Several recent events convinced me that whomever is running our major corporations are totally clueless in what it takes to perform well in the long term. Some time ago GE sold off its plastics business to an Arab consortium for billions of dollars. I thought it was a good decision: oil is the basis of plastics so the Arabs get to go upstream with their oil and oil money and GE gets to reinvest it in future businesses. What did I find out? Was GE going to spend the money on new products, more R&D, more productive or quality facilities, or acquire a state of the art company? The answer: None of the above. It was going to use the entire multibillion dollar buyout to buy stock and keep its stock price high. It is like a farmer using his seed corn. Absolutely no sense in the long run.
Then just recently I read about Home Depot selling off its wholesale business. I did not know enough about the business to make a decision but it appears it is meant to refocus and concentrate on its core consumer business. The , once again , multibillion dollar sale, I though, would be used to revitalize its stores and personnel. But once again what was its purpose to be: to buy up stock.
Is this what corporate america thinks is the way to conduct business? DOes it mean that no one can find better uses of its money than to buy stock? Does it mean that it is perfectly content with the way business is going? I fear for the future of our country's businesses if they are being run by finance people with no sense of the future past the next quarterly dividend or report to Wall Street.
Wake up guys. The future is not 4Q2007 but 2020. WHere will you be then? At this rate nowhere.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
SpecEd
Special Education:
A Wall Street Journal headline article spurns this line of thought.
The articles discuss parents disenchantment with special education programs, especially in the regards that the education experience is lacking and many indicate that although their son or daughter received a high school diploma, they did not get the education with it.
Local school systems have major problems with special ed program
1) 14% of all school children are classified as special education, a not negligible number
2) Due to federal mandates, schools must attempt to mainstream these children whenever possible. this is bad policy although good politicxs. The special needs sap energy from the classroom, requiring attention, time, and discipline from the teacher, thus lessening teaching opportunities for the rest of the class.
3) the No child Left Behind requires testing and special ed students count towards the students passing or failing. this is clearly unfair and nonsensical. Most of these students can never reach levels asked of them. They should not be included in the count.
4) Cost is another factor. Typical, federal mandates require school systems to provide whatever necessary for a student's education but not the money. For one special education student in NYC, the city has been paying $400,000 a year for a full time teacher, aide, technology, and transportation. This should be a federal responsibility. But more to the point what is owed to parents? Should it only be that amount average for each student. That is, if the school district pays $10,000 per year on average for each student, that is what the district should contribute.
5) The attention paid to special education is overwhelming that other group, the gifted and talented. $8billion annually is paid in special ed while one tenth that is given towards GnT programs. Shouldnt it be the reverse. The GnT kids are our future leaders, our engineers, our innovators, our great scientists. Shouldnt they be given more opportunity to maximize their abilities? I suggest that should be the case.
Special ed needs special attention and careful review.
A Wall Street Journal headline article spurns this line of thought.
The articles discuss parents disenchantment with special education programs, especially in the regards that the education experience is lacking and many indicate that although their son or daughter received a high school diploma, they did not get the education with it.
Local school systems have major problems with special ed program
1) 14% of all school children are classified as special education, a not negligible number
2) Due to federal mandates, schools must attempt to mainstream these children whenever possible. this is bad policy although good politicxs. The special needs sap energy from the classroom, requiring attention, time, and discipline from the teacher, thus lessening teaching opportunities for the rest of the class.
3) the No child Left Behind requires testing and special ed students count towards the students passing or failing. this is clearly unfair and nonsensical. Most of these students can never reach levels asked of them. They should not be included in the count.
4) Cost is another factor. Typical, federal mandates require school systems to provide whatever necessary for a student's education but not the money. For one special education student in NYC, the city has been paying $400,000 a year for a full time teacher, aide, technology, and transportation. This should be a federal responsibility. But more to the point what is owed to parents? Should it only be that amount average for each student. That is, if the school district pays $10,000 per year on average for each student, that is what the district should contribute.
5) The attention paid to special education is overwhelming that other group, the gifted and talented. $8billion annually is paid in special ed while one tenth that is given towards GnT programs. Shouldnt it be the reverse. The GnT kids are our future leaders, our engineers, our innovators, our great scientists. Shouldnt they be given more opportunity to maximize their abilities? I suggest that should be the case.
Special ed needs special attention and careful review.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Gun Control
Gun control is back in the media again. After the Newark incident, slayings in CT and Virginia Tech, advocates are advocating that if only gun control was in existence, these events would not have happened.
I believe the exact opposite. If as advocates insist, guns were well controlled (even now they are registered and buyers must undergo checks--isnt that coontrol?) then all this would go away. Not really, the criminal element, those responsible for the slaying above would have found the means to gain possession of firearms. It is the honest god-fearing, law abiding citizens that would be made defenseless. The criminal element would then have the upper hand.
Instead, more guns could be the answer. At Virginia Tech, with a campus ban on firearms, the shooter had nothing to fear and plenty of time to do violence until the police forces (campus security was not able to deal with the threat). Instead if arms were available, the shooter might wellhave not ventured in, knowing that some of the students might well have been carrying arms and could have answered quickly. It is called deterrent. But a deterrent is only worthwhile if the opposite side knows you have the will to use it. Stripped of weapons will is meaningless.
Ironically, arms alone are not necessary. The 9/11 hijacker-terrorists used only knives and razors to gain control. They then used the vehicles themselves as weapons. So banning weapons would not have stopped their attack.
