Higher Education is a Monolith

Higher Education in the United States is a monolith. I imagine the higher education system in the United States as the Titanic. Before the ship was struck and sank, I imagine there were many interesting conversations, people learning and their knowledge increasing. Even if not overwhelmed by the size and technology represented by the ship, I can see people simply sitting around dinner tables, or at the bar, debating politics, debating science or philosophy.

And then the ship strikes the infamous iceberg. We know the rest of the story.

Designers and engineers, captains and staff, caught in the currents of their own hubris, could not imagine their ship would fail, that their ship could be damaged, so much so the ship would sink. Unimaginable.

In the United States, I see higher education buying into their own hype, their own hubris.

Higher Education grew out of the need to develop thought, specifically engineers and scientists, architects and chemists, biologists and doctors. Higher Education was designed to address the deficiencies in the education background of our citizens, and to meet the needs of businesses and industries within the United States. Higher Education was also promoted as a means to ensure National Security.

In other words, intentions were good.

Structural implementation addressed the demand, though to be fair, implementation was sexist and racist. I say this because entry into the university systems was often not fair to women or minorities. Some universities were exceptions to my generalization, but overall, my comment stands.

Early success of colleges and universities were based on the fact these institutions contained the necessary knowledge. Public libraries while important starting places for learning were simply not the fortress of knowledge represented by colleges and universities. If someone wanted to know something to any great detail, one had no other choice but to attend college. History, language, biology, physics, engineering, most any field required college attendance. Of course, some jobs did not require a college education, such as auto mechanic or roofer, and some still do not require higher education today.

But, my point is, colleges and universities have historically been the reservoirs of knowledge because that is where the knowledge was located.

Today, that is becoming less the case.

The Internet is changing education, delivery, access, and content. Especially in Higher Education, access to the Internet is evolving our access to knowledge in every field. Internet sites such as CodeAcademy, Khan Academy, Open Culture, TeacherCast, and even YouTube are changing the delivery model, content, and technology of learning.

But, many in Higher Education resist change.

Higher Education promotes online education – at their own institutions, yet may not accept online course credit taken at other institutions. Furthermore, many colleges and universities either do not accept degrees from online universities or cast wary glances at those people who earned degrees from online universities, or from online programs offered by brick-and-mortar universities.

Higher Education fails to utilize homegrown talent or talents within their student body. On the one hand, Higher Education says they promote open learning and initiative; on the other hand, Higher Education turns its back upon faculty, staff, and students who have initiative, knowledge, and determination and ignore untapped potential.

The entire system of Higher Education once supported an insidious form of hazing. You would be tested, and tested, and tested in the hopes you would fail. It’s a filtering process, really, hazing. Hazing is still present, to some extent in the higher echelons of learning, at the doctoral level. Advisors who want changes without need simply because of their dislike for another advisor.

Higher Education organized itself into semesters and classes with specific meeting times and faculty became supervisors. In fact, Higher Education mimicked Business and Industry in both word and deed.

Both became monolithic and entrenched, behemoths in their respective sectors. The steel industry and the automobile industry and the textile industry in the United States were large, economically powerful, and firm in the belief of their invulnerability. How has that worked out?

Higher Education has been recalcitrant in evolving and modifying their education models. While the U.S. automobile industry seems to be finally getting a clue, at least Ford, Higher Education in the United States is not moving quickly enough to address challenges developing in this new Age of Knowledge.

Higher Education needs an deep introspective evaluation.

Are semesters really necessary? What is more important, meeting at a specific time each week? Or, is the conversation, content, and exposure to questioning the real need? Isn’t the process of learning and acquiring new tools really the goal?

What if education were more like a series of workshops, each a couple weeks long?

What if a student could really take a course at their own pace?

What if learning included all forms of media, video, games, lecture, reading, discussion boards, with or without a formal meeting time?

Shouldn’t we be thinking about destroying the box?

If you – and by “you” I mean if you are an instructor – how would you want someone to learn what you know? How would you really coach your material outside the confines of the rules and policies of your institution? How would, or how should, your students be exposed to the material they need to be knowledgeable about? How would you encourage your students to engage in thinking about the subject?

I read the Chronicle of Higher Education, Campus Technology, and a few other media sources. I am encouraged to some extent that some universities are taking baby-steps in the correct direction. But, having some experience with people at other universities, I find the same stories being shared.

