If All Else Fails, Blame China

I’ve spent the last year educating myself about economics. Why economics? Simply put, government bureaucrats use the Ignorance of the Masses to push through economic policies which superficially sound well-grounded yet have dangerous and harmful downstream effects. Being ignorant myself of economics, I did recognize many U.S. foreign and economic policies were damaging in the long run, I couldn’t find the words to express my concern, nor explain why the policies were damaging. Saying “something is this way,” is not as powerful as saying “something is wrong due to these 5 factors.”

On Tuesday, October 4th, U.S. and global media outlets (Reuters) announced plans by the U.S Congress for the design of a bill to pressure China to modify the value of the Yuan, the Chinese currency.

According to Reuters, the U.S. Senate voted to open debate on a bill allowing for the imposition of tariffs on consumer products entering the United States from countries deliberately undervaluing currencies.

People may read right past that comment; I own bias is people do read right past “tariff” comments, not understanding the implications.

A tariff is a tax placed on a good entering a country. The country making the good does not pay the tax. We do; American consumers pay the tax. When we decide to buy a Blu-Ray player, LCD or Plasma TV, the price we pay includes the tariff. The cost is passed to us. Essentially, as we notice prices increasing, we decide not to buy, or we decide to buy a cheaper competing product. But, we pay the price, using more of our income to buy consumer goods.

“What is wrong with that?” You ask. “Maybe if tariffs were high enough, jobs would reappear in the United States!”

Maybe. Just remember the tariff is a social tax, a form of Socialism, designed to ‘level out the labor market’.

“How can you say that? That sounds like crazy-talk!”

A tariff is a method governments have of manipulating the price of consumer products ABOVE the fair market value. For example, say Taiwan produces a Blu-Ray player and your price at Wal-mart is $128. Now, say, Taiwan also undervalues it’s currency. According the U.S. Congress, the Blu-Ray player will have a tax added to the price. Now that Blu-Ray player will cost you $140. You’ve just been removed of $12 of your disposable income because the Congress does not like the way Taiwan manages its money. And, more importantly, the fair market value of that device has now been manipulated. You might be cool with that; I just want you to know you are out $12.

The Better Question: Why Does China Undervalue Its Own Currency?

This is the question I wish someone would ask, simply because I want a public figure to validate my own knowledge.

OK, so the controversy is this: China keeps the Yuan cheap relative to other currencies so products made in China are less expensive and people around the world buy more stuff. Right? People in Germany, and France, and Sweden, and Canada buy stuff made in China because the stuff is cheap. Buying inexpensive stuff means you have more utility with your money, you can do more things with your money.

Somebody has to make the stuff we buy. Enter the Chinese worker. China has an enormous labor market. China has a population of about 1,300,000,000 people. About 50% of those are workers, or about 650,000,000.

In other words, the Chinese labor force is more than 2x’s as large as the entire population of the United States, and larger than the entire population of Europe.

Most of these workers are barely literate, illiterate, or working their way through school to become fully educated. But to find work for over 1/2 a billion people is an amazingly complex task.

An easy way to provide employment is to undervalue your currency. If products made in your country are cheap compared to elsewhere, you can sell more, which means making more, which means employing more people.

From the Chinese perspective, an undervalued currency makes sense because keeping workers employed and working is essential.

I envision if China decided to allow their currency to “float” and operate against global financial markets as other currencies, Chinese economic growth would drop from the 9-10% range experienced now, to 4-5%. The U.S. Congress would say 4-5% is acceptable. The Chinese workers would riot in the streets from being unemployed. I’m not sure I want 650,000,000 people pissed off at me.

What About the United States Currency?

The U.S. Congress telling China to revalue the Yuan comes off as disingenuous. The U.S. dollar is slightly undervalued against the European Union’s Euro. The European Union has voiced displeasure over the value of the U.S. Dollar as a low dollar against the Euro makes U.S. goods cheaper in Europe. On the other hand, European goods are more expensive in the U.S., thus we don’t buy as much.

But This Controversy Is About Job Creation!

In part, no doubt there is some truth to the Job Creation argument.

Even the Job Creation Argument needs examination, though.

Do this: visit the web site Learner.org, and watch the video, Guangdong: Globalization in the Pearl River Delta. Fast-forward to about the 7:00 minute mark. Those workers in the video are making shoes for Nike. Sitting at a shoe press for 8-10 hours per day.

That is the job the U.S. Congress wants you to have, sitting at a shoe press, the vertebrae in your back calcifying from hours of hunched-back sitting.

Really? That is the job Congress wants to bring back to the United States?

My point is this:

For the United States to maintain a technological advantage, to maintain a standard of living our parents have worked hard to achieve, we cannot cling to labor market philosophies and policies better suited for the 1950s. Our U.S. labor market needs to adapt to for the 2050s, and beyond. Those brute-force manufacturing jobs are better suited for countries with necessary manpower and wage flexibility. The United States should leave those jobs behind and focus on the future, not the past. We seem to be riding a horse into the future, seated backwards in the saddle, lamenting what has come before.

Manufacturing jobs will always be present in the United States. Making cars, trucks, washing machines, dryers, heavy equipment, items both large and small, simply makes economic sense.

However, some jobs really can go somewhere else, and I argue, the U.S. benefits by having those jobs leave.

Technorati Tags: education,labor,globalization,congress,currency,employment,jobs,unemployment

How Can I Be A Better Student?

A disturbing pathology has arisen within the American Educational System, both within K-12 and Higher Education. Policies implemented throughout all levels of the United States educational system and changes of attitudes within families are resulting in American students that are not adequately prepared for current or future employment, and worse, woefully ill-prepared to face the challenges of a 21st century multi-cultural globalized world. This is the first of a series of essays meant to identify weaknesses and offer solutions.

Honestly, unless one had a good teacher in HS, educated parents, or a close role model, the American Educational System has probably failed you, to some extent. Especially if this title drew your attention. And, I apologize, on behalf of educators everywhere. If I could go back in time, 20 years or so should do the trick, and be granted “Rule by Decree” powers, maybe your path would be more clear. I can’t do that, and now you – and no one else – is in charge of your life.

You can make tomorrow the first day of a new attitude, or Monday. Don’t put it off too long. Your future is at stake.