I believe the exact opposite. If as advocates insist, guns were well controlled (even now they are registered and buyers must undergo checks--isnt that coontrol?) then all this would go away. Not really, the criminal element, those responsible for the slaying above would have found the means to gain possession of firearms. It is the honest god-fearing, law abiding citizens that would be made defenseless. The criminal element would then have the upper hand.
Instead, more guns could be the answer. At Virginia Tech, with a campus ban on firearms, the shooter had nothing to fear and plenty of time to do violence until the police forces (campus security was not able to deal with the threat). Instead if arms were available, the shooter might wellhave not ventured in, knowing that some of the students might well have been carrying arms and could have answered quickly. It is called deterrent. But a deterrent is only worthwhile if the opposite side knows you have the will to use it. Stripped of weapons will is meaningless.
Ironically, arms alone are not necessary. The 9/11 hijacker-terrorists used only knives and razors to gain control. They then used the vehicles themselves as weapons. So banning weapons would not have stopped their attack.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Paying the Piper
On today's news it was reported that CHina is threathening to sell off its huge ($407 billion) US treasury reserves unless the US backs off efforts to stem trade deficits. Duh!! What did people think they were going to do with all that cash? Political blackmall it is called. Just the mention of it sent credit markets and stock markets haywire.
What is the US to do? For one thing, begin weaning itself of Chinese interests. Less imports from China and more exports. Begin a Made in USA campaign. Strictly enforce food, health, safety,labor standards for imported goods. Just because it is made in China does not give it a pass. Lead Paint. Tainted food, etc. We must crack down. Chinese manipulation of their currency should not be acceptable and arm twisting should be made to bring the rate into more acceptable range. Remember, trade is a two way street. If the Chinese wish to wreck havoc in our financial markets, they may start a recession but in doing so will cause a drastic decrease in imports from China, probably causing a similar recession there. If hardball is what they want, give it to them. We are in much better shape than they are. We buy their goods, we can always stop buying shirts and toys.
Punitive tariffs on items whenever possible; increase the delivered cost and demand will go down.
It is great to live on borrowed time or borrowed monies. But sooner or later the piper will come to collect. And that time has come.
What is the US to do? For one thing, begin weaning itself of Chinese interests. Less imports from China and more exports. Begin a Made in USA campaign. Strictly enforce food, health, safety,labor standards for imported goods. Just because it is made in China does not give it a pass. Lead Paint. Tainted food, etc. We must crack down. Chinese manipulation of their currency should not be acceptable and arm twisting should be made to bring the rate into more acceptable range. Remember, trade is a two way street. If the Chinese wish to wreck havoc in our financial markets, they may start a recession but in doing so will cause a drastic decrease in imports from China, probably causing a similar recession there. If hardball is what they want, give it to them. We are in much better shape than they are. We buy their goods, we can always stop buying shirts and toys.
Punitive tariffs on items whenever possible; increase the delivered cost and demand will go down.
It is great to live on borrowed time or borrowed monies. But sooner or later the piper will come to collect. And that time has come.
The Race Card
Afro Americans have been surpassed by Hispanics as the number one minority in our Country. But their poltical power still exists, especially in the field of Affirmative Action. It is true that slavery is a chapter in our country's history that cannot be denied nor should it. THe civil rights struggles of the sixties and the apartheid conditions in the century proceeding also is not a chapter we would want to repeat. But all of that is behind us. We are bascially now a color blind country. But many Afro Americans cannot put the past behind them and get on with life. Everywhere they look they see prejudice. OJ Simpson in the nineties and Michael Vick today. Regardless of if they were guilty, racism is the cause. In my teaching days, I had many Afro-Americans. I always graded according to their work. But give them a poor grade because their paper was lousy, and the race card would come out, "It is because I am black," etc.etc. It is meant to put one on the defensive and it does since in our society, any indication of prejudice can cost one a job, a career, one's life (Just ask Sommers previously from Harvard)
If one were to look objectively, one could say, America is truly not a color blind counry. In fact, with affirmative action policies in existence, Afro-Americans are actually given priority over whites. (ever see "Minority and women especially encouraged to apply" in want ads?)(IAffirmative action is meant to righten the wrongs of the past. But MLK Jr said it right when he encouraged a color blind society not one which lingers on.
For Afro-Americans, barriers to moving up in society is not a matter of racism but a matter of culture. In many Afro-American communities, academic life is considered "white" and not an acceptable means. Rather it is sports, drugs, gangs. Teen pregnancy and out of wedlock children, Welfare and getting as much as possible out of the system seem to be prevalent cultural traits accepted. Until the community culture is changed to encourage marriage, hard work, academic learning, then the cycle will continue. Bill Cosby recognizes this and has spoken repeatedly about it (and for his efforts is called a sell out by the black community). Clarence Thomas who should be considered a role model is called white.
The Democratic party considers the Afro-American community theirs and any black who wonders off the plantation to (gash) become a Republican must be thrown to the wolves as an example for others not to stray. Their comments, vote democratic and we will keep the goodies (welfare, housing, affirmative action) coming. This is not good for the black community to be taken for granted. And beyond their votes, the Democrats have nothing to offer.
Lets go back to the MLK Jr color blind society. No affirmative action. No special favors. Reward based on merit.
Not racism but merit.