I find showcase stories of “revolutionary” new ideas are simply that, a showcase example of someone who got permission to try something new. These pedagogical ideas, like using iPhone clicker apps in a classroom, make people think Higher Education is progressive, I tend to think otherwise. These “revolutionary ideas” are not being pursued aggressively enough, in my opinion. I would say, why is this a great idea? This is what is supposed to be going on! Using technology in the classroom should be mandatory, not an accolade.

Finally, something I have found very troubling.

Many colleges and universities do not have a Technology Implementation Plan. Colleges and universities often have long-range plans for capital growth, new buildings and such. They have plans for tracking graduates for fund-raising and asking for donations. They have plans for recruiting students.

They have no plans for addressing technological change or implementation of technology. Colleges and universities for the most part affect a form of Ad Hoc technology policies: “do what it takes to make it work,” or “we will cross that bridge when we get there.”

Education in the United States is not simply a matter of improving the livelihood of U.S. citizens and hoping they earn more money and pay their taxes.

Education is a matter of National Security. We need smart people supporting other smart people who create smart companies training smart people. And, its not simply about economic security, but in overall geopolitical security. People who can speak other languages, Russian, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic and interface with people from cultures representing these languages.

Imagine standing in a room or people and you are the only English-speaker. At some point, you’re going to become paranoid all of these people are talking about you. You’ll have to find someone who can translate if you want to say something. How can you be sure your conversation is being communicated correctly? How can you be sure they really aren’t talking about you?

Higher Education does not need to be the intellectual equivalent of the Titanic. One concern, though, is the people hired to run Higher Education are BA/BS, perhaps fresh out school with little experience and little interest in interacting with faculty other than to make sure the classrooms contain warm bodies.

Higher Education has the intellectual knowledge and creativity bank on-site not only to prevent collision and calamity but to devise solutions with which to avoid near-term concerns and chart for long-term success.

Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

Earthquakes. The mere mention of one can send a person into shaking tremors. New York City and Washington DC experience a moderate earthquake and one would think Armageddon is upon us. Meanwhile, Sendei, Japan will require a decade or more to recover from their catastrophic 9.0Mg earthquake.

The Richter Scale is not a straight-line scale. The Richter Scale is logarithmic. In other words, a 4Mg earthquake is not twice as strong as a 2Mg earthquake. A 4Mg earthquake releases more than 60x's as much energy as a 2Mg earthquake.

I was watching and reading about coverage of the East Coast earthquake. People ranting about "earthquake preparedness." Newscasters mistakenly "rounding" the 5.9 earthquake to a 6.0. Preparing for an earthquake in DC makes about as much sense to me as having people in Montana prepare for a hurricane.

But, it did get me to wondering; "what is the difference in energy between a 5.9 and a 6.0 earthquake?"

Every 0.2 increase in earthquake magnitude corresponds to a doubling of energy released. Thus, a 5.9 earthquake releases TWICE the energy of a 5.7 earthquake. Therefore, a magnitude cannot be "rounded up" or "rounded down."

Check out this web site "WolframAlpha" for an earthquake energy calculator.

Returning to the Gold Standard is a Return to Lunacy

Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, have many quotes and attributions stating they favor returning to the stable economic days when the United States backed all of its currency with either gold or silver.

I think before anyone jumps on this bandwagon to CrazyTown, we need to really examine the Gold Standard.

Gold and silver are like many things, they are commodities. Commodities have value because we, people, specifically brokers, assign those things "value." For example, we could use sand for currency, but that would be a bad idea. Sand is pretty much ubiquitous. For sand to have any value, sand would have to be protected, isolated, and sequestered in order to control the scarcity of sand. If everyone had sand, then sand would have very little value. If we control the amount of sand, then we control the value. We control the scarcity.

In 1805, the United States had considerable debt from fighting with the British. Gold and silver were in high demand since the U.S. didn't have the gold or silver to pay debts. People hoarded gold and silver as they saw the value go up. I'm sure some people even speculated in gold and silver, thinking that as long as the U.S. had a debt, the value of gold and silver would continue to climb.

Thomas Jefferson, in order to inflate the value of silver, told the government presses to stop minting silver coins. Scarcity drove the value of silver higher, and the market was manipulated by controlling the government minting of coins.