Here is advice, advice I have learned through my own mistakes, that I learned from others, from workshops, and from students. This advice will be controversial. Good decisions are not necessarily easy. In fact, there are no easy choices, and there is sacrifice, and trade-offs. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

1. School is your job. Multiply your course load by 3 and that is how many hours per week minimum dedicated to your education. For example, if you are taking 15hrs of classes, times 3, equals 45 hours. 37.5 hours is a full-time work week. If you also have a “job,” add those hours to 45; that is an accurate assessment of how busy you should be. If you have other activities eating away at your time, add those. Then, you have to eat, sleep, and other chores like grocery shopping. There is a real probability that you are stretched too thin, and stressed.
2. School is your job. Never miss class, unless you are ill and contagious. Other exceptions are field trips that are education-related. Unless you are a qualified doctor or donating an organ or bone marrow, family members can do fine without you. Another possible exception is a funeral. People who have weddings during the business cycle or academic calendar are only thinking of themselves. Dress appropriately for class, not in pajamas. Do not attend intoxicated. Educating yourself is in your own best interest. Prioritize your education accordingly.
3. Eliminate distractions. Social events, and social groups can be fun but ultimately they are a tremendous time-waster, and a huge distraction. Membership in a professional group is not the same. Professional groups work to your advantage. An example of a professional group includes the American Chemical Society, or the Institute of Civil Engineers. Focus on your academic career and you have a chance of graduating on-time and on-budget, perhaps even a semester early.
4. Eliminate Poisonous or Toxic People. Face facts; some people have toxic personalities. A person who says, “Let’s get drunk,” or “Let’s get high,” or “Let’s ditch class and go to the lake,” are signs that person is a toxic personality. A person who drops his or her emotional baggage on you is toxic. A person who tries to distract or belittle you from becoming educated is a toxic person. This person could be a so-called “friend” or a family member or someone in your community. I personally heard a pastor in church belittle education, saying that the Bible is the source of truth and knowledge, and science is wrong. Some ethnic groups face discrimination, bullying, and sometimes violence when members try to educate themselves. Blacks are often referred to as “Oreo,” for being “white” on the inside, “black” on the outside. Hispanics might be called “coconuts;” Asians are called “Twinkies.” All moronic labels; those people try to push others down, make them feel inferior. Cut them off, like the cancer they are. People that exhibit these traits are definitely poisonous, toxic, and will try to sabotage your success. Cutting them out of your life is not you being mean, you are standing up for yourself. Those people are self-centered, selfish, and irresponsible in attempting to ruin your life, hinder your success, and prevent you from working towards your own best interest.
5. Get your emotions under control. Faculty will often sound mean and uncaring. We aren’t all that way. We are not grown in test tubes. Some of us could use more tact, true. Bottom-line is that our job is to help you understand, test that understanding, and correct you when you mess up. We do not get paid for being nice or tactful, we get paid to pass along knowledge, test that you comprehend that knowledge, and inform you when you screw up. I apologize for my self and all other faculty across the United States that have hurt your feelings. Honestly, though, you should really set aside that “hurt” and listen to the criticism. The criticism may not sound nice and soothing, but that input is meant to make you better, and is meant to push and advance your interest. Faculty are your ally, as opposed to those toxic people in your life. Many of us have such twisted lives that the toxic people seem sane, and those that are trying to help us advance ourselves seem crazy and delusional.
   
   Consider your personal relationships. If your girlfriend or boyfriend takes off, dumps you, the world will not end. Chances are they were dead-weight anyway. People do not control your feelings, your emotions, unless you abdicate that power to him/her. Why would you do that? Why would you give a person that power? Conversely, you get to choose how you react. You might go through a break-up, but you get to decide how you react to that situation. People have the right to choose. And, if your boyfriend or girlfriend is toxic, you will be the one doing the breaking. Move on; work on you success, and be successful. Surround yourself with other successful people.
   
6. Sit in the front row. A few studies seem to indicate that your position in the classroom does not translate into better grades. A letter grade should not be the only measure of classroom success. Grades are used merely because grades are easy to measure. Students that sit in the front row are forced to be attentive simply by their proximity to the booming voice at the front of the room. Students on the front and second row pay attention, and ask questions. In other words, those minds are engaged, and that is what you want for yourself – an engaged brain.
7. Study. That may seem like a no-brainer, but students think reading is studying. Reading is the preliminary work that you do before studying. Like getting the shower water the proper temperature before showering. Studying is a broader topic that. Studying means placing yourself in the role of a research assistant, thinking from the perspective of a chemist, physicist, a nurse, or a social worker, and using the knowledge gained, to date, using knowledge gleaned from all of your courses. Studying is not merely highlighting key words and phrases. A key word or phrase is like a fingerprint at a crime scene, a data point; now what are you going to do with that tidbit of knowledge?
8. Ask questions in class. Ask for clarification, ask for examples, ask “what if?” Or, “why is it that way?” Asking questions does to things. First, your brain is obviously engaged, and being engaged, means your are very likely to remember the content and context of the discussion. Two, you come to the instructor’s attention. Remember, we are not the enemy. One day, you may need an employment reference, or character reference, or a background check. Faculty are your friend. Really.
9. Use downtime wisely. Review notes while waiting on an oil change, while sitting in the doctor’s office. If you get to class early, review the notes from the previous class. 
10. Don’t study in bed. Don’t eat in bed. Don’t sleep at your desk. See, our body forms patterns pretty easy, and then breaking bad behaviors can be even worse, and take longer. Since you sleep in bed, your brain knows that sleep is coming up soon. Study in bed and your brain isn’t really going to be focused on retaining knowledge. Your brain is going to be distracted by prepping your body for sleep. Don’t confuse your living patterns. Eat at the table, studying at the table or desk, sleep in bed.

Ten ways of becoming a better student I have laid out for you. You may have seen all or some before. Some may seem selfish. They are not selfish. We have been poorly coached, or led to believe that being co-dependent with other people and their problems means we are being a good person. Myth, all myth. The problem of toxic people is a subtle and insidious problem everyone faces, and may be the greatest of all issues, actually. You will find, though, that nearly all successful people overcome obstacles, self-made obstacles, to achieve the level of success they have today. By putting your interests first, making progress towards positive goals, you will encourage people around you in positive ways. Toxic people will immediately reveal themselves by making fun of you, calling you selfish, arrogant, and accusing you of trying to be better than everyone else. If that happens to you, then you are probably on the way to being successful.

Congratulations!

Technorati Tags: k-12 education,study skills,student behavior,good students,higher education,secondary education,toxic people

Americans & Job Loss: Assessing Responsibility

Labor and all associated traits, components, and concerns are of immense interest to economic geographers. Of particular interest is the movement of labor-intensive manufacturing jobs from historically manufacturing based economies, such as the United States, to low-wage, low-skill, low-income states, like China, Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian countries.

Low-income states, such as Vietnam, China, or Cambodia, represent pools of labor willing to work for pennies an hour. The alternative for these workers could literally mean no income for the day, and a few dollars per week. Employment earning $10/day or more might represent 5-10x increase over their previous earnings. Who would not want that type of earnings change, right?

Regardless of the potential of worker exploitation - that may not be for our Western temperament to judge - local labor and people do benefit from these employment opportunities. And, there may be other issues associated with the globalization of labor, perhaps dilution of culture, or loss of local culture. Some geographers note that these fears may be overblown. Local cultures do not throw away their culture in favor of a new "normal," but adapt to new traits, called "indigenization." For instance, McDonalds builds, yet offers a completely meat-free menu due to local customs. Or, offers lamb or falafel items.

When jobs traditionally held by Americans move abroad, many Americans want to point fingers, want to blame someone. People blame CEOs, blame "greedy Corporate America," for selling out our American jobs to China. The problem with this Blame Game is that many other factors are selectively ignored or are not realized merely out of blind ignorance.

In response to our bias, I have compiled a list of parties that should share in the collective blame:

1. American consumers
2. Unions
3. Shareholders
4. Market Analysts/Stock Brokers
5. CEOs/Corporations

And, pretty much in that order.

