The NY Times today (12/28/08) had an interesting spot about a newlywed couple who found an apartment in Astoria because they prefer not to live in the suburbs. The writer, Joyce Cohen, obviously thinks this is a significant change. Imagine, young people actually choosing the city!
We'll see. I think it's more significant that the family they bought the apartment from was moving because they were expecting their second child. Anyone want to bet where they're going? Do you think the couple who sold the apartment - at less than the price they wanted - is going to be able to afford a larger apartment in the city? I think not.
I wish the newlyweds, the Dubovskys, a happy life here. I'd also love to see their happy, healthy children - who haven't been born yet - enjoying an education at their neighborhood public school. Now that would be real news. After all, New York City has been telling young couples like the Dubovskys to go to hell, um, I mean the suburbs, for the past three decades.
There was once a time when the city administration felt an obligation to keep struggling, working middle class families from moving out of the city. There was a time when there was a commitment to maintain whole neighborhoods where those families could afford to live and to send their children to safe, clean schools where they were actually motivated to learn.
Of course, the Dubovskys sound like they could afford private schools. In these times. however, that level of prosperity is moving further away from the middle class, not closer. Will local government be willing to create initiatives that keep struggling, upwardly mobile families here? It will have to mean fundamental changes in housing and education policy. Policy that boldly recognizes how much the city needs those people to stay in New York.
I am sure those families, maybe even the Dubovskys, will be grateful, and will do their best to reclaim and to preserve the quality of life that this city offers.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Now Mumbai
1. Naturally, we are chilled by these latest attacks in India, but it's not certain that they forebode any new attacks here. My gut feeling is that terrorism is not likely to disappear, or even decrease, because it is a more effective political tool than open armed revolt. That worked in Castro's time, but as more people in underdeveloped countries choose democracy and free markets, conditions will sufficiently improve so that extremists, whether of religious or political identity, will realize that they can never hope to mobilize the general population to bring down the government. The benefits of freedom will have become too much a part of people's lives.
No, terrorism will be the best weapon for these dangerous fanatics to destabilize the government, perhaps paralyzing it. As the global market heats up, they will feel even more pressure to take violent action. But covertly, and only against the innocent and unarmed.
2. Here in America, we are faced with daunting choices. Recently, a federal judge issued a ruling which permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed to trial. The suit was filed by two Egyptian-born men who were arrested and questioned by federal air marshals because they behaved suspiciously during a cross-country flight. What was their "suspicious" behavior? I haven't read the decision, so I only know of this from a NY Times article (11/25/08), but it seems that it was mostly because they spoke Arabic and were seen changing their seats. They were finally released after four hours.
What are we to make of this? Can innocent people really be arrested just for speaking in their own language? I'll answer that: of course they can, if the "totality of circumstances" are found too similar to the scenario of a terrorist attack, at least as conceived and rehearsed by trained security officers. But if so, how can we claim that the Bill of Rights still exists in the 21st century?
I have no answer for that now. In the meantime, I will read the judge's decison and follow the trial.
No, terrorism will be the best weapon for these dangerous fanatics to destabilize the government, perhaps paralyzing it. As the global market heats up, they will feel even more pressure to take violent action. But covertly, and only against the innocent and unarmed.
2. Here in America, we are faced with daunting choices. Recently, a federal judge issued a ruling which permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed to trial. The suit was filed by two Egyptian-born men who were arrested and questioned by federal air marshals because they behaved suspiciously during a cross-country flight. What was their "suspicious" behavior? I haven't read the decision, so I only know of this from a NY Times article (11/25/08), but it seems that it was mostly because they spoke Arabic and were seen changing their seats. They were finally released after four hours.
What are we to make of this? Can innocent people really be arrested just for speaking in their own language? I'll answer that: of course they can, if the "totality of circumstances" are found too similar to the scenario of a terrorist attack, at least as conceived and rehearsed by trained security officers. But if so, how can we claim that the Bill of Rights still exists in the 21st century?
I have no answer for that now. In the meantime, I will read the judge's decison and follow the trial.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Information Obesity
One of the most anxiety-producing problems in America is obesity. No one disputes that it shortens life, limits our activities and relationships and is getting worse. And, in most cases, it's caused by an uncontrolled appetite.
But America also has another problem due to lack of dietary discipline. This is what I call "information obesity". We are becoming bloated with information that is poured into us 24/7, and we can hardly move because of it.
Is this so bad? Yes, if we just look at its "nutritional value". Like the artery-clogging fats and starch sold in fast food outlets, most information we take in is cheap, useless and has the same flavor as what we ate yesterday. Which is why, of course, we love it so.
One example, a relatively harmless one, is the "Top 10" grossing movies of the week. We are told that last week's Number 1 was "knocked off" by this week's entry. This is true, if you only look at raw numbers, but where is the competition anyway? The new Number 1 wasn't in release last week, so nobody could see it. But last week's Number 1 was seen by millions. Those same people were not going to see that same movie again, were they? Yet we still let the media pretend that this is an actual contest where the two movies are compared for the same thing!
But if we know it's phony, why do we still look at the list? We do it because it's "fun" to compare anything at all even if we know that the comparison is whimsical and statistically meaningless.
I've noticed that some papers have dropped the list altogether, probably because television gets the drop on the print media on the Sunday evening news, so it's already stale by Monday morning. Too bad.
But you can be sure that the statistics machine will be tweaked again for some new popularity contest so that we can be "hooked" again on a regular basis.
We just love those empty calories.
But America also has another problem due to lack of dietary discipline. This is what I call "information obesity". We are becoming bloated with information that is poured into us 24/7, and we can hardly move because of it.
Is this so bad? Yes, if we just look at its "nutritional value". Like the artery-clogging fats and starch sold in fast food outlets, most information we take in is cheap, useless and has the same flavor as what we ate yesterday. Which is why, of course, we love it so.