In 1857, more "manipulation" occurred as the U.S. struggled to find gold to buy more silver. Silver had become the preferred currency among countries for doing business. The hunt for gold created the Gold Rush and people headed West to discover sources of gold that could be sold to the government. The government would then use the gold to buy silver. The silver would then be used as currency by our country to pay debts to other countries.

Again, people would hoard gold and silver, as the demand for each metal would rise and fall, depending on what the United States needed to pay its debts.

World War I would come along and force countries to examine how to pay for war needs. European countries were boxed in, not having enough gold or silver to use in order to buy weapons. Some countries had already abandoned the Gold Standard. Others countries, to pay for World War I, went off the Gold Standard in order to run up some debt to pay for war supplies.

And therein lies the rub. Countries needed financial flexibility in order to pay for stuff they could not afford without incurring some debt. Having to constantly maintain a physical store of gold/silver to pay for stuff was very limiting.

Around the turn of the 20th century, most countries either had a Central Bank or were thinking about developing a Central Bank. A Central Bank would establish the value of paper currency, and control the amount of paper in circulation, thereby controlling the value of currency.

Essentially, a transference of value has taken place. Gold has no more value than that which we give it. It's really an arbitrary and artificial value. So the same for paper money. But, paper money is much more easier to come up with than gold or silver. More on that in a minute.

Value is Faith.

People around the world trust the value of the U.S. Dollar. And the value of the English Pound. And the value of the Chinese Renminbi. And the European Euro. They trust these currencies because people have faith that these currencies will be traded and accepted.

Now, more things about the Gold Standard to think about.

In order for Rand Paul's Gold Standard to work, he has to be able to control the supply of Gold. Again, supply is tied to value, and value is tied scarcity. If gold is commonly available, then gold cannot be worth very much, i.e. gold is not scarce.

When the U.S. was on the Gold Standard, personal gold was against the law. The average U.S. citizen could not own more than 4 ounces of gold. We can't have everyone owning gold, if gold is the Standard. In order to control the amount of gold in circulation, Rand would (a) have make the ownership of gold illegal, (b) and collect the amount of gold already in circulation. People must not remember that only after 1972, when Nixon finished off the Gold Standard, was the ownership of gold really made legal.

Gold markets can be manipulated just like any other market. Suppose China decides to flood the market with gold to undermine the value of U.S. gold value. Or Russia. Simply moving the U.S. to a Gold Standard does not make the U.S. financials immune to manipulation.

All countries currently use a Central Bank or Banks for moving currencies around. Germany, France, England, Italy, all have Central Banks. These banks keep money markets stable. While they may not seem stable now, markets could be much worse. All countries Central Banks know how to deal with financial markets, how to conduct country-to-country business. That is our global standard. Moving backwards to a Gold Standard would mean that all countries would have to figure out how to work with our finances. Not as easy as it sounds.

Furthermore, the U.S. is the world's most powerful economy. It is our currency against which oil is priced. If someone really wanted to upset global financial markets and create worldwide chaos, let him destabilize the current U.S. financial markets by changing all the rules of finance.

Gold and silver are also valuable commodities in the technology sector. Consider your smartphone, your laptop, your LCD monitor, every bit of technology you can think off. These devices contain precious metals, gold and silver, among them. How will changing the economy of gold and silver affect the cost of production of the most ubiquitous devices in human history?

In summary:

1. Ask Rand what he thinks about all other countries still using Central Banks. Will they have to return to the Gold Standard, too?
2. Ask Rand how he plans on controlling the supply of gold, and maybe silver. Will he make personal gold ownership illegal?
3. Ask Rand how he feels about manipulating the price of gold, and how that might affect the cost of materials in the Technology Sector.
4. Ask Rand how the Gold Standard is supposed to make financials more stable when historically the price of gold has undergone several manipulations.

Why Conservatives Are Doomed To Fail

I am often characterized as being naive. Sometimes, "too straight" or "too conservative" are also added to labels applied to me during conversations. My appearance, the way I dress, walk, conduct myself, comes off as conservative. At least, historically I have appeared as conservative might. A few years ago, I decided my appearance should more accurately reflect the "character" of the person inside.

I shaved my head, grew a goatee, and got some ink. At some point, I'll probably get some piercings. I have more ink planned. The reason for my changes was to bring my inside and outside into congruence.

