his knee. Do you think this down turn will hurt his bottom line? What about the A-Roids of baseball? Will they get less per ball caught, bat swung, ball pitched, or base stolen? Certainly, the celebrities might do well to take it down a peg when commanding multimillion dollar salaries so that perhaps we could turn back the price nuttiness on theater tickets or stadium seats. I remember when movies cost 99c - and if you saved enough pennies you found in the street, you could splurge for the premier of Star Wars or Jaws. These days it costs 20 bucks just to get a whiff of the popcorn.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Without Equivocation: This is the vision we need, not the fear we loath
AM Update:
When George Bush dove off the deep end of the pool to shovel the fear that the terrorists were feeding us to bend the Constitution to his advantage, we knew it was going to take a while to bend away from that policy of using fear mongering propaganda to put forward an agenda that is positve and visionary. I think Obama used his speech wisely to unfold the vision we need, rather than repackage the fear we loathe. In a very real sense, Obama and his team are snatching victory that Bush handed to the terrorists by stopping the use of fear to bend the will of the people.
Could you imagine George Bush saying the word "equivocation" without getting all tangled up? Really, when Obama pointed to a schoolgirl in the audience and held her up as an example of what America is really suffering from and where it's hopes should be pinned, he outclassed and eclipsed George Bush and his administrations' whole 8 years in about 3 minutes. Indeed, his is the vision we need, not the fear we loathe.
When George Bush dove off the deep end of the pool to shovel the fear that the terrorists were feeding us to bend the Constitution to his advantage, we knew it was going to take a while to bend away from that policy of using fear mongering propaganda to put forward an agenda that is positve and visionary. I think Obama used his speech wisely to unfold the vision we need, rather than repackage the fear we loathe. In a very real sense, Obama and his team are snatching victory that Bush handed to the terrorists by stopping the use of fear to bend the will of the people.
Could you imagine George Bush saying the word "equivocation" without getting all tangled up? Really, when Obama pointed to a schoolgirl in the audience and held her up as an example of what America is really suffering from and where it's hopes should be pinned, he outclassed and eclipsed George Bush and his administrations' whole 8 years in about 3 minutes. Indeed, his is the vision we need, not the fear we loathe.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Weekend Wondering
I got to wondering earlier today: Would there be a economic crisis if the newspapers and other Main Stream Media outlets were not selling us the gloom and doom by the bushel?
I'll leave y'all with that question for the weekend.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
I'll leave y'all with that question for the weekend.
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Who Is The Bigger Bigot, the Senator or Folks Who Voted For Him?
The Senator from Utah's bigotry is obvious. Just listen:
But really, what's worse. The Senator from Utah or the people who voted and still support him?
Clearly, Utah is not devoid of people who are not 100% heterosexual. Obviously, the Senator and his people don't have their blinders off or they would realize they actually know some wonderful gay people. It's that their bigotry blinds them to the fact that they are wrong. Don't let your religion get in the way of loving people because it teaches you to hate people who are different from you.
Simply because some one says that heterosexual marriage is the "foundation" of society doesn't make it so. What is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection, really?
You can take a stand against such bigotry by calling it out, and not letting it slide.
Or, alternatively, you could have some fun with the good Senator from Utah:
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
But really, what's worse. The Senator from Utah or the people who voted and still support him?
Clearly, Utah is not devoid of people who are not 100% heterosexual. Obviously, the Senator and his people don't have their blinders off or they would realize they actually know some wonderful gay people. It's that their bigotry blinds them to the fact that they are wrong. Don't let your religion get in the way of loving people because it teaches you to hate people who are different from you.
Simply because some one says that heterosexual marriage is the "foundation" of society doesn't make it so. What is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection, really?
You can take a stand against such bigotry by calling it out, and not letting it slide.
Or, alternatively, you could have some fun with the good Senator from Utah:
Blog on friends.
Blog on all.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Spending Is A Trap
Clearly, we are not going to spend our way out of this economic collapse. Saving, what people did to lived through the last depressions learned, was the way to wealth and prosperity, albeit very, very slowly.
Of course the government can print all the money it wants, but unless it gets people gainfully employed, and working so they can improve their savings, then the won’t be any improvement on the spending. You see, spending with out means, is a loan - bad or otherwise - which involves sharks (let’s call them Bankers for reference purposes). Spending only after you have earned the capital to do so, is responsible consumerism. You, the consumer, are in control.
To turn the topsy-turvy back in the proper order, I suggest it’s savings first, then spending, not the other way around.
Of course the government can print all the money it wants, but unless it gets people gainfully employed, and working so they can improve their savings, then the won’t be any improvement on the spending. You see, spending with out means, is a loan - bad or otherwise - which involves sharks (let’s call them Bankers for reference purposes). Spending only after you have earned the capital to do so, is responsible consumerism. You, the consumer, are in control.
To turn the topsy-turvy back in the proper order, I suggest it’s savings first, then spending, not the other way around.
The Stimulus For You And Me?
Well, I suppose the jury is going to be out for a great long while before we know if the "stimulus" will actually do what it's supposed to do. It's hard to believe that pouring money into failing businesses is really a good idea. Can we believe the propaganda? There is a big difference between hoping the plan will work and it actually working, no?
I'm in favor of packages that actually put people to work, rather than hand them money. Gifting us more money to spend is not what this country needs. That's what got us into this mess.
People need more possibilities for earning money in productive and positive occupations. Some times earning a paycheck is much better for the ego than the size of that pay check. Of course, you couldn't tell a bank CEO that, but it's true for most of Americans, provided that check earned covers the necessities. As to if the realized number of jobs created is up to the estimate, time will tell.
Here's a list of your State Senators and Congressional Representatives so that you know at least who to complain to or praise when you see it's working, or not.
What I am signing is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments.It is a plan that’s been put together without earmarks or the usual pork barrel spending. And it is a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability," President Obama said before signing the bill into law. "And we expect you, the American people, to hold us accountable for the results. That is why we have created Recovery.gov – so every American can go online and see how their money is being spent."
I'm in favor of packages that actually put people to work, rather than hand them money. Gifting us more money to spend is not what this country needs. That's what got us into this mess.
People need more possibilities for earning money in productive and positive occupations. Some times earning a paycheck is much better for the ego than the size of that pay check. Of course, you couldn't tell a bank CEO that, but it's true for most of Americans, provided that check earned covers the necessities. As to if the realized number of jobs created is up to the estimate, time will tell.
Here's a list of your State Senators and Congressional Representatives so that you know at least who to complain to or praise when you see it's working, or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)