I recall my father's bigotry toward certain ethnic groups. At the time, even when very young, I could not understand it. I do remember questioning him how he could have such an attitude toward an entire ethnic group. I do not recall his response, but to this day, ethnic hatred makes no sense. Yet, it is clearly a reality that does not seem to quit!
Ethnic hatred often shares a parallel similarity to religious bigotry. The Protestant Irish hated the Catholic Irish and vice versa. Muslims have all sorts of bigotry within their religion. Splinter groups of Shiites nurse animosity to other kinds of Shiites. Sunnis and Shiites clearly hate each other. In India, Hindus and Muslims fight each other.
It is an universal phenomenon. Independent of its economic status, ethnic division leading to horrendous consequences is ever-present. We saw it recently in Wisconsin. It is the underlying source of all sorts of problems in the Middle East. It is difficult to see a benign conclusion to the uprising in Syria where there is such tension among majority Sunnis, the minority ruling Alawi, Kurds, Christians, and other groups. Iraq remains one step away from breaking up because of ethnic divisions. Shiites in Saudi Arabia enjoy virtually no rights. Sunnis in Iran have the same isolation. The Slavic nations have been fighting for ages and resolution to these conflicts appear no nearer to a conclusion with time.
In Africa, all sorts of disasters have occurred due to hatred of another ethnic, exemplified by the slaughter in Rwanda.
All of this primitive violence towards others for ethnic or religion reasons leaves me so depressed. As it makes no rational sense, there seems to be no rational approach to ameliorate the situation. Two options seem to available: (1) conquer and control, most often through a dictator, or (2) separate and form another nation, e.g., Yugoslavia ultimately was broken into separate nations, based on religion and/or ethnicity (often, ethnic groups are bound by the same religion). Neither of these approaches are appropriate in a global economy. We have to deal with differences in a rational way in order to survive economically.
When I was much younger, I did imagine a world as envision by John Lennon's song, "Imagine". I can recall the days when I was a priest that I would imagine the Eucharist as a means of sharing my common existence with everyone throughout the world. The Church and I did not last; I left without starting a war (positive step). I eventually ended up working in the Veterans Administration where I was involved in the consequences of war. It was a strange situation for me. In contrast to prior wars where the US was a force defending aggression, the people I served were involved in a war that I protested as a priest! Yet, I had no problem serving the people harmed by the war. It was not their fault, they knew no better. And now, our nation seems to look out on the world with all sorts of ethnic and religious conflicts with the principal tool of military options.
I cannot agree that military power is a rational option to dealing with ethnic/religious conflict. I think that our primary option should be diplomacy (soft power) and, then, we should empower the United Nations to serve as a defense of those negatively impacted by ethnic/religious conflict. I admit that my approach has a basic flaw, i.e., there is no way that the United Nations could agree on a standing military designed to protect the innocent. Due to the rules of the Security Council, nothing meaningful seems to get done. (Our Congress may have caught the bug!) For that reason, I would opt for the United States to advocate to establish a "coalition of the willing" to serve this purpose, e.g., NATO could be changed and expanded.
Here we are in the 21 Century with all sorts of power and technology, impotent to deal with primitive responses of people based on their ethnic or religious differences with others. If I imagined a world of brotherhood when I was younger, I see no reason to see when this ongoing primitive behavior will end.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Hooray for Women
Over time I have often commented on my view that women have more going for them than men. I think that the world would be a better place to live in with women in control. It is not the men are useless; they, in general, are simply deficient. Obviously, I am not coming from any personal research, other than my experience in life.
I am not claiming that all women are beyond fault. It is just that I find women have a greater chance to be people who can employ both sides of their brain that looks at the bigger picture. The left hemisphere is great, but without commensurate involvement of the right, judgments are often screwed up.
I surely think that nations are served better, in general, by female leadership. Violence is not a preferred method for resolving conflict. They can more easily see more sides of the equation before reverting to the simple solution of violence. I am a huge fan of Hilary Clinton, not only because she may well have been one of our best Secretaries of State, but because she was able to lose a very attainable goal without being bitter.
While not all female leaders of corporations are successful, they are more likely to consider the human aspects of business as well as the profit motive.
All of the above is simple a refection of my thinking.
However, I am struck by the success of women in the Olympics. Even Time this week noted the remarkable accomplishments of women of many nations, including the United States. Our country had more female contestants than males for the first time and their success, measured by medals, was outstanding.
Kellen Rose
KELLEN ROSE
So many waited for you,
Mom and Dad for sure,
But also Nora Anne, your big sister.
And then, there were your
Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles and Cousins.
All wanted to be there when the day came,
New York City for Christmas was perfect,
What a place to celebrate your birth!
And you made it come true,
Waiting until Christmas Dinner was completed,
Before announcing you were ready,
Ready to come into a loving family,
All of whom greeted you so soon.
No one care because you were there.
Nestled with your Mom and sister,
Celebrating Christmas in a special way.
For now nearly eight months,
You have grown, nourished so well by Mom,
Loved so well by your parents and sister,
Your smile is ever present.