Congruence is one of my favorite words; I work "congruence" into conversations as often as I can. "Congruence" means "agreement" or "harmony." People often say and do things which are not congruent. Their words and deeds do not agree.

Being an educator, I find incongruities in my life and I work to resolve those. Students and their lives are rife with incongruities. Recently, I received an email from a student who had trouble taking an online exam. The student elected to take the exam late in the evening, near the maintenance window. After 30 minutes, the student was closed out of the exam. The email stated, "Can I get back in to finish my exam? I want to do the best I can."

Not paying attention to the test environment is not making the best effort, not creating a successful environment for learning or anything else.

In large part, being ignorant of creating and building a successful environment is why I cannot be nor will ever support Republican Party dogma nor any Conservative effort or platform.

I am a Pragmatist. Determine the problem, consider a solution, a solution which has a good chance of working, with the least negative downside, and which also is the most sustainable and reasonable or logical. To my way of thinking, new ways, new methods, new technology, receiving input from different perspectives, personal sacrifice, and delayed gratification are all potential influences into decision-making.

Furthermore, the immediate goal is not necessarily the best goal nor should be the focus. From an economic perspective, the question becomes, "what are the downstream costs and benefits?" The implementation of a policy or idea tomorrow may seem like a really good idea, and have an immediate payoff and be immediately gratifying. The problem with such short-sighted thinking involves the future cost of an action which seemed like a good idea at the time and a decade later we have yet to even figure out how to pay for our decision.

"what are the downstream costs and benefits?"

Now, you can read between the lines and say, "oh, he is talking about Afghanistan." No, not necessarily. Individually, we all make choices which seem incidental at the time, we use credit cards, we receive financial aid, we buy a car and a boat. We have great expectations about our degree we graduated with. But, as a person with a Master's Degree in European History, what the hell am I going to do with it? What was I thinking? You weren't.

In the United States, we have encouraged people to stick their heads' in their butts, and said,

"Honey, if you're happy with your head in your butt, then I'm happy for you. Here, have a cookie. Oh, wait. You're head is in your butt. You won't be able to eat your cookie."

The Grand Old Party (GOP) and Conservatives have no interest in changing anything and would be more than happy if all U.S. citizens would put their heads firmly into their butts. By definition, the GOP and Conservatives believe this. A Conservative is one

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." (Dictionary.com)

To be Conservative then means to actively be engaged in the promotion of ignorance. Whether heads are in butts or buried in the sand the results are the same: the world changes while we do not change, adapt, modify, or evolve our behavior.

To be Conservative means to fear change, fear newness, fear difference, to be suspicious of different skin colors, of different languages, of different religions - nor no religion, to fear new ideas.

To be Conservative means to actively oppose change, to actively oppose even the notion of challenging old methods, techniques, and ideas.

Today, Conservatives are not simply advocates of the Status Quo, but the advocates of the Status Quo of yesterday, of last week, of last year, of the last 50 years.

Today, Conservatives argue against Same-sex marriage, advocate for Christian prayer in public schools, advocate for teaching the Bible in public schools, advocate Intelligent Design as theory (its not, its philosophy), advocate for the removal of the teaching of Evolution as science (it is science), advocate for the removal of foreign languages from public schools, advocate for the removal of arts and music from public schools, and perhaps worst of all, advocate for the abolishment of Department of Education.

Today, Conservatives will argue Democrats want "everyone to be the same." To be clear, I am not arguing for Democrats. The Conservative Argument is a logical fallacy. Democrats do not want everyone to be the same; they want everyone to have the same opportunity regardless of race, sex, gender, religion or creed. In fact, I contend Democrats want everyone to be different and want to encourage difference and acceptance of difference.

Conservatives are not congruent.

Conservatives refused to acknowledge Islam as a religion. They refuse to acknowledge the issues of inner city Blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color. They refuse to acknowledge China and the government in Beijing is a partner with Chinese, Korean, and Japanese companies and has already focused on Green Technology and is now the world leader in solar panel technology and wind turbine technology. They refuse to acknowledge the importance of a unified approach to a national educational system to address the needs of today and the future of the United States. They refuse to acknowledge undisciplined finances are detrimental to our national educational system. They refuse to acknowledge education and health care are fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Conservatives see all change as a threat and something to be stopped. Wikileaks has proven this. All one must do to verify this is to examine SOPA and PIPA and the recent "Citizens United" decision.