Unions
Unions negotiate for vacations, sick leave, and retirement benefits. One of the biggest issues with General Motors was not simply the fact that people found their vehicles undesirable, but was compounded by their huge and extravagant benefits and entitlement packages enjoyed by former employees. Unions protect ineffective employees. Ineffective employees hurt efficiency besides damaging workplace morale. Unions interfere with a businesses need to move dexterously to address changes in markets forces. And, negotiate for higher wages, when higher wages might not be warranted.

Shareholders
Stockholders in a company have at least two simple desires. First, stockholders want share prices to increase. Second, they want to get paid a dividend. A company needs to continually examine profitability to ensure those events occur, to keep investors happy. If you have a mutual fund, an IRA, a 401k, this means you.

Stock Brokers/Financial Analysts
Stock Brokers and Financial Analysts set and manipulate share prices. Any who says they do not doesn't pay attention to Jim Cramer, or Squawkbox (MSNBC). At one time, a CEO who was interviewed could expect the share prices of his company to increase dramatically in the first three months after his appearance on MSNBC. This effect was even given a name, "The Squawkbox Effect" (CNNMoney). These Financial Actors can influence markets and economic sectors simply by making comments in favor of, or opposed to, movements by corporations. These Actors seem to reward nimble corporate market adaptations, and seem not to reward long-term plans that include innovation. Conversely, these actors also seem to expect corporations like Microsoft, Apple, HP, or Motorola, to be constant innovators. Corporations that make significant changes to their business model, either through selling off divisions, corporate mergers, or the acquisition of other companies or technologies, may not result in a favorable response. Therefore, these Financial Actors can exert influence in how a company examines its finances.

CEOs / Board of Directors
CEOs and Board of Directors are probably the least to blame. I'm sure that sounds contrary to popular opinion. But, ask yourself this, For what purpose are CEOs hired? To make a company profitable, and, keep a company profitable. Simply put, they are hired to make money. And, if reducing the costs of labor help make the company more profitable, then the shareholders - the investors win. If you have a mutual fund, for retirement, for education, then you win. Profits keep shareholders happy. Profits keep the Board of Directors happy. How does a CEO manage to keep everyone happy? That is why they get paid the big bucks, why are they rewarded handsomely when they succeed, and why they do not get paid as much when they fail. Not as much when they fail.

Consumers (You and I)
I saved the best for last. Best, and the top reason jobs move abroad. Yes, you and I are pretty much the reason why jobs move overseas. How dare you! you might scream. Before you light the stake, follow this rationale.

Americans, in general, have become Irrational Consumers. I enter into evidence the "Average American Credit Card Debt: $15,799 (creditcards.com) . I also enter the "Mortgage Crisis of 2008" as my second exhibit. My third exhibit is the inability of the U.S. Congress to efficiently manage Revenue v. Debt over the last 30 years, and for their complicity in encouraging Americans to "buy" and adopt horrible financial behaviors. I could also add in our reticence to restrain our thirst for oil, that we are the largest consumers of electricity in the world despite having only 5% of the population.

Rational Consumers will purchase what they can afford, through savings, or through buying off-brands. Rational consumers will abide by common financial practices of setting aside 10%-15% of income to retirement. Rational consumers will maintain a debt load of less than 30% of income. Rational consumers will use the rule of 2-1/2x's annual income for determining the affordability of housing.  Many financial web sites are available to assist people in making good choices.

People do not want to make good choices, or do not have the experience in making good choices. Shopping at Wal-mart or Target or CostCo may superficially seem like a good cost-saving measure, but not if you spend more than earn.

However, people do seem to want value for their money, even if that money is really VISA or MASTERCARD. That purchasing power, whether credit/credit cards or cash is The Voice that CEOs listen to. In the 1970s and early 1980s, televisions were available from both United States and Asian manufacturers. Eventually, U.S. makers were forced to close factories in the U.S. and contract with factories in China, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Japan. Were their TVs better? No, not really. But, they were cheaper. Same quality, but less expensive.

Thus, if you were shopping in the 1980s, you might go to K-Mart. In the electronics department of K-Mart, you would see a U.S.-made RCA TV for $199.99. Next to the RCA is a similar TV made by Japan's LG or Sony for $169.99. All things being equal, which one did you buy? I'll tell you; you bought the Sony and saved $30. You, and a bunch of other Americans opted for the less expensive TVs. RCA, after a few years of seeing profits decline, had a difficult choice to make. Close; or stay in business but move manufacturing to Asia. RCA got the message, though; Americans would rather have a cheaper TV than a more expensive TV made in the United States.

The Price of Labor is crucial in remaining competitive. See, raw materials are pretty much priced on the global market. Everyone pays pretty much the same price for leather, fabric, plastic, etc., all the inputs for products. The other major cost for products is transportation. While transportation can be expensive, it is expensive for everyone equally. That leaves labor.

Americans require benefits, health insurance, dental insurance, eyecare insurance. Americans require paid vacation and paid sick leave and maternity leave. Americans want retirement plans. Americans want a minimum wage and regular raises. Americans want unemployment insurance and retraining benefits when we lose our jobs. None of this is free.

Furthermore, as none of this is free, someone has to pay for it. That someone is you, but not exclusively you. Your employer also chips in. In fact, you as an employee cost your employer an addition 25% to 40% above and beyond your wage (MIT Sloan School of Management). In other words, if you make $9/hr, you are costing your employer at least $12/hr.

Pretend you are an employer, you have your own company making TVs. You now have a choice: are you going to try to make TVs in the United States, and pay your workers minimum wage (good luck) $7.35/hr, which is a cost to you of about $9/hr per employee, $72/day per employee, $1,440/month per employee? Or, are you going to hire a Chinese worker for $4/day, or maybe $120/month? Because that is the reality.

Well that isn't fair! I've heard that, too.

Do you want a Free Market economy, or not? If so, that has to apply to labor, as well. Otherwise, as a U.S. company owner you might petition the U.S. government to pass an excise tax on incoming products from China. That might be good for you; a TV coming in from China now has $30 added on to it so now it is equal in cost to yours. But, when Americans find out that they are paying $30 more for that TV than what they could pay, someone is going to be upset.

In the Grander Scheme of Things, eventually those workers in Vietnam, Malaysia, wherever, will eventually want higher wages. When that happens, those worker might get higher wages. The cost of those additional wages will be passed along to the consumers, us. This is happening already in the maquiladoras along the U.S./Mexico border. And, it is happening in isolated cases, in southeast China. People upset over their wages, or working conditions, are striking, acting-out. Apple, for example, has negotiated with a Chinese factory, FoxConn, to improve the working environment. That is one isolated case.

Bottom line is that you and I, our parents, our grandparents, and our kids and grandchildren, all made choices of buying the best and cheapest stuff that matched our budgets, or that we could squeeze on our VISA or Discover Card. And, doing that helped move American jobs overseas.

Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

Why rounding some numbers is simply ludicrous

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.

Technorati Tags: earthquake,virginia,washington dc,usgs,richter scale

Put That Cell Phone AWAY!!

Why using a smartphone, netbook, or laptop in class can get you into real trouble.

A few years ago, I was at in-service training for part-time lecturers at a local community college. Our facilitator was going over the process of syllabus creation, what to include, etc. She said, “you can even go so far as to ban the use of cell phones in class.” One of my cohorts in the room, an elderly woman who looked like she would be right at home in a Catholic boarding school wielding a long and substantial ruler for whacking kids, stated, “I give my class one warning and then I take the phone away.”