No doubt if Obama is either the Presidental or VP candidate for the Democrats next year, and if you dont vote for him, you will be called Racist. The race card, if overused, becomes meaningless.
If one were to look objectively, one could say, America is truly not a color blind counry. In fact, with affirmative action policies in existence, Afro-Americans are actually given priority over whites. (ever see "Minority and women especially encouraged to apply" in want ads?)(IAffirmative action is meant to righten the wrongs of the past. But MLK Jr said it right when he encouraged a color blind society not one which lingers on.
For Afro-Americans, barriers to moving up in society is not a matter of racism but a matter of culture. In many Afro-American communities, academic life is considered "white" and not an acceptable means. Rather it is sports, drugs, gangs. Teen pregnancy and out of wedlock children, Welfare and getting as much as possible out of the system seem to be prevalent cultural traits accepted. Until the community culture is changed to encourage marriage, hard work, academic learning, then the cycle will continue. Bill Cosby recognizes this and has spoken repeatedly about it (and for his efforts is called a sell out by the black community). Clarence Thomas who should be considered a role model is called white.
The Democratic party considers the Afro-American community theirs and any black who wonders off the plantation to (gash) become a Republican must be thrown to the wolves as an example for others not to stray. Their comments, vote democratic and we will keep the goodies (welfare, housing, affirmative action) coming. This is not good for the black community to be taken for granted. And beyond their votes, the Democrats have nothing to offer.
Lets go back to the MLK Jr color blind society. No affirmative action. No special favors. Reward based on merit.
Not racism but merit.
No doubt if Obama is either the Presidental or VP candidate for the Democrats next year, and if you dont vote for him, you will be called Racist. The race card, if overused, becomes meaningless.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Rights and Entitlements
What does the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean? What do we as an American citizen and a human being in general have the right to?
It appears to me that over the last fifty years the number of rights we presume have increased substantially. the right to do what I want, when I want it, where I want. The emphasis on Individual rights has seemed to skyrocket lately while the right for the greater good, to subsume one's own wishes to that of the community or nation as a whole, has practically disappeared. For example, my favorite, the boom box. A teen or twenty (or nowadays even older) ish driver has his/her boom box up to 140 decibels (it seems anyway) and is ahead, behind, or besides you at a traffic light, drowning out your every thought and providing you with a migraine in seconds. Yet it is his RIGHT to do so if he pleases. No sense of propriety or community. If he wants to do deaf, that is his right just do not include me in his plans. Or those who insist on using profanity and unacceptable language in public places. It is HIS Right to talk as he sees fit. No matter others are around or small children. His rights are violated if you ask him to temper his language (and he is likely to increase the filth in your direction if you do so). I sometimes substitute teach as a favor to my friends when they are sick or wish a day off. Today's students get up the in middle of class to drop something in the wastebasket or to sharpen a pencil. When asked why didnt they wait until the end of class, they look at you as if you were from Mars, "Because I wanted to" they would say.
Whatever happened to couth, public decency, community modes. Is there anything else than ME? Does the world revolve around ME and my interests? To examine public media, it appears not. But does it? Should it? In years past we had a hard wall between public and private. Many things we could do in private we would never even consider in public. But that line is blurred. The world is one now and that one revolves around me. My father is an avid smoker but he is careful not to smoke anywhere around his grandchildren, always outside, and always away from others. But he is old school, considerate to a T. In the modern society, he would be considered passive and outdated.
Shouldn't we take a step back and think what life would be if we were to be more considerate of others, others' spaces, others' feelings, others' concerns. And not just ourselves, our wants, our needs, our demands? Moral codes, decency standards, etiquette. Isnt it about time we start bringing these back? Our culture, or what is left of a decaying code of culture demands it.
Comments
It appears to me that over the last fifty years the number of rights we presume have increased substantially. the right to do what I want, when I want it, where I want. The emphasis on Individual rights has seemed to skyrocket lately while the right for the greater good, to subsume one's own wishes to that of the community or nation as a whole, has practically disappeared. For example, my favorite, the boom box. A teen or twenty (or nowadays even older) ish driver has his/her boom box up to 140 decibels (it seems anyway) and is ahead, behind, or besides you at a traffic light, drowning out your every thought and providing you with a migraine in seconds. Yet it is his RIGHT to do so if he pleases. No sense of propriety or community. If he wants to do deaf, that is his right just do not include me in his plans. Or those who insist on using profanity and unacceptable language in public places. It is HIS Right to talk as he sees fit. No matter others are around or small children. His rights are violated if you ask him to temper his language (and he is likely to increase the filth in your direction if you do so). I sometimes substitute teach as a favor to my friends when they are sick or wish a day off. Today's students get up the in middle of class to drop something in the wastebasket or to sharpen a pencil. When asked why didnt they wait until the end of class, they look at you as if you were from Mars, "Because I wanted to" they would say.
Whatever happened to couth, public decency, community modes. Is there anything else than ME? Does the world revolve around ME and my interests? To examine public media, it appears not. But does it? Should it? In years past we had a hard wall between public and private. Many things we could do in private we would never even consider in public. But that line is blurred. The world is one now and that one revolves around me. My father is an avid smoker but he is careful not to smoke anywhere around his grandchildren, always outside, and always away from others. But he is old school, considerate to a T. In the modern society, he would be considered passive and outdated.