One example, a relatively harmless one, is the "Top 10" grossing movies of the week. We are told that last week's Number 1 was "knocked off" by this week's entry. This is true, if you only look at raw numbers, but where is the competition anyway? The new Number 1 wasn't in release last week, so nobody could see it. But last week's Number 1 was seen by millions. Those same people were not going to see that same movie again, were they? Yet we still let the media pretend that this is an actual contest where the two movies are compared for the same thing!
But if we know it's phony, why do we still look at the list? We do it because it's "fun" to compare anything at all even if we know that the comparison is whimsical and statistically meaningless.
I've noticed that some papers have dropped the list altogether, probably because television gets the drop on the print media on the Sunday evening news, so it's already stale by Monday morning. Too bad.
But you can be sure that the statistics machine will be tweaked again for some new popularity contest so that we can be "hooked" again on a regular basis.
We just love those empty calories.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saving the Economy WITHOUT the Bailout
It's only called the bailout because our tax money is going directly to the Wall Street screwups who created the crisis. It will definitely save their companies and jobs and, just maybe, the American economy.
But what is the crisis? From what we're told, it's because new money, in the form of mortgages, business loans and credit purchases, is not moving into the economy because the lenders can't get their hands on that money. These operational funds used to come from loans between banks. But now the banks are frightened that they'll never get it back because the lenders are overleveraged and face bankruptcy.
So let's set up an alternate source for these funds. Instead of bailing out Wall Street, put the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money into a special fund which will only be used for new loans issued by lenders who enroll in the program. The government will charge low, even "survival" interest rates for qualifying lenders. But the economy will have a continuing supply of real money until a new regulatory scheme is created. And we can actually take more than two weeks to think about it!
One important point. The participating lenders should be paid by taxpayer money for issuing these loans. I think that the brokers, management and staff of these companies should be compensated at plain government salary levels but only for the loans that use these funds. That is because some of the lenders may seek bankruptcy protection while in the program, and the program should be insulated from the process.
I think this suggestion is more realistic than having the government issue loans directly, as I hinted at in my post last week. We don't have the time or expertise to set up a new agency so fast. We can use banks and lenders who do this for a living. The difference will be that greed will be banished, and it will be replaced by strict governmental oversight. At least for the duration of the crisis.
Finally, these same lenders who will be participating in the program will get NO IMMUNITY if continuing investigations by the FBI, the SEC and the Justice Department discover fraud. And they will still have to face their creditors and shareholders. Yes, I expect indictments out of this.
This is better than the illusory bailout. The participating lenders should be eager, even grateful to have this chance to redeem themselves --as feeble as it is. But it is an appropriate response to the greed and betrayal of the public that stains this historic event.
But what is the crisis? From what we're told, it's because new money, in the form of mortgages, business loans and credit purchases, is not moving into the economy because the lenders can't get their hands on that money. These operational funds used to come from loans between banks. But now the banks are frightened that they'll never get it back because the lenders are overleveraged and face bankruptcy.
So let's set up an alternate source for these funds. Instead of bailing out Wall Street, put the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money into a special fund which will only be used for new loans issued by lenders who enroll in the program. The government will charge low, even "survival" interest rates for qualifying lenders. But the economy will have a continuing supply of real money until a new regulatory scheme is created. And we can actually take more than two weeks to think about it!
One important point. The participating lenders should be paid by taxpayer money for issuing these loans. I think that the brokers, management and staff of these companies should be compensated at plain government salary levels but only for the loans that use these funds. That is because some of the lenders may seek bankruptcy protection while in the program, and the program should be insulated from the process.
I think this suggestion is more realistic than having the government issue loans directly, as I hinted at in my post last week. We don't have the time or expertise to set up a new agency so fast. We can use banks and lenders who do this for a living. The difference will be that greed will be banished, and it will be replaced by strict governmental oversight. At least for the duration of the crisis.
Finally, these same lenders who will be participating in the program will get NO IMMUNITY if continuing investigations by the FBI, the SEC and the Justice Department discover fraud. And they will still have to face their creditors and shareholders. Yes, I expect indictments out of this.
This is better than the illusory bailout. The participating lenders should be eager, even grateful to have this chance to redeem themselves --as feeble as it is. But it is an appropriate response to the greed and betrayal of the public that stains this historic event.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The NEW American Dream
The present financial situation is still precarious. Most likely, Congress will shiver and huddle and decide, after all the posturing, that they don't want to face the music after a new "Great Depression" descends upon us.
So it looks like the taxpayers will be forced to roll up their sleeves for the unavoidable blood transfusion to save a Wall Street on life support. Ah, well.
On reflection, we are going to be working in a new economy, one where this kind of crisis will not happen again. But what will that economy look like? Will it be as compelling as the last one?
I admit that I have no idea what the new economy will look like. I do know that the old one is dead.
That old now dead economy was called the "American Dream" economy. It did a helluva job for this country after World War Two, and that was because most of the country wanted what the economy produced.
We produced "The American Dream". We struggled to get it, and we struggled to keep it. Then we passed it on to our children so they could continue the struggle.
What was it? It was more than just that house in the suburbs with the two car garage. Much more.
The dream was the house, the mortgage that could be paid with one secure salary from the same employer until retirement.
It was not one, not two but a car for everyone in the family. This was because once Dick and Jane hit sixteen, they wouldn't be satisfied with Mom and Dad driving them to school or to parties at the friend's house. And of course, the dream included the car loans that kept all those dealerships in clover.
It was the two week vacations for the whole family -- every year -- to Washington, to New York for the Broadway shows, to Disney World, to Yellowstone.
It was gifts and parties and barbecues and dinners and weddings for all the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, cousins and MORE cousins.
It was countless outings to movies, home team games and restaurants every weekend.
The American Dream lasted a long time. How long? It lasted from the time, long, long ago, when people actually spent time balancing their checkbooks (Does anybody still remember such a time?) until today, when you don't know how many credit cards you have.
