Picture This...
When I saw the cartoon below I decided to check out the cartoons of Adam Zygus...and glad I did. Here is another picture worth a thousand words. Keep in mind, this does not say that, therefore, we should--acting together through government--force ourselves to buy health insurance. What it says is...let's discuss that question based on a sober view of the world we live in. And it is not a sober view to start that conversation with sound-bites that mislead and suggest it is unheard of for the public and private sector to be so intertwined or 'socialist' to add to the list of services shown above. Thanks Adam.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Picture This...
When the leadership of the opposition party tells us that his party's goal is not to work together to solve the problems we face, but to ensure that this president fails in his efforts to address the problems we face...and we see his party enacting precisely this strategy at every turn...it is hard not to see those who say 'both sides are the problem' as either not paying attention or confusing false equivalency with civility.
When the leadership of the opposition party tells us that his party's goal is not to work together to solve the problems we face, but to ensure that this president fails in his efforts to address the problems we face...and we see his party enacting precisely this strategy at every turn...it is hard not to see those who say 'both sides are the problem' as either not paying attention or confusing false equivalency with civility.
Break Out of Your Daily News Routine...Today
An alternative perspective on why Republicans in Congress are targeting Eric Holder.
An alternative perspective on why Republicans in Congress are targeting Eric Holder.
Chinese Central Television Article Today on Sino-US Relations.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Markets and the Public Good:
Private and Public Leadership
Some argue that we should just let the market alone work things out and government intervention is always a problem. While we do need to regulate wisely, to protect the public good, which includes protecting the free market, the extreme ‘markets alone’ position is inconsistent with our long history of public-private collaboration for prosperity, from the moon launch to the super highway system.
Some argue that we should just let the market alone work things out and government intervention is always a problem. While we do need to regulate wisely, to protect the public good, which includes protecting the free market, the extreme ‘markets alone’ position is inconsistent with our long history of public-private collaboration for prosperity, from the moon launch to the super highway system.
In
our current debates over financial and health care regulation it would be
prudent to recognize that in both arenas we need responsible public and private
leadership, and in times like today it would be best if they were working in
concert.
Economist
Paul Krugman is not interested in excusing the leadership failures in the
private sector that caused the great recession, and continue to delay our
recovery. But he is equally uninterested
in ignoring the leadership failures in the public sector making the situation worse
still. This is a great column, well
worth the two minutes it will take to read it.
After criticizing German leadership failures Krugman turns to the Fed.
“Yet let’s not ridicule the
Europeans, since many of our own policymakers are acting just as irresponsibly.
And I’m not just talking about congressional Republicans, who often seem as if
they are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy.
Let’s talk instead about the
Federal Reserve….Why won’t the Fed act? My guess is that it’s intimidated by
those congressional Republicans, that it’s afraid to do anything that might be
seen as providing political aid to Obama, that is, anything that might help the
economy. Maybe there’s some other explanation, but the fact is, the Fed, like
the European Central Bank, like the U.S. Congress, like the government of
Germany, has decided that avoiding economic disaster is somebody else’s
responsibility.
None of this should be happening.
As in 1931, Western nations have the resources they need to avoid catastrophe,
and indeed to restore prosperity — and we have the added advantage of knowing
much more than our great-grandparents did about how depressions happen and how
to end them. But knowledge and resources do no good if those who possess them
refuse to use them. And that’s what
seems to be happening.”
Financial to Health Care MarketsIt seems clear that President Reagan could not be elected in today’s Republican party. Farah Stockman reminds us that President Nixon’s support for a national health care system (like President Obama’s in that it also sought to strengthen our current system of privately provided insurance) would similarly exile him from the Republican party today…for supporting universal coverage and for doing so by seeking an alliance with Ted Kennedy.
“Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon
assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his
signature issue…. Nixon proposed a plan
that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and
gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this
market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.
“Government has a great role to play,” he said, “but we must always make sure
that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal
government.”
No one breathed a word at the
time about Nixon’s plan being unconstitutional.
When Obama ran for office,
his aides contacted Altman, a key architect of the Nixon plan, and asked him to
serve as an adviser…. Although the two
plans are different — Nixon’s mandated companies to buy insurance, while
Obama’s mandates individuals — both bolster the system of private insurance instead
of creating something new.