Shouldn't we take a step back and think what life would be if we were to be more considerate of others, others' spaces, others' feelings, others' concerns. And not just ourselves, our wants, our needs, our demands? Moral codes, decency standards, etiquette. Isnt it about time we start bringing these back? Our culture, or what is left of a decaying code of culture demands it.
Comments
What should government do?
In the age of ever expanding government, perhaps we should take a step back and askourselves: what is the purpose of government and what activities should a government be involved in and control? In the beginning, the USA had but four departments: state (foreign affairs), justice, defense (or war), and treasury (money). It seemed fine for over a hundred years. Somewhere in the 20th century, it was decided that government need be involved in education, labor, commerce, transportation, etc, etc. Today there are many that believe the government needs to be FURTHER involved and more controlling. A question I have is if we know government is bloated, spends excessively, has way too many people doing little or nothing, and adds nothing to the economy, why do we want to see it bigger? Beyond debating what services people want, why not address who will provide those services.
For instance, many municipalities have their trash and garbage services provided by private contractors. Besides from the public unions, few notice or care and the service is more than adequate for most if not all citizens. In Indiana we contracted out the administration of welfare and medicare/medicaid to the private sector at a huge gain. Now Contress wants to mandate only public employees provide these services? Does it matter? In the beginning the TSA, that monolith that most flying Americans hate was to be a privately provided entity. But the democrats made it public so it could join the federal unionists. Why? Why not private? And on and on. If a private firm can do the service, why not? Almost without exception it ends up more efficient, responsive, and saves taxpayers in the end.
In Indiana, we leased the toll road for $4Billion to a private consortium. Many balked at gibing away state property(which as a lease it was not). Many wondered why should we the public give profits to someone else (at the time the tollroad was a losing proposition and no one knew how much it was losing it was so poorly run). Is there any law that says a government property or service must be government run forever? The post office is a splendid ezample of an entity that could well be privatized without any lost of service. It is not a matter of possibility but of political will.
My position is quite simple: privatize anything you can. The Governor of Indiana proposed three new tollways inIndiana which were to be built and maintained by private entities thus providing additional transportation options to Indiana citizens without a dollar of tax money. You would have thought he was selling state secrets. Privatize. Why is federal government in education at all? Isnt it a state and local function? Eliminate the department and the tens of billions of dollars it spends a year. Ask yourself do we need this service? If we do, can't it be privatized? Even national security and DOD use contractors for everything from kitchens to stores. Why not. Concentrate your efforts on your key functions and let others do the more mundane non-essential activities. That is the key in Private industry (I once worked for a high tech firm who specialized in minicomputers but were building their own printers at great cost and effort; I recommended getting out of the printer business and letting printer companies supply them to us; they did and not only did we end up with more modern, cheaper, more sophisciated printers but our capital was available to be put to use in our core business--the same can apply to government services).
Privatize when you can. Wholesale if you can. Eliminate those services government has no need being in. Use pricing mechanisms to price those services to make those using them pay appropriately for them.
Comments?
For instance, many municipalities have their trash and garbage services provided by private contractors. Besides from the public unions, few notice or care and the service is more than adequate for most if not all citizens. In Indiana we contracted out the administration of welfare and medicare/medicaid to the private sector at a huge gain. Now Contress wants to mandate only public employees provide these services? Does it matter? In the beginning the TSA, that monolith that most flying Americans hate was to be a privately provided entity. But the democrats made it public so it could join the federal unionists. Why? Why not private? And on and on. If a private firm can do the service, why not? Almost without exception it ends up more efficient, responsive, and saves taxpayers in the end.
In Indiana, we leased the toll road for $4Billion to a private consortium. Many balked at gibing away state property(which as a lease it was not). Many wondered why should we the public give profits to someone else (at the time the tollroad was a losing proposition and no one knew how much it was losing it was so poorly run). Is there any law that says a government property or service must be government run forever? The post office is a splendid ezample of an entity that could well be privatized without any lost of service. It is not a matter of possibility but of political will.
My position is quite simple: privatize anything you can. The Governor of Indiana proposed three new tollways inIndiana which were to be built and maintained by private entities thus providing additional transportation options to Indiana citizens without a dollar of tax money. You would have thought he was selling state secrets. Privatize. Why is federal government in education at all? Isnt it a state and local function? Eliminate the department and the tens of billions of dollars it spends a year. Ask yourself do we need this service? If we do, can't it be privatized? Even national security and DOD use contractors for everything from kitchens to stores. Why not. Concentrate your efforts on your key functions and let others do the more mundane non-essential activities. That is the key in Private industry (I once worked for a high tech firm who specialized in minicomputers but were building their own printers at great cost and effort; I recommended getting out of the printer business and letting printer companies supply them to us; they did and not only did we end up with more modern, cheaper, more sophisciated printers but our capital was available to be put to use in our core business--the same can apply to government services).
Privatize when you can. Wholesale if you can. Eliminate those services government has no need being in. Use pricing mechanisms to price those services to make those using them pay appropriately for them.
Comments?
Where have all the Boys Gone?
Where have all the boys gone?
The sixties was a time of minority rebellion and new-found freedoms—not just racially but gender wise as well as women were encouraged to seek education and career opportunities to establish equality with men (the great increase in college enrollment during the sixties was as much due to female enrollment as it was to the baby boomers). And with this came new federal and state regulations that provided set asides (EEO) for these minorities (notice that being female is considered a minority according to the law even though females outnumber males). Title VII in athletics is just one example where major schools must have as many sports and female athletes as they have male sports and athletes even though in most cases fewer females wish to be involved in athletics at the college level.