It included every new gadget that could possibly be stuffed into the closets of the American Dream home, and it included all the extensions of the home to fit more closets to hold these gadgets.
It included four years plus of higher education for every child, but especially for the ones who had no particular interest or intellectual curiosity about anything they would learn in college except how the degree could get them their own American Dream, and if it would be bigger than they one they grew up in.
It included the swimming pools, patios, redesigned kitchens and landscaping that would be classified as "Home Improvement" and which would result in the huge profit everyone expected once they sold their American Dream home. This home became the equity that people expected to grow, as part of their estate, even though their ever more expensive lifestyle was being financed by using that home as still another layer of debt that would eventually be paid by the increased value of that home.
The dream did the job of maintaining this economy because Americans made an unwritten pact with each other to dream it, in unison, at the same time.
The alarm that woke us all from this dream is called the Wall Street bailout.
All functioning economies need a dominant theme to energize its citizens, a "dream" if you will.
America will need another "American Dream" to regain economic stability again. I don't know if it will be as dominant as THE "American Dream", the one that gripped the imaginations and yearnings of everyone who lived here or came here from every corner of the world.
That dream is over.
So it looks like the taxpayers will be forced to roll up their sleeves for the unavoidable blood transfusion to save a Wall Street on life support. Ah, well.
On reflection, we are going to be working in a new economy, one where this kind of crisis will not happen again. But what will that economy look like? Will it be as compelling as the last one?
I admit that I have no idea what the new economy will look like. I do know that the old one is dead.
That old now dead economy was called the "American Dream" economy. It did a helluva job for this country after World War Two, and that was because most of the country wanted what the economy produced.
We produced "The American Dream". We struggled to get it, and we struggled to keep it. Then we passed it on to our children so they could continue the struggle.
What was it? It was more than just that house in the suburbs with the two car garage. Much more.
The dream was the house, the mortgage that could be paid with one secure salary from the same employer until retirement.
It was not one, not two but a car for everyone in the family. This was because once Dick and Jane hit sixteen, they wouldn't be satisfied with Mom and Dad driving them to school or to parties at the friend's house. And of course, the dream included the car loans that kept all those dealerships in clover.
It was the two week vacations for the whole family -- every year -- to Washington, to New York for the Broadway shows, to Disney World, to Yellowstone.
It was gifts and parties and barbecues and dinners and weddings for all the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, cousins and MORE cousins.
It was countless outings to movies, home team games and restaurants every weekend.
The American Dream lasted a long time. How long? It lasted from the time, long, long ago, when people actually spent time balancing their checkbooks (Does anybody still remember such a time?) until today, when you don't know how many credit cards you have.
It included every new gadget that could possibly be stuffed into the closets of the American Dream home, and it included all the extensions of the home to fit more closets to hold these gadgets.
It included four years plus of higher education for every child, but especially for the ones who had no particular interest or intellectual curiosity about anything they would learn in college except how the degree could get them their own American Dream, and if it would be bigger than they one they grew up in.
It included the swimming pools, patios, redesigned kitchens and landscaping that would be classified as "Home Improvement" and which would result in the huge profit everyone expected once they sold their American Dream home. This home became the equity that people expected to grow, as part of their estate, even though their ever more expensive lifestyle was being financed by using that home as still another layer of debt that would eventually be paid by the increased value of that home.
The dream did the job of maintaining this economy because Americans made an unwritten pact with each other to dream it, in unison, at the same time.
The alarm that woke us all from this dream is called the Wall Street bailout.
All functioning economies need a dominant theme to energize its citizens, a "dream" if you will.
America will need another "American Dream" to regain economic stability again. I don't know if it will be as dominant as THE "American Dream", the one that gripped the imaginations and yearnings of everyone who lived here or came here from every corner of the world.
That dream is over.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The "Unthinkable"?
The trillion dollar Wall Street bailout plan goes to Congress this week and, as an uninformed taxpayer, I have some questions, the foremost being what happens if we don't do it.
Believe me, it's no fun watching the Sunday morning news shows and seeing so many of the big players, all of whom are much, much smarter than me, arguing for the bailout, but not even trying to answer that question.
I'm a free marketer, myself. I believe that poorly designed, sporadically enforced regulation is worse than none at all. I was appalled by the AIG rescue. That's irrelevant now. We're being given a choice between two kinds of socialism, and that's it! This week, we have the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Wall Streeters creeping on their bellies to Washington and begging for regulation. The first socialist choice is bailing out these institutions in order for the "system" to continue to function. In that case, we will "own" all of these mysterious assets, which we can then sell off to....well, somebody. The architects of the plan say these securities are worth something, but they don't know what. The important thing, however, is to keep the system moving because the consequences are "unthinkable".
I'm sorry, but I want to think about the unthinkable. What if we simply forgot the bailout and moved the government into the same position as these venerable banking institutions. After all, the bailout won't be any good if the system is allowed to continue at the current level of regulation. Public confidence demands an accountability that never existed before. Do we know what these new regulations are? No, not yet. We're told that comes later, after the market "stabilizes". Do we have the new regulating agencies in place yet? No, that's later too.
So what we're told is that "Main Street" Americans need these same institutions in order get get the loans and credit to keep a roof over their heads and their businesses afloat. But why? What is the private financial sector offering that inspires confidence in them at all? After all, they are insolvent now. If they have no real money to offer, what do they have?
I think nothing. The fact is, the regulatory system we need doesn't exist yet. It will come from Congress, and we'd better not try to coast along on the present system without it. That fact leads to a different conclusion.
Let the government -- at least temporarily -- assume the role of direct lender, and demand real collateral for new loans. We can start with the trillion dollars we are NOT using for the bailout. That means a plain direct relationship, debtor to creditor, with no gourmet "derivatives". No bonuses, no CEO parachutes. Just common civil servants providing direct financial assistance to borrowers. After all, the amount of regulatory oversight we'll eventually have, even with the bailout, will have government fingerprints on every transaction. Lots of them.