At events such as these, I sit up front. Instructors are always telling students, “sit up front if you want to learn and earn a good grade.” I practice what I and most others teach. Funny, though, at academic meetings the back chairs seem to always fill first …

I whirled to address her, as I had something to say about her attitude. “If I could say something. First, set a precedent of decorum and etiquette for the class. Tell them, “You are an adult, now. High school is behind you. If you would like for me to treat you like a child, I will, but I would rather stand in front of a fellow adult. In fact, we are all adults here, and you should be expected to be treated as one. Conduct yourself accordingly.”

"I went on to state, “I have no problems with cell phone use in my classes, as I address my students as adults. I tell them I do not mind them having their cell phones out, as long as they are on silent. Many of my students truly are adults, with children, may be part-time First Responders for emergencies, may have a wife or girlfriend who is pregnant. It is unreasonable to place such onerous restrictions on such an important device. I tell them that if they get a call, to quietly leave and take the call outside. You would have to pry my phone from my cold dead fingers before I would give it up to you.”

Set the tone for use, and that eliminates 99.9% of problems. I did have one student Spring 2011 that sat in the front row and took a call, never getting up from her seat, in the middle of my lecture. I stopped my lecture, “Are you serious?! You’re going to sit right there and talk on the phone smack in the middle my lecture? Seriously, get out!” And, she looked at me like I was the one with the problem. Those types will never understand.

With this new school year opening, I have been reading syllabi dropped around campus by careless students. Many of these syllabi, in fact every single one (except mine), has a “Cell Phone / Smart Phone / Laptop / Netbook / Tablet / Wireless Electronic Device” policy. I think a student could literally use the Two-Cans-and-a-String social network and perhaps be safe.

These policies state: “If you have your {inset device type here} out and are using it during my lecture, I will take it. On the Second Violation, the device will remain confined for 24hrs within {insert academic office here}. On the Third Violation, the device will remain confined for X days within {insert academic office here}.

Wow! Really? I have heard of that in elementary school, but college? Can an instructor legally do that?

The answer is, Yes.

Most universities have policies these days that stipulate an instructor has the right to demand a student turnover electronic devices should said devices be used against stated class or university policies. These policies have been challenged in court (New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 340-341 (1985). Also, read “Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment” by Bernard James. Another very recent example is from Illinois State University, Education Law and Policy Journal, January 2011.

While these cases apply mostly to Secondary Education, there is no reason to suspect these cases cannot be used in Higher Education.

Furthermore, not only can an electronic device be confiscated, that device could also fall under “Warrantless Search” doctrine. The legal basis is this: a student has just been observed engaged in inappropriate behavior, using an electronic device against policy. Therefore, because of that one infraction, the administrator can legally assume other infractions have occurred. Then, the device itself can be opened, activated, and searched.

The student might cry that his or her Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure has just been violated. State Supreme Courts from New Jersey, Arkansas, Illinois, among others, have clearly sided with law enforcement on this issue. 

So, when an instructor issues the warning that all electronic devices should be turned off, placed in stand-by, and put away, the best idea is to do just that.

Unless, of course, you are a law student and you want to test your legal chops against the State.

Good luck.

Technorati Tags: cell phones,smart phones,confiscation,legal,law,fourth amendment,seizure,search,education,college,university

What Exactly Is A Syllabus?

School is upon us, and those on the front lines of educating the masses are preparing for the onslaught of people seeking to add value to their knowledge base. Some people are simply needing to create a knowledge base. Not only are educators concerned with the precise means of communicating knowledge, through lessons, but also in meeting the bureaucratic needs of the administration. One of those needs is a syllabus.

For decades, the syllabus has been an expected document, an anticipated document, a document that students greet with chagrin and consternation. What is a syllabus, though?

The word, "syllabus," arrives from the Latin, which was probably incorrectly interpreted from the Greek. In any event, "syllabus," means "list." Makes sense as a syllabus is really a list of policies, procedures, instructions, and other information pertaining to a course.

Thus, a syllabus is simply a set of policies, procedures, guidelines, and other course-related information.

Over the last couple years, I have heard many administrators referring to a syllabus as a "contract between you and your students." I have heard a few faculty describe a syllabus in this way, too. In fact, the other night, at an educators meeting, an administrator held a 14-page syllabus aloft, proclaiming the syllabus as, "a contract between you and your students."

Over the years of teaching, and as a student, I never made the leap that a syllabus was a contract, thinking that the contents of those pages merely outlined the details of the course. Students need to know, to some degree, what the course entails. As an educator, I need something to remind myself on occasion what the course entails.

These recent comments made me consider my understanding of what a syllabus actually is, though. I did some research, googling terms like "syllabus," and "contract," "legal document." What I found was an interesting and strange disconnect.

The court system does not view syllabi as legal documents. Syllabi are not contracts, and faculty are not legally bound by syllabi.

Of much concern to me is that institutions, i.e. administrators, are calling syllabi "contracts." Doing so creates a mistaken perception among faculty that have entered onto a contract with their students. Students mistakenly believe they can hold their faculty legally liable for holding to the language of the syllabus. Many, many school sites I visited on the Internet discuss the syllabus as a legal document.

Alternatively, the legal side says, No; syllabi do not fit the definition of a contract. As such, a faculty person is not bound to their syllabi. Students have no legal basis to sue if the course misses a day, if a chapter is omitted, if point values are modified, etc. A faculty person who engages in a behavior of considerable syllabus modification during the course of a semester may face angry blow-back from students, though. However, the courts have sided with faculty on these occasions.

The question becomes, who is correct? The answer is easy. U.S. Courts and the legal system, as it stands today, do not view syllabi as enforceable contract. An administrator holding a syllabus to the sky, as if those pages are the academic equivalent of the Ten Commandments, proclaiming the academic holiness of those pages as "your unbreakable covenant between you and your students," simply does not make the syllabus a contract. A professor who says, "my syllabus is a contract between me and you," is not creating a contract between himself or herself and the students in the classroom.

OK, so I say, “the syllabus is not a contract.” You should say, “But, why not?”

First, let me begin by saying I am not a lawyer, nor pretending to be one.

A contract has four parts (some ascribe as many as six parts http://bit.ly/qlS6t0): An Offer, Consideration, the Parties, and a Legal Objective. The syllabus cannot be a contract simply because the instructor is not offering anything. A syllabus is not an offer for the course. That offer was made by the university during the enrollment process. Part of the Offer is “acceptance.” Acknowledging the rule and policies of the course does not equivocate to accepting the offer of the course. The student is merely acknowledging the rules & policies of the course. Again, the offer of the course was tendered by the university, not the instructor.

The syllabus implies no “consideration.” Grades could be considered a “consideration,” something of value offered in return for something else of value. The student, though, is not required do anything. The student may fail the course, but the student made a choice that did not nullify or break a “contract” as there is no contract to enforce. While the instructor might be mandated by the university to perform duties for the course, the student is not required to do anything. In fact, the student could potentially absolve his or herself from any responsibility by dropping the course.

As for the Parties, the instructor engages in the creation of the syllabus with no input from the student or students. Therefore, acting alone, the instructor creates a syllabus outlining the details of the course, in accordance with the guidelines of the academic institution.