The number of women enrolled in undergraduate classes outnumber men on campus by over 2 million (men make up only 42% of US college students) and on some campuses the proportion of female students exceeds 60%. Men, whatever their racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group are less likely than their female counterparts to graduate with a college degree, and among those that do, fewer complete their degrees in less than five years. Women now earn the majority of diplomas in fields men used to dominate—science and business and now match men in professional degrees (law, medicine) up from 22% a generation ago. Women now earn over half of all business degrees, up from one-third in 1980. Women in most campuses are walking away with a disproportionate share of honors degrees.
It appears to my lowly eye that women have not just reached equilibrium with males at the collegiate and post-graduate level but have in many cases have far surpassed them. So much so that one critic indicates, “one has to be concerned about what is happening to men.” Men are not enrolling or completing college programs with the same urgency as women. Already, Afro-American and Hispanic female college graduates are finding it difficult to find similar college educated men to date and marry of their own background. It has reached crisis proportions. Will it become similar for all women? The trends, alarming as they are, say inevitably yes.
For several years, I have attended and presented at a local Middle School award program. After three years, a pattern has emerged. In Sixth grade , 4 out of top 10 are boys, by seventh grade it is down to 2, and by 8th grade only one boy was in the top ten. Need more proof? Look at high school valedictorians and salutatatorians, the far majority are females. Check out the proportions in top ten of any high school class and in very few will you find proportions lower than 2:1 female to male.
What to do about all this? First, it appears that any legal advantages provided to women (note the notorious: “Women and minorities especially encouraged to apply” often seen in job advertisements) should be dismantled. Feminists will decry this but the facts speak for themselves . . . being over-represented on campuses they do not need to be further encouraged with favoritism. (In June, Indiana University hosted a group of young women as it launches a new program designed to encourage careers in business. About 30 students from around the country will participate in the Young Women's Institute—perhaps a young men’s institute is needed as well!!) Secondly, research needs to be performed immediately to understand better what has happened to the young males. Perhaps the female-oriented school system culture (sit and be still, speak only when spoken to, etc) needs to be adapted to the different learning styles and energy levels of the young males? Regardless, the trends indicate clearly that more time and attention should be given to young males to succeed academically. Third, multitudes of feminist and women’s studies programs exist in colleges throughout the land, isn’t it about time for an equal number of “Male Studies” Programs be made available to young men?
Where have all the boys gone? It is about time we found out.
The sixties was a time of minority rebellion and new-found freedoms—not just racially but gender wise as well as women were encouraged to seek education and career opportunities to establish equality with men (the great increase in college enrollment during the sixties was as much due to female enrollment as it was to the baby boomers). And with this came new federal and state regulations that provided set asides (EEO) for these minorities (notice that being female is considered a minority according to the law even though females outnumber males). Title VII in athletics is just one example where major schools must have as many sports and female athletes as they have male sports and athletes even though in most cases fewer females wish to be involved in athletics at the college level.
The number of women enrolled in undergraduate classes outnumber men on campus by over 2 million (men make up only 42% of US college students) and on some campuses the proportion of female students exceeds 60%. Men, whatever their racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group are less likely than their female counterparts to graduate with a college degree, and among those that do, fewer complete their degrees in less than five years. Women now earn the majority of diplomas in fields men used to dominate—science and business and now match men in professional degrees (law, medicine) up from 22% a generation ago. Women now earn over half of all business degrees, up from one-third in 1980. Women in most campuses are walking away with a disproportionate share of honors degrees.
It appears to my lowly eye that women have not just reached equilibrium with males at the collegiate and post-graduate level but have in many cases have far surpassed them. So much so that one critic indicates, “one has to be concerned about what is happening to men.” Men are not enrolling or completing college programs with the same urgency as women. Already, Afro-American and Hispanic female college graduates are finding it difficult to find similar college educated men to date and marry of their own background. It has reached crisis proportions. Will it become similar for all women? The trends, alarming as they are, say inevitably yes.
For several years, I have attended and presented at a local Middle School award program. After three years, a pattern has emerged. In Sixth grade , 4 out of top 10 are boys, by seventh grade it is down to 2, and by 8th grade only one boy was in the top ten. Need more proof? Look at high school valedictorians and salutatatorians, the far majority are females. Check out the proportions in top ten of any high school class and in very few will you find proportions lower than 2:1 female to male.
What to do about all this? First, it appears that any legal advantages provided to women (note the notorious: “Women and minorities especially encouraged to apply” often seen in job advertisements) should be dismantled. Feminists will decry this but the facts speak for themselves . . . being over-represented on campuses they do not need to be further encouraged with favoritism. (In June, Indiana University hosted a group of young women as it launches a new program designed to encourage careers in business. About 30 students from around the country will participate in the Young Women's Institute—perhaps a young men’s institute is needed as well!!) Secondly, research needs to be performed immediately to understand better what has happened to the young males. Perhaps the female-oriented school system culture (sit and be still, speak only when spoken to, etc) needs to be adapted to the different learning styles and energy levels of the young males? Regardless, the trends indicate clearly that more time and attention should be given to young males to succeed academically. Third, multitudes of feminist and women’s studies programs exist in colleges throughout the land, isn’t it about time for an equal number of “Male Studies” Programs be made available to young men?