So what about that "unthinkable"? What will happen to the "Main Street" economy if we don't do the bailout?
I don't know. But I do know that the "experts" have not convinced me the bailout is necessary to prevent disaster. Everything I've heard from them leads me to think the disaster is already here, but it's too important to preserve the current financial system to let it fail.
But face it. IT HAS FAILED!
Without the bailout, debts will be unpaid, many financial institutions will go under, and the cost will be phenomenal.
I say, that's why we have bankruptcy judges. Let the creditors and stockholders line up and salvage what they can.
In the meantime. let the taxpayers use that trillion dollars to keep the economy moving until a legitimate financial system is established, one with pro-active enforcement powers.
"Main Street" will feel pain, to be sure, but not as much as the "immortals" on Wall Street. But isn't that better than what this as yet undrafted "rescue plan" offers us?
Believe me, it's no fun watching the Sunday morning news shows and seeing so many of the big players, all of whom are much, much smarter than me, arguing for the bailout, but not even trying to answer that question.
I'm a free marketer, myself. I believe that poorly designed, sporadically enforced regulation is worse than none at all. I was appalled by the AIG rescue. That's irrelevant now. We're being given a choice between two kinds of socialism, and that's it! This week, we have the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Wall Streeters creeping on their bellies to Washington and begging for regulation. The first socialist choice is bailing out these institutions in order for the "system" to continue to function. In that case, we will "own" all of these mysterious assets, which we can then sell off to....well, somebody. The architects of the plan say these securities are worth something, but they don't know what. The important thing, however, is to keep the system moving because the consequences are "unthinkable".
I'm sorry, but I want to think about the unthinkable. What if we simply forgot the bailout and moved the government into the same position as these venerable banking institutions. After all, the bailout won't be any good if the system is allowed to continue at the current level of regulation. Public confidence demands an accountability that never existed before. Do we know what these new regulations are? No, not yet. We're told that comes later, after the market "stabilizes". Do we have the new regulating agencies in place yet? No, that's later too.
So what we're told is that "Main Street" Americans need these same institutions in order get get the loans and credit to keep a roof over their heads and their businesses afloat. But why? What is the private financial sector offering that inspires confidence in them at all? After all, they are insolvent now. If they have no real money to offer, what do they have?
I think nothing. The fact is, the regulatory system we need doesn't exist yet. It will come from Congress, and we'd better not try to coast along on the present system without it. That fact leads to a different conclusion.
Let the government -- at least temporarily -- assume the role of direct lender, and demand real collateral for new loans. We can start with the trillion dollars we are NOT using for the bailout. That means a plain direct relationship, debtor to creditor, with no gourmet "derivatives". No bonuses, no CEO parachutes. Just common civil servants providing direct financial assistance to borrowers. After all, the amount of regulatory oversight we'll eventually have, even with the bailout, will have government fingerprints on every transaction. Lots of them.
So what about that "unthinkable"? What will happen to the "Main Street" economy if we don't do the bailout?
I don't know. But I do know that the "experts" have not convinced me the bailout is necessary to prevent disaster. Everything I've heard from them leads me to think the disaster is already here, but it's too important to preserve the current financial system to let it fail.
But face it. IT HAS FAILED!
Without the bailout, debts will be unpaid, many financial institutions will go under, and the cost will be phenomenal.
I say, that's why we have bankruptcy judges. Let the creditors and stockholders line up and salvage what they can.
In the meantime. let the taxpayers use that trillion dollars to keep the economy moving until a legitimate financial system is established, one with pro-active enforcement powers.
"Main Street" will feel pain, to be sure, but not as much as the "immortals" on Wall Street. But isn't that better than what this as yet undrafted "rescue plan" offers us?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The LPGA Debacle
I must go on record as opposing the, as yet undrafted, policy of requiring its tour players to learn English. Of course, the announcement of the policy was clumsily handled, but it would have caused outrage no matter how the public was told.
It's a classic case where a defensible result is badly served by poor planning. Golf, by itself, is just a sport. But professional golf is also entertainment and marketing. I'm sure all of the players on the tour want to increase the League's profits, and get a larger share for themselves. In fact, reports say that many of the non-English speaking players approve of the policy. They know that their marketability for endorsements can be enhanced by speaking Englsh. Maria Sharapova is a prime example. And, to its credit, the League has been providing what seems to be voluntary language instruction for some time.
But the policy rankles, inevitably, because it imposes a discriminatory barrier to one's appreciation of the sport. It's supposed to be about excellence, not salesmanship. Why should the LPGA even hint that it may not have the best competitors on its tour just because they don't have the highest Q scores? Believe me, if the public loses its confidence in a sport's commitment to competitive achievement, at the highest level, the fans will disappear, and no amount of marketing razzle-dazzle, in English, Korean or any other language, will bring them back.
It's a classic case where a defensible result is badly served by poor planning. Golf, by itself, is just a sport. But professional golf is also entertainment and marketing. I'm sure all of the players on the tour want to increase the League's profits, and get a larger share for themselves. In fact, reports say that many of the non-English speaking players approve of the policy. They know that their marketability for endorsements can be enhanced by speaking Englsh. Maria Sharapova is a prime example. And, to its credit, the League has been providing what seems to be voluntary language instruction for some time.
But the policy rankles, inevitably, because it imposes a discriminatory barrier to one's appreciation of the sport. It's supposed to be about excellence, not salesmanship. Why should the LPGA even hint that it may not have the best competitors on its tour just because they don't have the highest Q scores? Believe me, if the public loses its confidence in a sport's commitment to competitive achievement, at the highest level, the fans will disappear, and no amount of marketing razzle-dazzle, in English, Korean or any other language, will bring them back.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Real Worth of a BA Degree
Controversial sociologist Charles Murray had an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this week (Wed., 8/13/08). It brought into question the actual value of a bachelor's degree, and whether a different standard of achievement (he posed a national certifying exam) would be better.