Conservatives do not want people thinking for themselves and they certainly do not want to encourage free-thinkers to organize themselves via social media. While Conservatives might castigate Democrats for providing "welfare" to groups of people, and often rightly so, Conservatives want to control individual behavior, your bedroom behavior, your religious behavior, and what you have access to on the Internet.

Conservatives are working towards building a country of well-defended ignoramuses.

Conservatives won't spend money on Education but will be more than happy to spend more money on Defense, despite the fact the United States spends more money on defense than all other countries combined. And, while we will be able to shoot anyone, anywhere, anytime - because we will have smart Asians and a few U.S. citizens building military hardware for us; and, we will have some wealthy people who will have used family money to be able to attend Brown or Columbia and then segue their financial talents into Wall St, whereupon they will yet earn more money by taking advantage of the median U.S. citizen who have become dumbed-down by Conservative fears and ossified notions that decreased military spending translates into a Chinese takeover within a year.

Conservative ideologues and their bankrupt hypotheses not only hold back U.S. entrepreneurial energies but are fundamentally damaging to the social fabric of the United States. From the Birthers to politicians who refused to acknowledge Pres. Obama's presidency to the local Conservative who refuse to acknowledge Islam, Mormonism, Sikhism, or Atheism, the presence of these ideas undeniable contribute to the societal schisms in current U.S. life.

Conservatives are responsible for the lion's portion of the blame. The intolerance towards GLBT. The intolerance towards non-Christian faiths. The intolerance towards people of color. The intolerance towards education. The intolerance toward environmental protection and food safety.

I really think people ought to question why they believe the what they believe. Is it simply dogma, handed down from parents, or religious leaders? Is it simply a problem of thinking, in general? The historical inertia of false ideologies is too great to divert? Fear of being ostracized for being different?

If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, its intolerance.

And, I will never be a Conservative.

I hate the label, Liberal. But, over the last 3 years or so, of watching Conservatives denigrate in all things I find value, "Liberal" has become synonymous with "being educated."

By definition, Conservatives ride their horse into the future based on what they see behind them, and too afraid to turn around to see the path ahead.

I want to ride my horse into the future and plan for what I see ahead.

PAX

This Island of the United States

To understand the cultural, social, and political complexity of the United States thinking of North America as an "island" often helps. As I typed that statement I also wonder if another Thought Model (allegory) might be better, that of a watchtower along the perimeter of a prison yard, with the United States being the watchtower, our government being the guards, a few other developed countries being other watchtowers (Germany, France, Great Britain), and the prison yard full of prisoners, all of which have a spectrum of rights allowed to them, e.g. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, etc. And, the thought also occurs to me which parents might appreciate is the notion of people telling you how to raise your kids based only on what they see while shopping at Kroger and not see the complete account of all actions throughout the day.

My point is, it's easy for someone to tell you what to do or how to act when they have little to no vested interest in the outcome, and won't bear any penalty for advice or action which goes wrong.
And, some of these people giving out advice are so far removed from their own nascent beginnings they forget how chaotic those circumstances were.

Western society, Europe plus the United States and Canada, have spent a couple hundred years hammering out the details of the Free, Fair, and Open Society. Make no mistake, this endeavor is still a work in progress. Yet, we have for the most part decided our conversations about our societal openness must occur in a non-violent way. These debates have not always been so; all one has to look at is the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Anti-war Vietnam Protests and Kent State, or the Socialist Labor Movement of the 20th century and we have plenty of evidence that civil unrest can be met with physical violence and death.

Events in the Middle East, from the Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, and the September 2012 Mohammed Movie Controversy appear to the Western World as violence associated with unsophisticated, ignorant, and underdeveloped societies.

And, to some extent, this is true.

Middle Eastern societies have evolved along a different societal form than societies in Europe. Most of the Middle East societies are tribally based where alliances are between large families and not to a central government. Monarchies developed, or were encouraged to develop by Western Powers, in order for countries to conduct business with each other. It is much more convenient to negotiate an oil deal with one person than negotiate with multiple tribal leaders scattered over the wilderness, right?

Monarchies enriched by the oil trade are not likely to cede power to anyone. If anything, monarchies are more likely to condense power into a few trusted family members, brothers, uncles, nephews, and cousins. Power becomes concentrated within a cluster of a few people who are given titles, like Minister of Oil, Minister of Trade, Minister of the Military, etc., but really are representative of the strength of the monarchical family.