Finally, the question is then, “what is the legal objective of the syllabus?” Typically, contracts not only outline the duties of each party, consideration or compensation, but also provide for damages or penalties should the contract be broken or voided. The contract for the course is between the student and the university. The contract goes into effect when the student registers for the course. Should a student withdraw, the contract between the student and the university comes into play to determine the affects on financial aid, GPA, etc. The syllabus, being a document that outlines course material, objectives, rules, and policies, and part of the creative license afforded to faculty, has no legal objective, per se. The syllabus can, as I have found, and will cover in another article, contain elements of legal policies, such as the confiscation of cell phones, and other electronic devices. But, the syllabus is still not a contract.

Merely saying a syllabus is a contract does not make it one.

Over the decades Of experience I have in education, I have often heard students comments along the lines of, "She has to cover that. It is in her syllabus;" or, "it's not on the syllabus, so I don't have to do it;" and the "it's in the syllabus that way, so it cannot be changed."

The technically correct responses to the above are: "No, she doesn't" and "Yes, you do" and "Yes, it can." The reality is that faculty will often consider the effect of their choice in terms of student reaction. Faculty do not generally punish students, but will take measures to address concerns or inadequacies they see in classes or students. Those modifications might upset students. Ultimately, they are designed to help, not harm. Generally.

I author this entry for mostly to solidify the notion of what a syllabus is for my own benefit. additionally, maybe a search engine will pick this up and students and faculty can use this to educate themselves. I will provide links at some future date, to provide evidence.

ADDENDUM

I mentioned above I would provide some links.

This link http://bit.ly/nvXIhP (United States Jurisprudence) outlines a theoretical situation between a student and professor using historical court cases to arrive at a verdict.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece March 14th, 2008, that addresses such a topic. I cannot post that article here as the article was “premium” content. Briefly, the article essentially discusses what I have shared above, that is, while administrators would like to think that a syllabus is a contract between a faculty person and students, the courts do not side with that opinion.

The true contract exists between the university/college and the student. The university extends an offer of a course at a price. The student then can accept the conditions of that offer. As I stated above, calling a “syllabus” a “contract” does not make it such.

Administrators that continue calling syllabi contracts are perpetuating misinformation that, in my opinion, is detrimental to both faculty and students.

Technorati Tags: education,syllabus,legal document,legality,contract

Mesmerized by Oil

Based on “America’s Oil Imports: A Self-Inflicted Burden,” by Vaclav Smil, University of Manitoba, Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, v101, no. 4, July 2011.

Americans are mesmerized by oil. A real addiction. Politicians fight to open ANWAR like junkies trying to figure out just exactly where they can get a reliable supply of drugs. Or, they cast about the continental shelf, like a junkie on his knees trying to find that last cocaine rock that rolled under the couch. Digging for change among the cushions hoping to scrape together enough money for his next fix. Really. Listen to the political tenor surrounding oil on Fox News. Then, turn over to A&E and watch Intervention. The discussions on Fox sound like the arguments that drug addicts use on Intervention.

Smil lays out an argument that America is to blame for its own dependence on oil. We, in fact, are our own worst enemies for driving up the cost of gasoline. Not OPEC, not British Petroleum (BP), not even the oil lobby. Just simple, average, everyday you-and-me Americans. We are addicted to oil as addicts are addicted to meth, or crack. Automobiles convey the drugs into our system, just as needles push heroine into the bloodstream of an addict.

Yes, America – we are oil whores.

We absolutely need our Hummers, and our Cadillacs, and our giant Suburbans. Those are God-given rights, laid clean-out in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Hey, I’m right there with everyone else; I drive a Dodge Durango, one of the very worst offenders. Yes, I see the hypocrisy. Do you see the hypocrisy in yourself, though?

During the first 10 years of the 21st century, Americans spent 1.7 trillion dollars on buying foreign oil. That is $1,700 billion dollars.

In 2008 alone, Americans spent $350 billion dollars on foreign oil.

In 1975, the United States was the world’s largest producer of oil. In this year, we would be passed by the USSR. In 1977, the United States would be passed by Saudi Arabia.

As of 2010, Saudi Arabia ranks first, Russia ranks 2nd, and the United States ranks 3rd. About 1.5 million barrels of oil per day production separates 1st place from 3rd place. If that sounds like a lot, it isn’t. In 2009, the United States was using about 18.7 million barrels of oil per day. So the difference between production in Saudi Arabia and the United States works out to be about 1hr 15minutes in usage time.

According to our own Energy Information Administration (link) the United States consumes more oil than China, Japan, Brazil, and Canada combined.

Let’s add up some populations: China (1,300 million) + Japan (127 million) + Brazil (190 million) + Canada (35 million) = 1.652 billion people. Or, roughly about 25% of the world’s population.

5% of the world’s population, that’s the United States, uses the equivalent energy of 25% of the world’s population.

And, if you listen to us on the television, you’d think that it was our Manifest Destiny, handed down by God, to consume as much as we want.

Here is what makes us appear even worse than we really are, according to Smil.

The United States is the 3rd largest country, in area, on the planet, behind Russian (1), and Canada (2). We are also the world’s 3rd most populous country, behind China (1), and India (2). One might think, “Hey, we have a big country. We need transportation in order to get around and do stuff. That takes oil. Therefore, we use a lot, and rightfully so.”

One fact in that statement is true: transportation is necessary. In 2009, transportation accounted for 75% of domestic oil consumption, i.e. fuel costs. That’s right, you and me, driving around in our giant pickups, and Hummers, and Durangos. We use 75% of the oil this country supposedly needs. Not the Department of Defense, not heating or cooling energy needs. Us, going to the grocery store, soccer practice, or our trucks moving objects from point A to point B.

Superficially, the argument sounds fine. But that argument is flawed. The United States is not uniformly populated. Most of us, in fact, live on the East Coast. OK, not really. But, look at this map:

Look at the red peaks. Those peaks tell the map reader where people live. As you can see most Americans live east of the Mississippi River. We could narrow that even further, really, and say that about 50% of Americans, 155 million people, or about the population of Japan, live north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi.

Such a concentration of humanity in one place lends itself to multi-modes of public transportation, specifically high-speed rails.

And, I, being a geographer, should have thought about this point, and only by reading Smil’s paper, did this point reach my brain.

Despite this near-perfect environment for moving people from place to place, efficiently, and at a decent price point, and environmentally sound, Americans would, and have, elected to confined themselves to their shiny V8 chariots of selfishness. Remember, I drive one, too.

Imagine taking a nice, clean, safe, high-speed train (HST) from New York to Washington, D.C., or Boston, or Philadelphia. You would have uninterrupted cell phone and wi-fi coverage. Tokyo, Japan has that, why can’t we? Once at your destination, rent an economical SMART car, a Prius, or Honda Hybrid.

Imagine the jobs created from constructing these rail systems. The people then employed to operate them. The growth pole areas that would definitely arise at stations along the rail paths. Imagine the use of technology, advances in technology, the increase in productivity. And, ultimately, the resulting savings from not using petroleum. How much different could $1.7 trillion dollars have been used in the United States? How many jobs does that represent? Money literally burnt in engines around the country.