“Every once in awhile Obama
would say, ‘Wouldn’t single-payer be simpler?’ ”’ Altman recalled. “The answer is yes. But
America wasn’t ready for it.” When Congress finally passed the bill, Altman
knew that it would take years to perfect it. But he felt extremely proud. He
never imagined that the Supreme Court could throw a wrench in it. That would
never have happened in the 1970s.”
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Daily Show Interviews Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann
Two of our most respected political analysts, one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, do what they rarely do...argue that we cannot blame both parties for the mess we are in today. Since this type of analysis is an very real break with scholarly traditions, it is worth thinking about it carefully.
Two of our most respected political analysts, one from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, do what they rarely do...argue that we cannot blame both parties for the mess we are in today. Since this type of analysis is an very real break with scholarly traditions, it is worth thinking about it carefully.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Leaders: Start with the Data, then Innovation Requires Imagination
The Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article “The Humanities Really Do Produce a Profit,” that is worth considering for two reasons.
While there are various ways to
slice and dice the data, the commonly heard ‘conventional wisdom’ among
university leadership these days is that the science and engineering programs
are subsidizing what one of my engineering colleagues loves to call the fuzzy disciplines
in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
Actually looking at the data,
however, tells a very different story, as the Chronicle article outlines. The
Humanities either pay for themselves or produce (sometimes large) surpluses,
while science and engineering programs do neither.
The ‘convention wisdom’ here—contrary
to the best available data—is simply assumed to be true by many university
leaders who never miss an opportunity to demand that their subordinates make
decisions based on the best available data.
That is the first reason to check out
this Chronicle article: it is not true that the sciences subsidize
the humanities. Not even close.
The second reason is that the author
of the article reminds us that embedded within this discredited
assumption is the more dangerous notion about fuzziness that also turns out to be false, because it suggests the humanities, arts and social sciences are secondary, optional or perhaps even best avoided, components of higher education. Here
is how the author put it:
“We produce
a profit despite the irreducibly labor-intensive aspects of much of our work in
the humanities, where there is seldom any single right answers toward which
students might be directed, and where instruction must therefore engage actively
and progressively with the particular subjective attributes of each developing
voice and mind in the classroom discussion or in drafts of any essay. Class size therefore cannot swell in many of
our departments without destroying our essential pedagogical function, any more
than the sciences could function without laboratories.”
Irreducibly labor-intensive
teaching and learning…about questions where there is seldom one right answer
(though no shortage of wrong answers, such as the 'conventional wisdom' noted here)...traditionally a cornerstone of higher
education. And this cornerstone is under
attack by a self-interested and skewed notion of what it means to analyze, think, and innovate...a notion that privileges one approach and dismisses what have traditionally, and rightly, been seen as essential and complementary approaches to serious inquiry.
“No sane
citizenry measures its public elementary schools by whether they pay for
themselves immediately and in dollars.
We shouldn’t have to make the a balance-sheet argument for the humanities,
either, at least not until the balance-sheet includes the value, to the student
and to the state, of expanded powers of personal empathy and cross-cultural
respect, improved communication through language and other symbolic systems, and
increased ability to tolerate and interpret complexity, contemplate morality,
appreciate the many forms of artistic beauty, and generate creative,
independent thought.”
Even using the narrow measures associated
with a balance-sheet, the humanities value cannot be denied. Expanding our notion of value, as we must in the above non-controversial
ways, we would be as eager to support small class sizes in the humanities, arts
and social sciences as we are to invest in the laboratories our colleagues in
science and engineering require to make their critically important contributions toward graduating
globally competent and competitive, innovative and thoughtful democratic citizens.
If educational leaders (and legislators who want to be educational leaders) would themselves start with the data, as they insist others do, and then recognize that the data is merely step one in real world problem solving, where there is rarely any single right answer to the most important questions we face...this would be the kind of innovative and imaginative leadership we need.
Einstein once said that "not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted." He was certainly not suggesting we stop counting, but that starting with the data, measuring as rigorously as we can, is merely a starting point for the diffcult task ahead: thinking.
Pretending that there is one right answer means we waste resources spinning our wheels and alienating allies by dividing the faculty against each other and against an administration filled with people who want to do the right thing by are rightly perceived by faculty as not getting it when they behave as if everything that counts can be counted (and too often do not even hold themselves to this same, step one, standard of starting with the data, as we see here).