I think Murray is right. I've felt that the bachelors has outlived its usefulness for some time. A new system, perhaps his certification exam idea, perhaps another paradigm, is likely to appear soon.
But he ignored the real value of the bachelors. No, not for the young folks getting the degree. The real beneficiaries are their parents.
Let's look at the situation. It's High School graduation, and young Tommy and Jennifer are eighteen and sitting on top of the world. But are they ready to move out and support themselves? Not likely. What job will they get that allows them to maintain a decent independent lifestyle, stay safe and healthy and also seek and, hopefully, find their ideal life partner?
Are they ready for the career that will set them on the road to the American Dream?
Not on your life. Even in a growing economy, they'd just get an entry-level job, nothing more. With the expense of a car, rent, clothes, entertainment and food, their credit cards would max out fast. And they'd have to live like pigs in the bargain.
No, they'll never leave the comforts of home just for that. So they decide to stay home and prepare for independence...at some later date, just not now.
So everybody's happy, right? Mom and dad won't be losing their darling after all.
But this also presents a little problem.
What, you may ask, could that possibly be? After all, look how much money the family saves by eliminating college altogether.
But some things may be more important than money, such as ....sanity? I give the arrangement three months, at the most. After that, the stay-at-home kids will suddenly find themselves buried under college application forms.
That's because the post high school stay-at-home lifestyle may be fine for eighteen year olds, but it's torture for their parents. After all, Tommy and Jennifer will get part-time jobs at the mall, if they're lucky, but then what? They're going to go bananas, that's what! They'll hang out with their buddies and girlfriends, drive like lunatics all hours of the day or night, disappear for days at a time, often be delivered by the police to the front door. And that's just the squeaky clean kids! The ones who fall in with the "wrong crowd" will make them look like angels.
No, after three months of this hell, mortgaging the family estate to get their darlings into a nice, safe institution like a four-year college will be paradise on earth.
But if you ask mom and dad if that's the real reason why they're throwing away half their retirement fund, they will forcefully deny it. They will say how necessary the degree is to get into Wharton for that MBA. How the kids will mature into responsible, thinking adults from the experience. After all, dormitory life encourages young people to create lifelong friendships based on a healthy appetite for knowledge and self-improvement. Oh, yes. It's worth every penny.
And I'm sure that mom and dad will never regret it, no matter what the cost.
So let's sing the praises of the bachelors degree. And if Tommy and Jennifer actually learn something in those four years, count that as a bonus.
I think Murray is right. I've felt that the bachelors has outlived its usefulness for some time. A new system, perhaps his certification exam idea, perhaps another paradigm, is likely to appear soon.
But he ignored the real value of the bachelors. No, not for the young folks getting the degree. The real beneficiaries are their parents.
Let's look at the situation. It's High School graduation, and young Tommy and Jennifer are eighteen and sitting on top of the world. But are they ready to move out and support themselves? Not likely. What job will they get that allows them to maintain a decent independent lifestyle, stay safe and healthy and also seek and, hopefully, find their ideal life partner?
Are they ready for the career that will set them on the road to the American Dream?
Not on your life. Even in a growing economy, they'd just get an entry-level job, nothing more. With the expense of a car, rent, clothes, entertainment and food, their credit cards would max out fast. And they'd have to live like pigs in the bargain.
No, they'll never leave the comforts of home just for that. So they decide to stay home and prepare for independence...at some later date, just not now.
So everybody's happy, right? Mom and dad won't be losing their darling after all.
But this also presents a little problem.
What, you may ask, could that possibly be? After all, look how much money the family saves by eliminating college altogether.
But some things may be more important than money, such as ....sanity? I give the arrangement three months, at the most. After that, the stay-at-home kids will suddenly find themselves buried under college application forms.
That's because the post high school stay-at-home lifestyle may be fine for eighteen year olds, but it's torture for their parents. After all, Tommy and Jennifer will get part-time jobs at the mall, if they're lucky, but then what? They're going to go bananas, that's what! They'll hang out with their buddies and girlfriends, drive like lunatics all hours of the day or night, disappear for days at a time, often be delivered by the police to the front door. And that's just the squeaky clean kids! The ones who fall in with the "wrong crowd" will make them look like angels.
No, after three months of this hell, mortgaging the family estate to get their darlings into a nice, safe institution like a four-year college will be paradise on earth.
But if you ask mom and dad if that's the real reason why they're throwing away half their retirement fund, they will forcefully deny it. They will say how necessary the degree is to get into Wharton for that MBA. How the kids will mature into responsible, thinking adults from the experience. After all, dormitory life encourages young people to create lifelong friendships based on a healthy appetite for knowledge and self-improvement. Oh, yes. It's worth every penny.
And I'm sure that mom and dad will never regret it, no matter what the cost.
So let's sing the praises of the bachelors degree. And if Tommy and Jennifer actually learn something in those four years, count that as a bonus.
Friday, August 1, 2008
My Pebble in the Obama Avalanche
Yes, it's time for my two cents on Barack Obama.
What prompts me to write this is Jodi Kantor's article in the N.Y. Times(7/30/08) on Obama's career as law professor at the University of Chicago.
The article portrays an unusually confident, independent and candid teacher, one whose unstuffy and intellectually challenging demeanor made him very popular with students. On the other hand, his colleagues learned that he was reluctant to take a stand on an issue if it might reflect badly on his career in the future.
Does that mean he was already dreaming of the presidency? Yes, but not for the job he's applying for today.
I have a master's and a law degree, so I've been around academics for a while. He doesn't seem to like the demands of scholarship, but holding court in the classroom is another story. His rapid rise in the "higher education industry" is remarkable, and, don't forget, it happened before his career in politics.
What I'm getting at is simply this. I think that a person's first triumph lays the groundwork for his future goals. I don't care what he might have said in kindergarten, his manner and approach to problem solving fit perfectly in the academic setting, not the arenas of Washington. Yes, it's the presidency he wanted, but of Harvard University or the University of Chicago. It's only when it became apparent that this goal was not reachable - possibly because he couldn't cultivate the support of the right power brokers - that he chose President of the United States...as a substitute.