Where have all the boys gone? It is about time we found out.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Reorganizing Government II
What about at the top? Should we make changes at the top?
The President. How many years should a president serve? Two terms? Three? Should there be a limit? What about a single term of six years? Would a single term mean being a lame duck from day one? What if we were to increase to six years and eliminate term limits? Then, the constant unknown would keep all parties guessing.
What about Congress? Term limits would not necessarily be bad for Senators and Representatives. It is up or out. As it is now, representatives have constantly fight for reelection, seeking money and support and as a result having little time for legislation. What about increasing a term to four years and limiting time in the house to three terms (alternating terms even half for one and the odd half for the other). As for senators, six years is fine but a limitation to 3 terms and out. Senators used to be elected by state legislatures. Why not return to the same? That would allow the state to influence more directly the priorities of its senators.
Another problem in our government is full time legislators. Perhaps we should return to a citizen legislator--that is making the legislators have a full time separate job and minimize the amount of time they spend in congress. I suggest no more than 2 months. In the age of the internet, communications can be done electronically. By forcing congresspersons to live and work among us, their constitutents, they will hopefully be more grounded and stay local instead of becoming part of the beltway potomac problem.
Use the internet, e-voting should be considered. National referendums expressing views of the public should be done. In this mode, simple statements should be voted upon and their content known to the legislators. Any vote that shows significantly one side or another (60-65%) should be heavily considered in the final vote.
Thoughts?
The President. How many years should a president serve? Two terms? Three? Should there be a limit? What about a single term of six years? Would a single term mean being a lame duck from day one? What if we were to increase to six years and eliminate term limits? Then, the constant unknown would keep all parties guessing.
What about Congress? Term limits would not necessarily be bad for Senators and Representatives. It is up or out. As it is now, representatives have constantly fight for reelection, seeking money and support and as a result having little time for legislation. What about increasing a term to four years and limiting time in the house to three terms (alternating terms even half for one and the odd half for the other). As for senators, six years is fine but a limitation to 3 terms and out. Senators used to be elected by state legislatures. Why not return to the same? That would allow the state to influence more directly the priorities of its senators.
Another problem in our government is full time legislators. Perhaps we should return to a citizen legislator--that is making the legislators have a full time separate job and minimize the amount of time they spend in congress. I suggest no more than 2 months. In the age of the internet, communications can be done electronically. By forcing congresspersons to live and work among us, their constitutents, they will hopefully be more grounded and stay local instead of becoming part of the beltway potomac problem.
Use the internet, e-voting should be considered. National referendums expressing views of the public should be done. In this mode, simple statements should be voted upon and their content known to the legislators. Any vote that shows significantly one side or another (60-65%) should be heavily considered in the final vote.
Thoughts?
Reorganizing Government
Does Government work? Any entity that is constantly overbuddget, underefficient, bloated, and believes getting a job done
at twice or three times the budget, twice to three times the manpower needed, at twice to three times the usual timeframe would not last long in the private market but somehow we not only accept the entity but many wish to enlarge the entity (being somehow bloated is insufficent, being bloated at twice the size and responsiblities must be better).
Perhaps there are too many layers of government. In Indiana we have ten to twelve townships per county, 94 counties to the state level, hundreds of municipalities. Why do we need all the levels and the numbers? Why townships at all? Originally the size of counties were made so every citizen could ride his/her buggy to the county seat within the space of a day. That need is long gone. Why not abolish townships? Why not consolidate counties into much fewer (say 4 into one). Minimize governmental levels.
Which brings us to another notion. Why 50 staes? What is the role of a state? Other countries have provinces, England has shires. How many is necessary? Should New England have 6 states or should it be considered a single entity? How many similar consolidations can be made? Some should remain states, that are geographic limitations (Hawaii, Alaska). But for the continental 48, these can be cut in half or more. Perhaps our goal should be to consolidate into 20 geographically contiguous areas.
Why not? What is so sacred about a state? With the advent of the internet, most purposes of state government can be accomplished by the net and so the need to go to a state capital should be minimal to zero.
Advantages:
Think of the 1.resources wasted, cost better used country wide; trained personnel cost, including retirement, health etc.; 3. personnel talent lost; 5. physical facilities cost and maintenance. 4 conflictant laws within the country, licensing etc. etc 5 Etc,etc Forever!! A much smaller number, with limited power would be easier to administer.
at twice or three times the budget, twice to three times the manpower needed, at twice to three times the usual timeframe would not last long in the private market but somehow we not only accept the entity but many wish to enlarge the entity (being somehow bloated is insufficent, being bloated at twice the size and responsiblities must be better).
Perhaps there are too many layers of government. In Indiana we have ten to twelve townships per county, 94 counties to the state level, hundreds of municipalities. Why do we need all the levels and the numbers? Why townships at all? Originally the size of counties were made so every citizen could ride his/her buggy to the county seat within the space of a day. That need is long gone. Why not abolish townships? Why not consolidate counties into much fewer (say 4 into one). Minimize governmental levels.
Which brings us to another notion. Why 50 staes? What is the role of a state? Other countries have provinces, England has shires. How many is necessary? Should New England have 6 states or should it be considered a single entity? How many similar consolidations can be made? Some should remain states, that are geographic limitations (Hawaii, Alaska). But for the continental 48, these can be cut in half or more. Perhaps our goal should be to consolidate into 20 geographically contiguous areas.