All the other grandchildren so close in age,
You alone a sister more than four years senior.
You're the first to know a sister as an object of love,
At times even more than your Mom and Dad.
And your sister clearly loves you,
As only Nora Anne loves.
May each day bring more smiles,
Bringing warmth to our world,
We are gifted by your presence,
May we all do well by you.
Selection of Paul Ryan: Good or Bad?
While I think that Romney has made his bid for election harder to achieve with Paul Ryan, I am a happy camper that he was selected. We will have a chance to debate in a very practical way to determine how the nation's future will unfold.
For Obama, we know that change will be incremental, but the ingredients will remain the same. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. will modified on the edges, e.g., age, financial thresholds, etc., but the programs will be mostly similar than dissimilar.
For Romney/Ryan, we can expect a restructuring of all these programs. All of these programs will ultimately become privatized with government subsidies, tailored to increase at a rate less than inflation. In short, people will no longer be guaranteed benefits. Choices will be determined by available money compared to the offerings of the private market.
From a point of controlling health care costs, I do think that this system will work quite well. My problem is that many people will be left out of the loop. We clearly have a problem with health care costs since our nation is holding on to the notion that health care should fit into a for-profit market system. As long as that is true, we will never control costs. We need to take the profit motive out of health care.
In terms of Social Security, I have often thought that the wealthy (dollar value to be determined) do not need the benefits of this program. When a person has millions, Social Security benefits are virtually meaningless to them. They can do without. People less wealthy, but more than $X, should have benefits reduced somewhat appropriately.
There are ways to make changes without adopting Ryan's approach that is based on a market system.
The nation will have a choice. If they go down of the road of Romney and Ryan, it will mark of significant change in our nation governance. For many, and I would think that our children and grandchildren, would probably benefit from the change. The losers will be those unable to cope with the rigors of economic competition. The poor and disenfranchised will become even more so.
The seeds of a revolution and social unrest will be planted even more securely in soil of the United States.
Personally, whatever takes place will not make me a happy camper! Obama will never extend himself to promote a real liberal/progressive program for national health care. If Romney and Ryan were able to succeed in implementing Ryan's vision, it will not impact me. I am too old, but it will surely impact our grandchildren.
For Obama, we know that change will be incremental, but the ingredients will remain the same. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. will modified on the edges, e.g., age, financial thresholds, etc., but the programs will be mostly similar than dissimilar.
For Romney/Ryan, we can expect a restructuring of all these programs. All of these programs will ultimately become privatized with government subsidies, tailored to increase at a rate less than inflation. In short, people will no longer be guaranteed benefits. Choices will be determined by available money compared to the offerings of the private market.
From a point of controlling health care costs, I do think that this system will work quite well. My problem is that many people will be left out of the loop. We clearly have a problem with health care costs since our nation is holding on to the notion that health care should fit into a for-profit market system. As long as that is true, we will never control costs. We need to take the profit motive out of health care.
In terms of Social Security, I have often thought that the wealthy (dollar value to be determined) do not need the benefits of this program. When a person has millions, Social Security benefits are virtually meaningless to them. They can do without. People less wealthy, but more than $X, should have benefits reduced somewhat appropriately.
There are ways to make changes without adopting Ryan's approach that is based on a market system.
The nation will have a choice. If they go down of the road of Romney and Ryan, it will mark of significant change in our nation governance. For many, and I would think that our children and grandchildren, would probably benefit from the change. The losers will be those unable to cope with the rigors of economic competition. The poor and disenfranchised will become even more so.
The seeds of a revolution and social unrest will be planted even more securely in soil of the United States.
Personally, whatever takes place will not make me a happy camper! Obama will never extend himself to promote a real liberal/progressive program for national health care. If Romney and Ryan were able to succeed in implementing Ryan's vision, it will not impact me. I am too old, but it will surely impact our grandchildren.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Future of Higher Education
During this past year, I have been reading and thinking about the problems facing those in higher education. From the perspective of the students (and family), there is now a question of whether the cost is (1) sustainable, and (2) worth it, i.e., will my economic future compensate for the debt incurred in acquiring the knowledge. From the perspective of the university and faculty, the issue is whether the future is viable given the ongoing increase in costs and, if not, whether the product for most students requires major alterations, viz., remote learning, on-line courses.
I have become a champion of those promoting on-line courses. Since finding Kahn Academy, I have diligently watched at least one of his videos each day. I am personally committed to this task until death! I have been involved in all sorts of his educational videos, e.g., algebra, microeconomics, banking, etc. There is virtually no end to what he has made available. His vision can be reviewed through any search engine, but he is driven by the goal of ensuring that ALL students in the WORLD have access to his free education. He is supported now by many wealthy benefactors, including Bill Gates, who share his vision that his academy can be the basis on which primary and secondary school education can be based. Where it has been employed in school systems, students work on the on-line course work at home, and then, on computers in class practice problems where progress is monitored on the computer so that teachers can not only grade students, but also mentor those having problems.