Maybe he thinks he'll have a better shot as an Ex-President?
What prompts me to write this is Jodi Kantor's article in the N.Y. Times(7/30/08) on Obama's career as law professor at the University of Chicago.
The article portrays an unusually confident, independent and candid teacher, one whose unstuffy and intellectually challenging demeanor made him very popular with students. On the other hand, his colleagues learned that he was reluctant to take a stand on an issue if it might reflect badly on his career in the future.
Does that mean he was already dreaming of the presidency? Yes, but not for the job he's applying for today.
I have a master's and a law degree, so I've been around academics for a while. He doesn't seem to like the demands of scholarship, but holding court in the classroom is another story. His rapid rise in the "higher education industry" is remarkable, and, don't forget, it happened before his career in politics.
What I'm getting at is simply this. I think that a person's first triumph lays the groundwork for his future goals. I don't care what he might have said in kindergarten, his manner and approach to problem solving fit perfectly in the academic setting, not the arenas of Washington. Yes, it's the presidency he wanted, but of Harvard University or the University of Chicago. It's only when it became apparent that this goal was not reachable - possibly because he couldn't cultivate the support of the right power brokers - that he chose President of the United States...as a substitute.
Maybe he thinks he'll have a better shot as an Ex-President?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Speaking "American" Today (1)
Like nearly all other native born Americans, I take it for granted that speaking English is essential for living a normal life here. We require that naturalized citizens speak English, and how could it be otherwise? A democracy requires that its citizens choose their government and its policies. It requires that we all follow the law. How could we do those things if our understanding of those laws, of our choices, were not the same for all of us, no matter what language we speak?
This is why speaking English well was always considered essential for participating as a citizen, and why learning English - for non-English speaking immigrants - was the most important part of becoming a citizen.
It is becoming clearer - every single day - that this bedrock principle of American life is no longer true. I mean that it is no longer adequate for serving the needs of the nation.
What prompts me to write this now - even though I've been aware of it for some time - is the issuance of Executive Order 120 by Mayor Bloomberg, which requires "language access" for the effective delivery of city services in New York. Specifically, its main provision mandates that essential public documents be made available, in written translation or by the use of oral interpreters, in the six most commonly spoken languages: Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and French Creole. However, it also outlines programs that could eventually include many other languages as well.
Am I attaching too much significance to this? After all, it's only an executive order, a statement from a politician, like so many others. Does it really signify a major cultural shift, or will it be ignored while we continue the same paternalistic routines that we've always used because it was easier. Or, to put it another way, do people really care what the words mean as long as they get what they want?
The answer lies in the question itself.
To be continued....
This is why speaking English well was always considered essential for participating as a citizen, and why learning English - for non-English speaking immigrants - was the most important part of becoming a citizen.
It is becoming clearer - every single day - that this bedrock principle of American life is no longer true. I mean that it is no longer adequate for serving the needs of the nation.
What prompts me to write this now - even though I've been aware of it for some time - is the issuance of Executive Order 120 by Mayor Bloomberg, which requires "language access" for the effective delivery of city services in New York. Specifically, its main provision mandates that essential public documents be made available, in written translation or by the use of oral interpreters, in the six most commonly spoken languages: Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and French Creole. However, it also outlines programs that could eventually include many other languages as well.
Am I attaching too much significance to this? After all, it's only an executive order, a statement from a politician, like so many others. Does it really signify a major cultural shift, or will it be ignored while we continue the same paternalistic routines that we've always used because it was easier. Or, to put it another way, do people really care what the words mean as long as they get what they want?
The answer lies in the question itself.
To be continued....
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
New York Job Outlook
While the national economy may be in a temporary slow growth period, there is no reason to believe that New York will not continue to draw new business, and the job opportunities that come with it. People have always been energized by the idea of trying to succeed here. Culturally, artists in every medium believe they have the best chance of being discovered by the taste makers that count. In the theatre, for instance, New York is still the standard for defining what making it means for stage struck writers and performers everywhere.
But the promise that New York offers is broader than that. Students and entrepreneurs from all over the world believe that New York is the place to launch their careers or new business ideas. That is why Interpreters Group is in the most advantageous position for success today.
I have been a New Yorker for nearly all of my life. It is especially exciting to see new visitors to the city. They have such fervent hope for the future. Now those new ideas, that talent, can be sent to all parts of the world in an instant. In every language. Diversity of culture has always been one of the major reasons for New York's dominance. We, at Interpreters Group, expect that to continue. Speaking a different language does not have to be the kind of obstacle that it used to be.
But the promise that New York offers is broader than that. Students and entrepreneurs from all over the world believe that New York is the place to launch their careers or new business ideas. That is why Interpreters Group is in the most advantageous position for success today.
I have been a New Yorker for nearly all of my life. It is especially exciting to see new visitors to the city. They have such fervent hope for the future. Now those new ideas, that talent, can be sent to all parts of the world in an instant. In every language. Diversity of culture has always been one of the major reasons for New York's dominance. We, at Interpreters Group, expect that to continue. Speaking a different language does not have to be the kind of obstacle that it used to be.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
My "Hate" Is My Business
According to FBI records, 45 states and the District of Columbia have criminal statutes that add greater penalties in cases where the victim is selected because of a bias against a particular group. Generally known as "hate crime laws", they are regarded as necessary to protect members of groups most often targeted for criminal violence, usually because of race, religion or national origin. There are 32 states that have similar statutes regarding sexual orientation.
In 1993, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding these laws in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 47(1993)). The decision rejected a first amendment challenge, ruling that a criminal defendant may face penalty enhancement for the discriminatory motive of the crime, and that this is just as permissible as in civil employment discrimination cases. The decision agreed with the state that bias motivated crimes were "...more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest". It felt that these hypothetical harms (none of which actually occurred in the case) were an "adequate explanation" for the enhancement, and gave Constitutional authority "above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."