Why not? What is so sacred about a state? With the advent of the internet, most purposes of state government can be accomplished by the net and so the need to go to a state capital should be minimal to zero.
Advantages:
Think of the 1.resources wasted, cost better used country wide; trained personnel cost, including retirement, health etc.; 3. personnel talent lost; 5. physical facilities cost and maintenance. 4 conflictant laws within the country, licensing etc. etc 5 Etc,etc Forever!! A much smaller number, with limited power would be easier to administer.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Tobacco
America has a fixation about tobacco. We dont know if we love it, hate it, tolerate it, or wish to see it annihilated.
Smoke Free zones have become the latest passion. It appears some want to eliminate smoking altogether. But on the other hand, it is a major revenue generator for state and federal governments. The federalistas liberals want to ban outright smoking because it is bad for you yet many continue to smoke despite all efforts. As is prevalent in the liberal mantra, we know what is best for you and if you wont change then we will legislate your behavior. Yet such as alcohol, obesity, etc, it is a choice we make. No one can honesty claim that they do not know the dangers in smoking. Therefore it is a choice smokers are endulging in. Already we are creating a nation of tobacco sneakers. Like high schoolers smoking in the bathrooms knowing it was illegal but wishing to do so anyway, smokers must continually find that hidden place they can go.
The policy decision is to either abolish it or tax it at a maximizing revenue level? The liberals wish to do the former and by doing so will only create a new prohibition with tobacco the new forbidden fruit. We do not want that. The better solution: is to live and let live. To maximize revenues and raise taxes to that level. The other part is to allow smoking in establishments that wish to have all smoking facilities.
Smoke Free zones have become the latest passion. It appears some want to eliminate smoking altogether. But on the other hand, it is a major revenue generator for state and federal governments. The federalistas liberals want to ban outright smoking because it is bad for you yet many continue to smoke despite all efforts. As is prevalent in the liberal mantra, we know what is best for you and if you wont change then we will legislate your behavior. Yet such as alcohol, obesity, etc, it is a choice we make. No one can honesty claim that they do not know the dangers in smoking. Therefore it is a choice smokers are endulging in. Already we are creating a nation of tobacco sneakers. Like high schoolers smoking in the bathrooms knowing it was illegal but wishing to do so anyway, smokers must continually find that hidden place they can go.
The policy decision is to either abolish it or tax it at a maximizing revenue level? The liberals wish to do the former and by doing so will only create a new prohibition with tobacco the new forbidden fruit. We do not want that. The better solution: is to live and let live. To maximize revenues and raise taxes to that level. The other part is to allow smoking in establishments that wish to have all smoking facilities.
FragilityofCivilization
How secure is civilization. Historically, countless cultures have risen to dominance over their small or sometimes not for small region. ANd many have just as suddenly disappeared. Why? What is different about our culture and civilization?
One of my favorite stories is Lord of the Flies. A group of young British boys from upper class families and an elite school is stranded on an isolated island through air crash landing. Within days they revert back to primitive life, rule of fear, killing severalof their peers without remorse. Think about blizzards, hurricanes, blackouts. The resulting lines and fights in grocery stores as foodstuffs are bought out. Or the riots and mobs and looting that occurs when authority breaks down. It does not take much . . . just the threat of a mild disruption.
The more advanced a culture gets, the more fragile the lifeline gets, the easier it is to destroy. Think of the sieges of ancient towns . . . six months, a year . . . Troy for ten years. How long would one of our large cities last? Two days? Daily shipments of necessities from outside would be cut off. Little inventory exists for the multitudes of people. Fights and authority breakdowns would quickly result. Like a JIT system when disrupted, the plant shuts down quickly. Any breakdown that disrupts the system for more than a week would cause major catastrophe.
We do not have to worry about destruction from the outside? We will do it to ourselves when shut off from the rest of the world.
One of my favorite stories is Lord of the Flies. A group of young British boys from upper class families and an elite school is stranded on an isolated island through air crash landing. Within days they revert back to primitive life, rule of fear, killing severalof their peers without remorse. Think about blizzards, hurricanes, blackouts. The resulting lines and fights in grocery stores as foodstuffs are bought out. Or the riots and mobs and looting that occurs when authority breaks down. It does not take much . . . just the threat of a mild disruption.
The more advanced a culture gets, the more fragile the lifeline gets, the easier it is to destroy. Think of the sieges of ancient towns . . . six months, a year . . . Troy for ten years. How long would one of our large cities last? Two days? Daily shipments of necessities from outside would be cut off. Little inventory exists for the multitudes of people. Fights and authority breakdowns would quickly result. Like a JIT system when disrupted, the plant shuts down quickly. Any breakdown that disrupts the system for more than a week would cause major catastrophe.
We do not have to worry about destruction from the outside? We will do it to ourselves when shut off from the rest of the world.
InfrastructureProblems
Although not in the same class of crisis as is Healthcare and Education, America's infrastructure needs addressing. Fifty years ago with the construction of a coast-to-coast national interstate system, we could boast the best in the world. No longer. Not fully maintained for decades, a crisis is brewing. Even of more concern is the forecast that the number of semi trucks travelling our road network will double if not triple by 2020. Can you imagine what the system will look like in 2020 if the status quo remains? Clogged highways and intense congestion will not assist our efforts to become energy independent. Our airways are becoming just as congested with longer trips, more delays, congested airports, etc.