No. Americans do not want that. Not enough, anyway. Many of us are still stuck in the euphoria of the 1950s and early 1960s. Ideals and models of behavior that have been passed along, “inherited culture,” we geographers call it.

Drunk on our own kool-aid. Slimy, oily, kool-aid.

Technorati Tags: energy,oil,oil producers,high-speed rail,jobs,economic growth,china,japan,russia

James Webb Space Telescope Must Live!

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope. The JWST will be the coolest space telescope ever. Obviously, since it will represent the new and improved space telescope. The JWST will be larger, orbit further than HST, and have better optics and cameras. No telling what cool stuff JWST will be able to send us.

If it gets finished, that is. Republicans, and a few Democrats, want to kill funding the JWST. I hate stuff like this. For a number of reasons.

Chief among the reasons is the complaints people have about Science and Technology and our country's investment in Science and Technology. "Too expensive!" "Why do we need a Space Program!" "Why is NASA always over-budget?"

This is simply ignorance speaking. We've lost more money, literally lost billions of dollars in Iraq. I'm not talking the cost of the war.  I mean they drove a pallet of American bills off a C-130 transport plane and lost like $6 billion dollars. No one knows where it went. 

The Hubble Space Telescope was originally budgeted at about $3-1/2 billion dollars. 10 years after its due date, and at a cost of $11 billion dollars, the HST finally made it to orbit. And, the HST produced the coolest images ever seen by Humankind. (GeekDad.com)

Same thing happened with the Space Shuttle. Took a long time to get space-borne, and over-budget. But why?

Many moons ago, I had the opportunity to listen to a lecture presented by a NASA scientist, an engineer, really. I wish I could remember his name. I can't, but that should not diminish the message. He related many facets of the budgeting of space-related projects which I found amazing.

The Space Shuttle program, for example, was decades in the making. Engineers must plan nearly every detail in advance. Many, many details, for essentially two reasons. First, so that a budget can be constructed for Congress to approve. The second reason dovetails with the first reason, the budget is based on a baseline foundation of technology. Each Space Shuttle contains numerous computers. These computers do not represent the pinnacle of human achievement. At the time of this lecture, the Space Shuttles were operating using the equivalent of 486-based computers. You could buy Pentium IIIs, Pentium IVs, and Xeon processor computers at Walmart that were more powerful.

I was stunned. Why could they not use current technology? Because NASA needed to use tried and true technology. They needed chips that had been tested, and evaluated against numerous conditions that are not found in your home. Many other systems are also predicated upon tried-and-tested technology. Therefore, a baseline level of technology is established. So, technology from 3, 4, or 5 years ago may, in fact, be used in current space and weapons systems simply because scientists and engineers are very familiar with the properties of that technology, and the materials comprising that technology.

For programs that persist over time, like the Space Shuttle, like the Hubble, and like the JWST, and like any military weapons program, developers are obligated to establish a baseline technology. When contracts are written, they are further limited by rules that do not allow them to account for changes in the market costs for necessary materials. Developers cannot say, "We need to budget an extra 25% for costs over the next 10 years for this program." As I understand government accounting and financial rules, this is against the law. Or, at least against protocol.

Government contractors, and government agencies themselves, like NASA, chronically find themselves over-budget because they are simply not allowed to budget for the true cost of a program.

Even when bridges or roads are constructed cost overruns are incurred. The price of cement goes up due to increased demand in China. The price of road fabrics go up due to the increase in demand of oil globally. Therefore, as the price of the materials that go into the making of the road go up, the price of the road goes past its budget.

Same with nearly any government program that means building something. Doesn't matter if that something is an F-22, a Space Shuttle, or a space telescope. Budgeting for the cost of materials 5-10 years away is nearly impossible. Yet, the military and NASA are frequently asked to make such calculations, as if they can see the future.

The other complaint that is often voiced also hints at ignorance. "Privatize NASA. Sell it make them turn a profit!"

If a profit could be made from doing this, someone would have done it already. Also, we cannot have just anyone putting stuff in orbit around earth. The skies above us are littered with enough space junk already. These efforts generally do not make money. They are always operated at a loss. The European Space Agency, the Indian Space Agency, the Chinese Space Agency, and the Russian Space Agency are all government-run programs. These programs are expensive to operate, maintain, and simply do operate under normal supply-and-demand economics. 

Companies like GeoEye can turn a profit, but even that is extremely hard. GeoEye sells numerous products that people want, that government want. GeoEye collects images of the earth that people know how to use, can put immediately to use. 

Few people are talented enough or educated enough to put Hubble imagery to use. Yes, the pictures are pretty. If you ask someone what they are looking at, though, would they really be able to explain the nature of the object? Maybe, if they were cool enough of a person to have a Hubble image, they could possibly tell you about the image.

One of the benefits of a government is public and private partnerships that increase the knowledge of human society. Our GPS constellation of satellites is a good example. The United States has collectively worked with other countries to create the International Space Station. Other countries, however, will continue to develop a Space Program policy. Actually, the Chinese are pushing well into this, with plans to put people back on the Moon.

Many Americans need to wake up and smell the Shuttle exhaust. Technology, innovation, entrepreneurialism, dreams, ambitions, and the constant pushing of the envelop is what makes this country unique, not sitting back and waiting for people to do things for us, or without us.

Technorati Tags: Technology,NASA,Hubble,James Webb Space Telescope,budget,science

Gold Standard 2012: A Foolish Folly

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 made fully legal (Executive Order 6102, Dealings With The Enemy Act of 1933, Executive Order 6073, Gold Reserve Act 1933).

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.

Technorati Tags: economy,gold standard,rand paul,ron paul,central bank

Education Is Not Simply About What One Knows

Whether one is a welder, a foreign diplomat, or a genetic engineer, being educated about the world makes a society better.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a front-page piece detailing the educational efforts of our state legislators, “How Educated Are Our State Legislators?” Definitely some surprises.

Arkansas, for example, ranks higher than Maine. I never would have guessed that. Also lower is Delaware; never would have guess that either. New Hampshire comes in 50th; the study really should have excluded New Hampshire, though. The NH houses meet infrequently, do not have full-time legislators, and few of the legislators posted their educational background. With better data, New Hampshire might rank higher.

California is at the head of the class, with 90% of legislators having at least a Bachelor’s Degree. In fact, if I were to include “Some College,” that percent would rise to 93%. Not bad, for a broke state.

My adopted state of Kentucky fairs pretty well, too. 77% of our state legislators have a Bachelor’s Degree. Toss in another 9% for those who have had “Some College,” and that percent pops to 86%. Pretty amazing.

Some legislators created profiles for themselves on their state-supported web sites. Sometimes, educational information was listed, such as school attended, what he/she studied, and what degree was attained, if any. A few even posted a GPA. Good for them.

Some posted as education the “School of Life,” or “Self-Educated.” One legislator stated she went to “gun school.” One legislator is 19 years old. Kyle Jones (NH) works the night shift at Burger King and goes to school part-time. That is awesome!

Adam Brown, Brigham Young University, makes some good comments about politics and education. “Legislators aren’t only supposed to represent the white-collar workers of the world. They need represent everybody.” Brown then goes on to say something that somewhat boggles me. When asked if he learned anything about public higher education, or about education in California, he is quoted as saying, “No, of course not. I was just a student.”