But just how impartial is this state interest? The very popularity of "hate crime" laws belies such a claim. The cases all follow a predictible outline. The media casts its glaring lights on the case and grabs the public's attention for months. Innumerable public figures stoke the controversy with inflammatory but always politically self-serving comments. Then, when the story reaches the verdict stage, it gets even greater traction from the "outrage" of the losers, in contrast with the gratification of the winners. But the most creative politicians carry it further. They'll claim that the law was still unable to eliminate these crimes, so an even stronger law is needed. Eventually, with much fanfare, yet another "bias crime" law will be posted, probably under the name of the most recent martyr.
The spectacle is often overbown, even ridiculous, but may not seem harmful. But I think it is harmful in an insidious way. There has never been a bigot who didn't think he was a victim. A bigot's violent tendencies may be channeled benignly into normal political competition, for a time, but the impulse is always there. Our culture and party politics thrive on such rivalry, as continually fueled by the media. But all that is needed is for some new and horrific act of brutality to occur, the kind ready-made for the "bigotry" label, and the feasting begins. The victim's group immediately screams for extra "hate" points to be added, and the bigots respond in kind, feeling "victimized" themselves. You see, there are always two martyrs in "hate crime" trials: the unfortunate victim, and the convicted criminal who is punished for his beliefs.
There's no way around it. This additional punishment can never be taken as impartial justice. The criminal's selection of a victim, for any reason at all, is always an internal mental occurence that involves no governmental interest unless and until it becomes actualized by overt action that leads to injury. It is sophistry to convert personal prejudices which, no matter how offensive, are part of the private citizen's identity, and therefore not an act punishable by the state, into criminal behavior that warrants separate judgment.
In our system, the mens rea, or intent to commit the act, is essential in proving guilt, but we do not ordinarily assign greater or lesser punishment because some motives are more offensive than others. While the first amendment may not explicitly forbid this, our reluctance to do it is derived from the same impulse. We recoil, chilled, as from the image of Alex in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to a chair, his eyelids stretched open by metal clamps, being forced to watch violent films to the point of suicide; ugly, yes, but so necessary to eliminate conduct deemed "unacceptable" by the government. Proponents say the punishment is the same, only longer, but it is not the same. The enhancement, being solely for the offensive thoughts of the criminal, as opposed to the conduct itself, is transformed into mortification of the spirit, with no link to justice at all.
In 1993, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding these laws in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 47(1993)). The decision rejected a first amendment challenge, ruling that a criminal defendant may face penalty enhancement for the discriminatory motive of the crime, and that this is just as permissible as in civil employment discrimination cases. The decision agreed with the state that bias motivated crimes were "...more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest". It felt that these hypothetical harms (none of which actually occurred in the case) were an "adequate explanation" for the enhancement, and gave Constitutional authority "above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."
But just how impartial is this state interest? The very popularity of "hate crime" laws belies such a claim. The cases all follow a predictible outline. The media casts its glaring lights on the case and grabs the public's attention for months. Innumerable public figures stoke the controversy with inflammatory but always politically self-serving comments. Then, when the story reaches the verdict stage, it gets even greater traction from the "outrage" of the losers, in contrast with the gratification of the winners. But the most creative politicians carry it further. They'll claim that the law was still unable to eliminate these crimes, so an even stronger law is needed. Eventually, with much fanfare, yet another "bias crime" law will be posted, probably under the name of the most recent martyr.
The spectacle is often overbown, even ridiculous, but may not seem harmful. But I think it is harmful in an insidious way. There has never been a bigot who didn't think he was a victim. A bigot's violent tendencies may be channeled benignly into normal political competition, for a time, but the impulse is always there. Our culture and party politics thrive on such rivalry, as continually fueled by the media. But all that is needed is for some new and horrific act of brutality to occur, the kind ready-made for the "bigotry" label, and the feasting begins. The victim's group immediately screams for extra "hate" points to be added, and the bigots respond in kind, feeling "victimized" themselves. You see, there are always two martyrs in "hate crime" trials: the unfortunate victim, and the convicted criminal who is punished for his beliefs.
There's no way around it. This additional punishment can never be taken as impartial justice. The criminal's selection of a victim, for any reason at all, is always an internal mental occurence that involves no governmental interest unless and until it becomes actualized by overt action that leads to injury. It is sophistry to convert personal prejudices which, no matter how offensive, are part of the private citizen's identity, and therefore not an act punishable by the state, into criminal behavior that warrants separate judgment.
In our system, the mens rea, or intent to commit the act, is essential in proving guilt, but we do not ordinarily assign greater or lesser punishment because some motives are more offensive than others. While the first amendment may not explicitly forbid this, our reluctance to do it is derived from the same impulse. We recoil, chilled, as from the image of Alex in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to a chair, his eyelids stretched open by metal clamps, being forced to watch violent films to the point of suicide; ugly, yes, but so necessary to eliminate conduct deemed "unacceptable" by the government. Proponents say the punishment is the same, only longer, but it is not the same. The enhancement, being solely for the offensive thoughts of the criminal, as opposed to the conduct itself, is transformed into mortification of the spirit, with no link to justice at all.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Singing the H-1B Blues
On April 1, 2008, employers went through the annual ordeal of filing petitions for temporary work visas for skilled foreign workers in the H-1B category. They are limited to 65,000 petitions, to be effective October 1st, at the start of the fiscal year.
It is a controversial program because the employers feel competitive pressure to find these workers abroad, contending that this country simply does not have enough of them with the necessary skills.
If that is true - and I'm not ready to concede that it is - it's a depressing thought, especially as domestic unemployment is at the highest level in years.
I welcome these employers to advertise those jobs on Interpreters' Group. Our talent pool includes bi-lingual workers with all skills, not only interpreters. Please indicate if you filed an H-1B application when you register with IG to post your jobs. I intend to display them prominently on our Home Page.