In order to maintain the power of the family, the Monarchy, really a Dynasty, as governing power is passed to male family members, all opposition to the monarchical rule is crushed. And, if the religious leaders can be co-opted to support the monarchy, so much the better. Then, the hearts and souls of the population are essentially captured. And, by association, the mind is then captured, as most people will make decisions based on their feelings, that is, their heart or spiritual leanings than with their mind.

With the exception of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, who actively supports education, the building of universities and technical schools, and sends thousands of Saudi students abroad for education every year, the Middle East is overburdened with societal and cultural ignorance of the rest of the world.

Governments have actively suppressed education and societal openness. Governments have shutdown Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Governments actively spy on their citizen's cellphone conversations. Middle Easterners who use Blackberries should be aware that every single text, cellphone conversation, and voicemail is being stored and analyzed. Any comments against governments, families, or Islam run the risk of being used as a means to persecute the account holder or the account holder's family and friends. Jordan, Syria, Iran, UAE, Bahrain have all instituted draconian policies against certain types of speech.

In fact, being able to speak freely without incident is a very recent freedom for Libyans, Egyptians, Saudis, Tunisians, and millions of others throughout the Middle East. For decades, if not centuries, people throughout the Middle East have been punished, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, or killed for voicing opposition to the government. The Arab Spring Uprising began in Tunisia when a man set himself on fire because a local government official was trying to extort money from him, a common practice at the time in Tunisia. A person had no legal recourse, no way out; pay me money to sell from your cart or I will arrest you and put you in prison.

Bahrain activates its army to end protests. Syria activates its military to end protests and punish everyone and every town involved in the protests. Jordan issues a warrant for the arrest of YouTube.
Rather than address issues of important speech and open communication, governments, out of fear and cowardice, attack their own populations. "This is the way it has always been done." How many times have you heard that while growing up, right?

Even our own government forgets lessons it should have learned long ago, with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Forget for a moment the idea behind OWS, and focus on the idea a government will respond with police action or military action to suppress the rights of speech for large groups of people who come together out of a unifying concern or issue. Never is this a good thing to have happen. Not for a country which prides itself on the ability of sharing thoughts, ideas, and foundations of open, honest, and fair communication.

Consider for a moment those days a little over a year ago when OWS protestors in New York City were assaulted by police officers with mace and tear gas simply for protesting the egregious and wanton behavior of Wall Street investment companies wasting shareholder money on investments of dubious quality and of extremely high risk with no accountability. And, a year later, no changes to accountability have been implemented, little to no punishment and few Wall Street investment companies have altered their behavior.

Two points from all of this; one, the United States needs to get beyond the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. The hypocrisy of telling other countries to encourage free speech while simultaneously discouraging or shutting down speech in the United States will be lost on only the completely obtuse.
Second, countries exhibiting violence with regards to art, science, literature, and media available in other countries should be expected. These countries have been run by military or authoritarian governments, governments which have absolute control over all media, and the people living in these countries for the most part have no idea what it means to have "freedom of expression." To these people, expressing one's self always had bad consequences, loss of job, jail time, prison time, jailing of family members, and even death.

As long as countries like Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain continue to remain closed or resistant there will always be violent reaction to perceived insults and misunderstandings.

In a way they, too, are cultural and social islands, just like the United States.

Why manufacturing matters for America

The United States will always need local manufacturing. But, we do need a new manufacturing philosophy and new economic plans for continued success. Our current manufacturing environment continues to support labor practices and strategies which are still firmly rooted in early 20th century labor sentiments. We will never hold our own against other countries if we continue to behave as if we are a developing nation. We need heavy investment in education, training, and workforce enhancement to moderate structural changes in U.S. labor markets.

New York Times: "The Weatherman is NOT a Moron"

The New York Times has a cool article on Meteorology. The article is chock-full of good information, from the education required to analyze weather and climate, challenges faced in forecasting, the supercomputers used in forecasting, and some statistics on the improvement of forecasting and especially warning systems. Meteorology requires a ghastly amount of computer power. An interesting comment, though I suspect some embellishment, stated the supercomputing center generates its own weather simply due to the heat the center generates.

Here is a link to the Nick Silver article [link].