I hope this not quoted properly. How can a person not learn something about higher education while being a Ph.D student? Hell, as a graduate student at a small regional university, I learned about grants, state funding for capital projects, state funding for educational programs, salaries, allocation of degree programs throughout the state. I find this statement almost to incredible to believe, actually. I can see that comment coming from a BA/BS student; frankly, most of them have no idea what goes on in higher education. Nothing against them, they simply do not work behind the scenes. Just because I watch the Space Shuttle launch doesn’t mean I know all the details behind the planning of a launch.

I am really bothered by a couple notions.

First, people misinterpret the word, “liberal,” when used with education. Or, rather they choose to identify with only 1 or 2 of the word’s 15 potential meanings. When used with “education,” “liberal” does not mean “socialist,” or “communist,” or “left-leaning,” or “to advocate for political reform as defined by progressive social Democrats.”

Liberal Education simply means “generous” or “abundant.” We could extend that to include “tolerant of others,” or “to encourage the pursuit of intellectual thought and discourse in an academic manner.”

To receive a liberal education, simply puts, means a student has been exposed to a number of different influences, local, regional, national, and global in reach and depth. Nothing is wrong with this, and a lot of things are right about it.

Which brings me to my second notion.

Daniel Thatcher illustrates my problems with the anti-intellectualism that is rearing its ugly and ignorant head in the U.S. Definitely a dragon that St. George needs to behead.

Daniel Thatcher is a self-taught electrician in Utah and is a freshman senator. College drop-out. To be clear, I have no issues with college drop-outs. People who are uniquely motivated and have skill, drive, desire to do something with their lives – more power to them, I say. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to begin Microsoft, probably the most famous example. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s, same thing. Drive, desire, and determination are powerful influences in a person’s life.

But, remember this, they did not sit on their asses, watching TV, and wondering what they were going to do for the day. They did something. They taught themselves, and surrounded themselves with smart people, many of whom were/are highly educated people.

Here is what Daniel Thatcher is quoted as saying,

“You go to college, you take a foreign language, and all these ridiculous diversity requirements-how does that help you become a better welder? Why is it that we’re telling kids, ‘You can get any degree you want, and you’ll make all of this money,’ when they won’t?”

And, in a nutshell, this is what is wrong with America.

Let me deal with the only thing he said correctly first. How does learning Spanish make you a better welder? Technically, being versed in Spanish will not help you make a better weld, that is true. You win, Mr. Thatcher, on that point. On that point alone, you win.

Having learned Spanish might make you a much more marketable welder, though. Being able to speak Spanish might make you a crew chief, team leader, foreman. One day, you might be a consultant on a job where the ability to speak a foreign language comes in handy. Perhaps the language is Russian instead of Spanish.

Perhaps your jobs become fewer and fewer because clients are taking work to other facilities because they not only work on domestic contracts but are able to work on multi-national contracts, too.

Go ahead, Mr. Thatcher, weld yourself into a corner.

Who cares about globalization, global labor markets, the global movement of labor, the movement of production and products, and the growing interconnectedness of the world? Not the United States, right?

Ignorance is bliss, right? Americans should be down-right jolly with more of your ilk in state legislatures.

I ask, how can Americans understand how labor works, or how the economics of Nike, or of Dell, or of Toyota work, if all we do is learn just the modicum that we need in order to weld?

We can’t.

How can the United States prepare our current population, and our future workforce, and continue to evolve our society, with such ass-backwards, 1950s, riding forward into the future sitting backward in our saddle, thinking?

Our ignorance will be our undoing.

And, you Mr. Thatcher, are guilty of the irresponsible argument that education is completely and totally useless for most professions.

U.S. citizens need to be educated. I am not advocating formal education, compulsory education. The growing anti-intellectualism in the U.S. must end, though. Americans need to be aware of their communities, their state, their nation, their national neighbors, and understand the dynamics involved in even the simple economies that make our world what it is today.

Technorati Tags: higher education,education,senators,representatives,legislators,university,college

Book Review: “Bad Luck and Trouble,” Lee Child

“Never mess with Special Investigators.”

In the Army, MP’s have to watch their backs, and the back of the people they are teamed with. MP learn never to take anything for granted. With a population as numerous as some countries, the U.S. Army has its fair share of crime. And criminals of any sort do not like to be caught.

Jack Reacher and his contemporaries served many years in the U.S. Army, working as that military’s version of Homicide detectives. Working cases of fraud, murder, drugs, and deceit, but with a military twist. Reacher, for 13 years, acquired a vast of array of tools and behaviors that makes him good at what he does. What he does is even the score, and mete out justice in very concrete ways.

“Bad Luck and Trouble” finds Reacher in southern California. Upon receiving a strange deposit of money in his bank account, he flies to Los Angeles to meet up with a partner from his Army days. Jack quickly learns that others from his old investigative unit are being singled-out, hunted down, and murdered.

Jack wants to know why, but that is his secondary mission. “No one messes with Special Investigators,” and someone has, and Jack intends on making them pay.

At this point, I have about three more books of Child’s to read, and then I don’t know what I will do. I will have read the entire Jack Reacher series, about 17 books, in about 7 months. Lee has a great way of developing characters, writing dialogue, keeping the action moving. He has a history of writing for television. This style comes out in his novels as he gives you all you need to know about your characters. No page after page of boring exposition. Lee’s characters act, they do things, they say things, they are engaged and are engaging. Lee writes as if he is right there with the characters. He does not write as if he is some dispassionate observer following from above. He is the invisible ally of Jack Reacher. As an avid reader, I find that immensely gratifying.

His plots are great, intricate to keep my attention. Violent; no pansy-assed stuff here, no negotiating, no “shucks, I guess you can live.” Jack is a combination of Spencer-For-Hire (Robert B Parker), or perhaps, “Magnum, P.I.” and the Terminator.

Child’s books are a good anytime read, whether on the beach, in a hospital room, at home on a rainy day, or, like myself, waiting for hard drives to format or software to install/update/patch, his novels are a great break.

Technorati Tags: book review,lee child,military police,crime,action,novel,jack reacher

Book Review: The Enemy

Novels contain an immense amount of geography.

The fifth book I've read by Lee Child in two months. The guy can put a story together. 

Take equal parts of the best procedural crime novel you've read with parts of the Walking Tall movie series and that gives you Jack Reacher series of novels. 

For series authors, I give them two books to draw me in. After that, with paperbacks as expensive as they are, I'm either in or out. For example, I read Double Cross, by James Patterson. Out after the first book. I know he is popular, but his plot mechanics and writing; no. I might try again later but I was not enthused about his style.

After my first Lee Child book, I bought another. And, another. And, another. Child can write. His prose is short, succinct, to the point. Every sentence means something; no fluff, no worthless emotions, no worthless dialogue, no page after page of wandering philosophical thoughts, or page upon page of character development, or setting the scene.

Child gets right to work. Not that he does not set the scene, not that he does not include backstory, or develop characters. He does that, the way development should occur, through character action and dialogue. Jack Reacher, the former Army MP Major, unfolds as a character through actions and dialogue, not by thinking his way through the book.