An employer's FIRST job that is also listed on an H-1B will be FREE!
Who knows? You might even fill the position before October.
TO REGISTER: www.interpretersgroup.com/registered_employers_Registration.asp
It is a controversial program because the employers feel competitive pressure to find these workers abroad, contending that this country simply does not have enough of them with the necessary skills.
If that is true - and I'm not ready to concede that it is - it's a depressing thought, especially as domestic unemployment is at the highest level in years.
I welcome these employers to advertise those jobs on Interpreters' Group. Our talent pool includes bi-lingual workers with all skills, not only interpreters. Please indicate if you filed an H-1B application when you register with IG to post your jobs. I intend to display them prominently on our Home Page.
An employer's FIRST job that is also listed on an H-1B will be FREE!
Who knows? You might even fill the position before October.
TO REGISTER: www.interpretersgroup.com/registered_employers_Registration.asp
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Citizenship in the 21st Century
As we look at the questions confronting governments today, we see certain problems arising all over the world. One of them, certainly, is the definition of citizenship. People are expected to be citizens of one country their entire lives. This makes sense because loyalty to one's country is a virtue that is valued everywhere. The people of any country expect and demand patriotism of all of its citizens. To die for their country, if necessary.
But, with the increasing interaction of people throughout the real and the cyberworld, can we always rely upon this? I know several people with dual and even multiple citizenships. They can own property and even vote in more than one country. A child born in the United States is automatically a citizen, even if its parents are not. We also have doctrines of comparative law which decide which country's laws apply in divorces, business contracts, inheritance and many other matters.
As people enter into more of these extra-national relationships, I expect the principles of comparative law will become more complicated. The definition of citizenship can be expected to change, as well.
But, with the increasing interaction of people throughout the real and the cyberworld, can we always rely upon this? I know several people with dual and even multiple citizenships. They can own property and even vote in more than one country. A child born in the United States is automatically a citizen, even if its parents are not. We also have doctrines of comparative law which decide which country's laws apply in divorces, business contracts, inheritance and many other matters.
As people enter into more of these extra-national relationships, I expect the principles of comparative law will become more complicated. The definition of citizenship can be expected to change, as well.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Why Have A Public Theatre?
It's a legitimate question, but, for me, it is answered in CONVERSATIONS IN TUSCULUM, a new play by Richard Nelson. The entire play consists of conversations between Brutus, Cicero and Cassius at country villas while dictator Julius Caesar is waging war in Spain.
No swordplay, assassinations or sex. Just talk, and more talk (although some of it concerns sex). The reviews were mostly negative. I was lukewarm about going, but I'm a subscriber. The one good thing about negative reviews; it allows you to be pleasantly surprised.
It's NOT talk, it's drama. These men are lifelong friends and related by marriage. They each have ideas in their own minds, but are not sure what they are. Of course, we know what will happen. The drama is in seeing the germ of the idea grow within them as a result of the discussions. Part of the excitement is seeing acting of this stature which is totally committed to having otherwise dry discourse become dramatically alive.
Amazingly, the talk seems perfectly natural for these particular historical figures and - at the same time! - illuminating about the challenges in today's America. The parallel between President Bush's policies and Caesar's is arrived at through the organic development of dramatic themes. It is never strained.
THIS is the purpose of a Public Theatre. This play will probably be forgotten after the next election (although it shouldn't be). But, for a little over two hours, we are persuaded to think about our own choices as citizens in a new way, and that is stimulating.
No swordplay, assassinations or sex. Just talk, and more talk (although some of it concerns sex). The reviews were mostly negative. I was lukewarm about going, but I'm a subscriber. The one good thing about negative reviews; it allows you to be pleasantly surprised.
It's NOT talk, it's drama. These men are lifelong friends and related by marriage. They each have ideas in their own minds, but are not sure what they are. Of course, we know what will happen. The drama is in seeing the germ of the idea grow within them as a result of the discussions. Part of the excitement is seeing acting of this stature which is totally committed to having otherwise dry discourse become dramatically alive.
Amazingly, the talk seems perfectly natural for these particular historical figures and - at the same time! - illuminating about the challenges in today's America. The parallel between President Bush's policies and Caesar's is arrived at through the organic development of dramatic themes. It is never strained.
THIS is the purpose of a Public Theatre. This play will probably be forgotten after the next election (although it shouldn't be). But, for a little over two hours, we are persuaded to think about our own choices as citizens in a new way, and that is stimulating.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Before Our Eyes
Just some passing thoughts on the changes taking place in the world now.
Things are swirling before our eyes, which means that the power structure that was in place -- at least until the collapse of the Berlin Wall -- has also collapsed. There is no single political, cultural or commercial leader that holds the dominant position today. It may be years before that happens.
In the meantime, the internet is the most powerful instrument in determining the new power structure. Everyone is in competition to get the broadest support, which means that multi-lingual and multi-cultural perspectives have the advantage.
What you will see from Interpreters Group in the future will reflect that competition.
We want you to be excited by the new opportunities this offers you. We also want it be fun. You will see new partnerships, new features and more invitations for the membership to participate. We want to encourage your ambitions and prosperity, as we welcome your encouragement of ours.
Things are swirling before our eyes, which means that the power structure that was in place -- at least until the collapse of the Berlin Wall -- has also collapsed. There is no single political, cultural or commercial leader that holds the dominant position today. It may be years before that happens.
In the meantime, the internet is the most powerful instrument in determining the new power structure. Everyone is in competition to get the broadest support, which means that multi-lingual and multi-cultural perspectives have the advantage.
What you will see from Interpreters Group in the future will reflect that competition.
We want you to be excited by the new opportunities this offers you. We also want it be fun. You will see new partnerships, new features and more invitations for the membership to participate. We want to encourage your ambitions and prosperity, as we welcome your encouragement of ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)