More recently, college courses are now being made available, at times with certificates of success. Two of the ones recently made available are (1) coursera.org, supported by Stanford professors who initiated a project of a free computer engineering course, provided by them (top professors in the field, with the work done and corrected by computers. The initial offering somewhat surprisingly found 70,000 people taking the course. They have since started this new project. The on-line courses are from the best universities, e.g. I am taking Rahm Emanuel's brother (Ezekial) health policy course at the University of Pennsylvania and will be taking (when available in September) a world history course (1300 - present) taught at Princeton. The other sensational project is sponsored by MIT and Harvard: edX.org. MIT has had all of its courses online for a long time, but now,there will be a mechanism for reporting that a person satisfied the requirements for the course work, even if it does not lead to a degree (one could imagine that a person who is working with computers could advance their opportunities by reporting that a special course was completed at edX).
These innovations are spawned by many factors. Colleges are increasing costs at an unsustainable rate. In spite of the increased tuitions, it is reported this week that Cornell and MIT will reduce student aid due to a drop in their endowments. The problem of costs is complicated by a job market that is generally unable to compensate graduates commensurate with their debt levels. There is also an increased awareness that much of the work of college professors is relatively worthless, i.e., the output is clearly not original but mostly derivative of the work of others. This is not a statement that all professors are doing work that is not original and worthy of support, but rather a statement that the current system requiring all tenured professors satisfy research requirements associated with a number of publications etc., regardless of whether anyone would read the work!
One can imagine a future where more people would satisfy requirements for many jobs without college, especially when you consider that a large percentage of college graduates do work formerly done by high graduates. You could imagine that people interested in public safety, e.g., police, would have their educational needs met at a specific training site or community college. For those considering the need for a four year college education, you could imagine that lectures by the best professors in the world would be made available to the students who would then be mentored and graded by the college educators who no longer had to satisfy research and publication standards for tenure (with the result that they would be paid less, reducing costs of the school).
Many people are interested in how higher education will morph itself as it transitions to a less costly enterprise. Now that I have grandchildren, the issue has taken on more than academic interest. I wonder what their future education will look like. The American Interest has had many articles focusing on this issue, one of which triggered off this posting.
I have become a champion of those promoting on-line courses. Since finding Kahn Academy, I have diligently watched at least one of his videos each day. I am personally committed to this task until death! I have been involved in all sorts of his educational videos, e.g., algebra, microeconomics, banking, etc. There is virtually no end to what he has made available. His vision can be reviewed through any search engine, but he is driven by the goal of ensuring that ALL students in the WORLD have access to his free education. He is supported now by many wealthy benefactors, including Bill Gates, who share his vision that his academy can be the basis on which primary and secondary school education can be based. Where it has been employed in school systems, students work on the on-line course work at home, and then, on computers in class practice problems where progress is monitored on the computer so that teachers can not only grade students, but also mentor those having problems.
More recently, college courses are now being made available, at times with certificates of success. Two of the ones recently made available are (1) coursera.org, supported by Stanford professors who initiated a project of a free computer engineering course, provided by them (top professors in the field, with the work done and corrected by computers. The initial offering somewhat surprisingly found 70,000 people taking the course. They have since started this new project. The on-line courses are from the best universities, e.g. I am taking Rahm Emanuel's brother (Ezekial) health policy course at the University of Pennsylvania and will be taking (when available in September) a world history course (1300 - present) taught at Princeton. The other sensational project is sponsored by MIT and Harvard: edX.org. MIT has had all of its courses online for a long time, but now,there will be a mechanism for reporting that a person satisfied the requirements for the course work, even if it does not lead to a degree (one could imagine that a person who is working with computers could advance their opportunities by reporting that a special course was completed at edX).
These innovations are spawned by many factors. Colleges are increasing costs at an unsustainable rate. In spite of the increased tuitions, it is reported this week that Cornell and MIT will reduce student aid due to a drop in their endowments. The problem of costs is complicated by a job market that is generally unable to compensate graduates commensurate with their debt levels. There is also an increased awareness that much of the work of college professors is relatively worthless, i.e., the output is clearly not original but mostly derivative of the work of others. This is not a statement that all professors are doing work that is not original and worthy of support, but rather a statement that the current system requiring all tenured professors satisfy research requirements associated with a number of publications etc., regardless of whether anyone would read the work!
One can imagine a future where more people would satisfy requirements for many jobs without college, especially when you consider that a large percentage of college graduates do work formerly done by high graduates. You could imagine that people interested in public safety, e.g., police, would have their educational needs met at a specific training site or community college. For those considering the need for a four year college education, you could imagine that lectures by the best professors in the world would be made available to the students who would then be mentored and graded by the college educators who no longer had to satisfy research and publication standards for tenure (with the result that they would be paid less, reducing costs of the school).
Many people are interested in how higher education will morph itself as it transitions to a less costly enterprise. Now that I have grandchildren, the issue has taken on more than academic interest. I wonder what their future education will look like. The American Interest has had many articles focusing on this issue, one of which triggered off this posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)