Some transportation rules of thumbs: rail is more efficient for a transport trip of more than 400 miles; on the other hand, truck can be served better for short hauls. As concerns passengers, if done right, rail transport is more efficient for short haul (300-400 mile) than air. These are starting points that should be taken into account when an overall policy is formulated.
My thoughts:
1) Although not politically tangible currently, an increase in the gas tax of 10-20 cents or more should be implemented. This can be phased in gradually : an immediate 10 cents followed by 5 cents a year for the next two and then 2 cents each year thereafter. These monies (estimated at $1 billion per cent taxed) are necessary to restore the infrastructure.
2) A massive highway construction/reconstruction project should commence immediately with the new monies. The purpose is to expand the interstate system so each interstate highway is at least 3 lanes if not 4 lanes outside of cities and within cities at least 4 lanes. A designated truck lane or lanes with a similarly designated passenger car lane(s) will create more space to allow the two parties to live side by side and minimize the increasing numbers of semi-car crashes. The addition to the capacity will minmimize congestion and assist in fuel policies. The new construction will assist with employment. One requirement is all materials and all labor must be American in origin and american citizens.
3) Airports should be encouraged to satisfy long hauls only. that is, a combination rail-air program should be created. For example, for chicago, rail spokes should go from chicago to Milwaukee, South Bend, Springfield, Dubuque, Madision, etc, all cities within 200 miles. These spokes should be fast, convenient, clean service from dedicated lines. Similarly, Atlanta spokes should go to Birmingham, Savannah, Columbia, Huntsville, Chattanooga, etc. The effect would be to alleviate congestion in the airways and on the ground in airports by concentrating on longer hauls and allow more efficient ground transportation. Part of the new gas tax (2 cents the first year, 1 cent thereafter) would be used for construction and maintenance of these interurban short range spoke systems.
4) A radical idea. America has thousands of trucking companies. Each trucking company does not own its own highway and prohibits others to run on it. Why not nationalize (or privatize) the rail lines and have a separate private firm manage the entire rail system, maintain all, expand as necessary, and control usage much like FAA. The railroads would act as trucking companies and could deliver train service all over the US as necessary while the rail system itself would become a highway system open to all users. The effect could well become allowing new entry of rail companies. Double if not triple and quadruple tracks would be used to expand capacity to encourage rail traffic for long hauls.
5) Ports. These are also becoming bottlenecks with the immense one sided trade imports from China blocking the West coast ports. Ports should priority to American exports with imports waiting until all exported items have been shipped. Any containers that remain in the US after 90 days will be considered abandoned and will be confiscated for public use, or melted down for scrap, or made available for export purposes for a heavy discount. All imported containers and goods will be thoroughly scanned and examined for illicit or dangerous materials.
Your thoughts or comments?
Some transportation rules of thumbs: rail is more efficient for a transport trip of more than 400 miles; on the other hand, truck can be served better for short hauls. As concerns passengers, if done right, rail transport is more efficient for short haul (300-400 mile) than air. These are starting points that should be taken into account when an overall policy is formulated.
My thoughts:
1) Although not politically tangible currently, an increase in the gas tax of 10-20 cents or more should be implemented. This can be phased in gradually : an immediate 10 cents followed by 5 cents a year for the next two and then 2 cents each year thereafter. These monies (estimated at $1 billion per cent taxed) are necessary to restore the infrastructure.
2) A massive highway construction/reconstruction project should commence immediately with the new monies. The purpose is to expand the interstate system so each interstate highway is at least 3 lanes if not 4 lanes outside of cities and within cities at least 4 lanes. A designated truck lane or lanes with a similarly designated passenger car lane(s) will create more space to allow the two parties to live side by side and minimize the increasing numbers of semi-car crashes. The addition to the capacity will minmimize congestion and assist in fuel policies. The new construction will assist with employment. One requirement is all materials and all labor must be American in origin and american citizens.
3) Airports should be encouraged to satisfy long hauls only. that is, a combination rail-air program should be created. For example, for chicago, rail spokes should go from chicago to Milwaukee, South Bend, Springfield, Dubuque, Madision, etc, all cities within 200 miles. These spokes should be fast, convenient, clean service from dedicated lines. Similarly, Atlanta spokes should go to Birmingham, Savannah, Columbia, Huntsville, Chattanooga, etc. The effect would be to alleviate congestion in the airways and on the ground in airports by concentrating on longer hauls and allow more efficient ground transportation. Part of the new gas tax (2 cents the first year, 1 cent thereafter) would be used for construction and maintenance of these interurban short range spoke systems.
4) A radical idea. America has thousands of trucking companies. Each trucking company does not own its own highway and prohibits others to run on it. Why not nationalize (or privatize) the rail lines and have a separate private firm manage the entire rail system, maintain all, expand as necessary, and control usage much like FAA. The railroads would act as trucking companies and could deliver train service all over the US as necessary while the rail system itself would become a highway system open to all users. The effect could well become allowing new entry of rail companies. Double if not triple and quadruple tracks would be used to expand capacity to encourage rail traffic for long hauls.
5) Ports. These are also becoming bottlenecks with the immense one sided trade imports from China blocking the West coast ports. Ports should priority to American exports with imports waiting until all exported items have been shipped. Any containers that remain in the US after 90 days will be considered abandoned and will be confiscated for public use, or melted down for scrap, or made available for export purposes for a heavy discount. All imported containers and goods will be thoroughly scanned and examined for illicit or dangerous materials.
Your thoughts or comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