Worse, insisting that there must be only one right answer, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, advances the forces of anti-intellectualism and sets a poor example for our students...making it less likely, to the degree that they learn from our example, that they will become the innovative problem solvers we need today (and tomorrow) to help us productively address the conflicts we face together.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The Black Candidate Wants to Avoid Race in the Campaign
KeithKoffler, recently argued in his blog that “race is being inserted into the 2012 campaign, particularly as a means to slander those who attack the president.” This is followed by evidence, in the form of ‘left leaning’ reporter Sam Donaldson criticizing a reporter who interrupted the president. Here is what Donaldson said:
KeithKoffler, recently argued in his blog that “race is being inserted into the 2012 campaign, particularly as a means to slander those who attack the president.” This is followed by evidence, in the form of ‘left leaning’ reporter Sam Donaldson criticizing a reporter who interrupted the president. Here is what Donaldson said:
“What this man did yesterday is something new, to me
wrong and unusual. I think it is probably the result of the growing incivility
of the times, the competition among reporters and news organizations to be
noticed not only for the work product but for the theatrics of the
gathering…and there is one more factor, let’s face it: Many on the political
right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for
his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These
people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing
talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president. That is both
regrettable and adds, in this case, to the general dislike of the press on the
part of the general public.”
This is hardly a left
leaning injection of race. It is an
observation.
Koffler continues,
noting that the “introduction of racial issues threatens to create a new and
pernicious element of divisiveness that could create racial tensions during the
campaign and induce a dangerous racial backlash after it, no matter who wins.” The assumption that Donaldson's observation is when race and divisiveness get injected seems weak and the rest reads like a veiled threat, masking the more pernicious (and not so new) element of divisiveness and racial tension here.
Koffler points out that Bill Maher (someone who actually is left leaning) criticized
Matt Drudge for racism. This may or may
not be true…but Koffler’s point is that the problem
with race today is only manifest when people complain about racism. Clearly false and disingenuous, regardless of what
we think of Bill Maher or Matt Drudge.
Koffler later repeats this
same point, saying that on "Tuesday... MSNBC host Christopher Matthews asked former San Francisco
Mayor Willie Brown whether House Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s
treatment of Holder was 'ethnic.'" Simply asking the
question is injecting race…not the behavior that spurs the question being asked
in the first place? And should we not be concerned about the answer to the question, if we are really concerned about how race matters here?
The
second problem with Koffler's analysis is captured by the incoherent juxtaposition of these two
consecutive sentences in his blog. “As the campaign heats up and attacks in
general on Obama become more fierce, such talk of race is only likely to
increase. And it could become a useful weapon in the hands of unscrupulous
Obama defenders hoping to intimidate the president’s opponents with the threat
of being branded as racist.”
The first sentence
suggests, correctly, that the race card is rooted in attacks on Obama. Why, after all, would a black candidate in a
country that is 12% black want to highlight his blackness? That would not be a winning strategy and electoral
campaigns are usually about winning.
Then, Koffler inexplicably shifts to claim that the tool designed to attack Obama would be a
useful weapon for Obama...and that is the cause for concern according to Koffler.
What Would Jesus Do?
Sister Simone at the Ed Show provides powerful testimony and witness and praxis that we should all consider carefully. While in Catholic school I never thought I would say this, but the sisters are clearly the most thoughtful and loving community within the larger Catholic and Christian community. Listen, just a few minutes.
Sister Simone at the Ed Show provides powerful testimony and witness and praxis that we should all consider carefully. While in Catholic school I never thought I would say this, but the sisters are clearly the most thoughtful and loving community within the larger Catholic and Christian community. Listen, just a few minutes.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Help Homeowners, Reject Self-Interested Platitudes
Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, a conservative publication, provides a very thoughtful analysis of the what we should do now (and should have done a long time ago) to address the mortgage debt crisis. I am particularly impressed with the analysis of changes in public (and elite) opinion on the ‘moral hazard’ argument. Worth reading.
Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, a conservative publication, provides a very thoughtful analysis of the what we should do now (and should have done a long time ago) to address the mortgage debt crisis. I am particularly impressed with the analysis of changes in public (and elite) opinion on the ‘moral hazard’ argument. Worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)