Here is what I mean. I recently read, The Keep, by another favorite author of mine, F Paul Wilson. The book is over 300 pages long but if you only considered dialogue, that would reduce the page count by 80%, at least. Lots of lots of backstory, the main characters "think" about everything, only releasing snippets of information when engaged with other characters. I can tolerate that, as The Keep is part of a series of books that share a common theme, but I really do not care for that too much.

Child develops Jack Reacher in his books by having Jack do stuff, and talk to people, and people act and react around him. In that way, we learn what Jack is like.

Child's plots are, well, not child-like. As I read, I envision that he has an elaborate board of plot details, Post-it notes of timelines, people, events; almost as if he, the author, is trying to solve the case just ahead of Reacher. The amount of detail, conversations, plot complications, and action excellent.

Ok, so what is the novel about?

Jack finds himself swiftly pulled from his MP duty station in Panama to a desk jockey job at an Army Base in North Carolina for no particular reason. His confusion is replaced by irritation, as literally days after his arrival, a 2-Star general is found dead in a cheap motel. Within hours, the general's wife is found bludgeoned in their off-base home. Being the military equivalent of the Homicide Squad, Reacher and his aide scour U.S. and European military bases for clues to the deaths, finding conspiracies and cover-ups, hostile Delta Force members, and little help along the way. 

But, Reacher is not subtle and suffers not the person that stands in the way of the truth and justice, justice which he is not completely uncomfortable in meting out.

Looking for a great, action series that is not mind-numbing, and far-fetched, a la Cussler? Read some Jack Reacher/Lee Child books.

Technorati Tags: book review,lee child,enemy,crime,jack reacher.

Movie Review: “The Green Lantern”

Not horrible. I give it 3 Lanterns out of 5

The Question: Is this comic book-derived movie worth seeing?

The Answer: You bet.

Yes, I know. Ryan Reynolds is Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, and people don't think Ryan could pull off a comic book action movie. And, what about him being Deadpool, anyway? Or, a Vampire Hunter (from Blade:Trinity.) You're just going to have to set those biases aside. Otherwise, you'll never enjoy the show. I went into the movie thinking this was going to be the Queer Eye for the Green Lantern Guy, or something, because of all the media hype about the digital suit "painted" on Ryan Reynolds, and all that it would reveal. In other words, I expected to feel ripped-off, ashamed, embarrassed, lying that I hadn't seen the movie, yet trying to find ways of explaining how I know so much about I movie I said I've never seen. Ryan does a good job as Hal. In fact, had this movie been made in the '80s, I'm pretty sure Val Kilmer would have played the smart-assed, wise-cracking Hal Jordan. Why? Because Hal Jordan and Tom "Iceman" Kazansky are cut from the same cloth, that's why. 

However, one must not forget Blake Lively plays Carol Ferris, Ryan's ...er, girlfriend? Love interest? Wing..girl? She wears a lot of suits in the movie, and admirably well, I have to say. I can see why Hal would want to protect planet Earth.

Peter Sarsgaard plays Hector Hammonds, the meek, anti-social but highly intelligent son of Senator Hammonds, played well by Tim Robbins. Peter is a good performer, but I simply don't like him, and I'm glad he (Hector) is rendered dead eventually. Peter seems to be constantly typecast as a smarmy back-stabbing spineless wimp in most everything I've seen him in, and Green Lantern is no different. When Hector gets his just dessert, I was like, Yeah, take that, Peter Sarsgaard. Stop taking parts that turn you into a sniveling wimp.

The Suit. A lot of talk about the suit. The suit is cool. In the comics, one does not get a sense of the energy contained inside the suit. The SFX in Green Lantern really bring the suit to life. Initially, in the theatrical trailers, I thought the suit looked stupid. The suit looks good, with waves of energy rippling behind the Lantern.

See, the Green Lanterns derive their power, their energy, from Will. Not the "Danger! Will Robinson! Danger!" Will, but from the Will people have to do something, or to not do something, as in "willpower." Will has a color, and that color is green. Hence, the Green Lantern. Fear is yellow. Avarice is orange. Compassion is indigo. In our first Green Lantern movie, we get to see Fear/Yellow at work. And, if the credit teaser holds, Yellow will give rise to the Sinestro Corp in the next movie.

I read only one review of the movie before viewing. Someone writing about how "comic book movies constantly perpetuate racial stereotypes," and how, "Green Lantern" is racist. The author referred to the use of Michael Clark Duncan's voice cast as "Kilowog." Look, Kilowog is a big nasty killer, but a good-guy big nasty killer. Kilowog needs a big powerful voice. Now, I ask you, Who in Hollywood has a big distinctive voice capable of producing the weight and presence needed to portray Kilowog? A handful; maybe Ving Rhames, but then again, someone could still cry "racism," or perhaps Vin Diesel. I just can't think of anyone, other than those three. And, Kilowog was not a complete racial stereotype like Jar-Jar Binks, who the author specifically mentioned. "Jar-Jar" is racist, and I, and every other Star Wars fan know that Lucas will suffer time in Hell for that character. Anyway, I digress.

Mark Strong handled the role of Sinestro well. If you stay around to the near-end credits, you'll see Sinestro again. Far better end-teaser than Iron Man 2, or Thor. 

Fans of Clancy Brown will be pleased to hear him voice Parallax. Parallax was once an Immortal Guardian of the Green Lantern home world of Oa. After falling victim to the Power of Fear, the fear-casting mind-controlling Parallax was defeated by Hal's previous ring-bearer, Abin Sur, and entombed. Our plot picks up as a chance accident strands aliens on the planetoid that serves as Parallax's prison. The aliens are swiftly converted to the energy Parallax needs to escape and plot his revenge on Oa. Abin Sur does his best to prevent Parallax from making progress towards that goal, and suffers a mortal wound in the process.

I'm giving nothing away, as Hal comes about the Green Lantern ring in this way. Also, our narrator, Tomar-Re, voiced by Geoffrey Rush, describes the unfolding action while providing some necessary backstory in the first 5 minutes of the movie. I recognized his voice, but couldn't place it at first. I'm glad, too; I would have spent the rest of the movie in Barbossa-mode, "Argh, the Green Lanterns dispatch their foes with the might of their boundless spirit and willingness to engage in such brigandry," and then all hope of enjoying the movie would have been sunk.

The Green Lantern wasn't mindless droll. The director Martin Campbell, along with good writing, developed good characters, with emotions, and responses that seemed appropriate. Much time was spent developing Hal's character, his relationship with his father, Hal's family. We glimpse Hal through their eyes, though briefly, and more so through Carol's eyes.

The Green Lantern is PG-13 for good reason, really. A lab tech gets a hypodermic needle in the eye. Needles to the eye always make me cringe. Another guy gets fried to a crisp. "Asshole," is a term that's frequently tossed about to describe Hal. I'm glad, for a change, too. After seeing Thor turned into a mallet-wielding Ken-doll, I needed to hear some comic book swearing and see someone get a beat-down.

Green Lantern purists will cry that the producers got some aspect of Hal's origin story wrong. So be it. The movie is still better than Thor, better than the first Hulk, better than Daredevil - and potentially be better than Captain America. I'm hoping not, though. That would truly be sad.

Technorati Tags: green lantern,ryan reynolds,blake lively,thor,daredevil,deadpool,captain american