How Societies Commit Suicide by Theodore Dalrymple
Samples from Italy and Britain of foolish people in their quest for fairness and multiculturalism making stupid decisions.
August 28, 2007
August 27, 2007
An Inconvenient Solution by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Summer 2007
An Inconvenient Solution by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Summer 2007
Haven't read it all yet, but want to get it up here so I don't forget it
Haven't read it all yet, but want to get it up here so I don't forget it
August 26, 2007
Iraq - Exit Strategy - Washington - Military Forces - New York Times
Iraq - Exit Strategy - Washington - Military Forces - New York Times:
This is a fairly long, but insightful, piece about the changes that are needed in how U.S. Army officers think and behave. It's worth a read if you have a military background or are interested in the behaviors of our senior officer corps. When I was in the Army before and during the Viet Nam war as a junior officer, I expected ( and usually found) those senior to me to have more wartime and combat experience than I did, and looked to them for guidance.
Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Junior officers have more tough combat and insurgency experience from their Iraq tours than many senior officers and have begun to question their moral and political fiber. A perfect instance of that is Rumsfeld insisting, and the Bush team agreeing, over the advice of his generals to go to war with too few trained troops on the ground. Some junior officers are questioning why the generals did not stand their ground if they were convinced of the need.
The author suggests, and I agree, that the Army must change behavior in the officer corps and how promotions are decided if we are to successfully adapt to the radical Islamic terror threat. We are in a 'long war' here and I want our military to be the best it can possibly be.
I think the problem may not be as pronounced in the Special Forces/Operations elements of the Army, but" mainstream Army" may need far more versatility and substance.
This is a fairly long, but insightful, piece about the changes that are needed in how U.S. Army officers think and behave. It's worth a read if you have a military background or are interested in the behaviors of our senior officer corps. When I was in the Army before and during the Viet Nam war as a junior officer, I expected ( and usually found) those senior to me to have more wartime and combat experience than I did, and looked to them for guidance.
Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Junior officers have more tough combat and insurgency experience from their Iraq tours than many senior officers and have begun to question their moral and political fiber. A perfect instance of that is Rumsfeld insisting, and the Bush team agreeing, over the advice of his generals to go to war with too few trained troops on the ground. Some junior officers are questioning why the generals did not stand their ground if they were convinced of the need.
The author suggests, and I agree, that the Army must change behavior in the officer corps and how promotions are decided if we are to successfully adapt to the radical Islamic terror threat. We are in a 'long war' here and I want our military to be the best it can possibly be.
I think the problem may not be as pronounced in the Special Forces/Operations elements of the Army, but" mainstream Army" may need far more versatility and substance.
"Today, President Bush maintains that the nation is in a war against terrorism — what Pentagon officials call “the long war” — in which civilization itself is at stake. Yet six years into this war, the armed forces — not just the Army, but also the Air Force, Navy and Marines — have changed almost nothing about the way their promotional systems and their entire bureaucracies operate. On the lower end of the scale, things have changed — but for the worse. West Point cadets are obligated to stay in the Army for five years after graduating. In a typical year, about a quarter to a third of them decide not to sign on for another term. In 2003, when the class of 1998 faced that decision, only 18 percent quit the force: memories of 9/11 were still vivid; the war in Afghanistan seemed a success; and war in Iraq was under way. Duty called, and it seemed a good time to be an Army officer. But last year, when the 905 officers from the class of 2001 had to make their choice to stay or leave, 44 percent quit the Army. It was the service’s highest loss rate in three decades."
August 21, 2007
American Thinker: The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation
American Thinker: The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation
A fascinating proposition to explain the totalitarian regimes and murderous scoundrels of the 20th and 21st centuries. Could it be true that "oppositional defiant personality disorder' is at the root of most of the world's mayhem, not to mention the radical left?
A fascinating proposition to explain the totalitarian regimes and murderous scoundrels of the 20th and 21st centuries. Could it be true that "oppositional defiant personality disorder' is at the root of most of the world's mayhem, not to mention the radical left?
The Fairness Doctrine in Broadcast Media
My essay below was published today on the editorial page as a "My Turn"in the Burlington Free Press:
Fairness Doctrine in Broadcast Media
I believe the proposal to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a purely political maneuver to create a controversy heading into the 2008 elections because liberals have been unsuccessful in propagating their point of view on talk radio, now dominated by conservative programming. The Fairness Doctrine they would like to bring back would require 'equal time' for opposing viewpoints on the same radio or TV station. Many liberals are hell-bent on using the power of government to define fairness in media that uses the airwaves because they feel disadvantaged by or envious of the success of conservative talk radio.
Because they are 'owned' by the public, the Federal Communications Commission prevents technical interference on the airwaves by licensing only one broadcaster in a geographic area to use a specific frequency, power output and other technical requirements. In 1949, the FCC believed this exclusive right to broadcast should require station owners to present alternate points of view so listeners and viewers would receive balanced input on a controversial issue, thus the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in a unanimous vote by the FCC in 1987. In that decision they stated "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." (cite Wikipedia). Since then, all forms of electronic media have proliferated as technology enabled cable, satellite and internet communications.
Supporters of The Fairness Doctrine often cite the principle that the airwaves are 'owned' by the public and it's 'unfair' for one viewpoint to be unbalanced by others because a license is granted by the Federal Communications Commission to use a 'scarce' resource. Conservatives argue that the 'mainstream media' is dominated by news and current event programming created, omitted or edited by people mostly liberal/Democrat. Liberals generally argue that large corporations owning multiple radio and TV stations and newspapers in the same market restricts the broad spectrum of opinion necessary for a truly democratic society.
However, media leaders will say they are as fair and balanced as possible. Broadcast (and print) journalists argue that their important role in the public square requires them to be unbiased and that they are trained to seek the facts and omit opinion in reporting. This mantra has a nice ring to it, but it's nonsense. No person is unbiased, journalists included. How journalists and reporters think, report, vote, associate, and generally live their lives determine their biases. To pretend they don't have them or that they don't influence their media work is hypocritical. Better to admit a bias so readers, viewers and listeners know clearly what they are getting.
Given the proliferation of cable programming and internet sources, the Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur whose time has long since passed. The public is no longer starved for information by the 'scarce' resource of the airwaves used by a few broadcasters to provide news and opinion. We can stay informed or be influenced by any number of news and opinion sources.
Today's media landscape is diverse and growing increasingly so. The Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur in today's media world and best left to history's dustbin. If liberals are unhappy with their lot in talk radio, perhaps they need better spokespersons or better ideas or both.
Fairness Doctrine in Broadcast Media
I believe the proposal to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a purely political maneuver to create a controversy heading into the 2008 elections because liberals have been unsuccessful in propagating their point of view on talk radio, now dominated by conservative programming. The Fairness Doctrine they would like to bring back would require 'equal time' for opposing viewpoints on the same radio or TV station. Many liberals are hell-bent on using the power of government to define fairness in media that uses the airwaves because they feel disadvantaged by or envious of the success of conservative talk radio.
Because they are 'owned' by the public, the Federal Communications Commission prevents technical interference on the airwaves by licensing only one broadcaster in a geographic area to use a specific frequency, power output and other technical requirements. In 1949, the FCC believed this exclusive right to broadcast should require station owners to present alternate points of view so listeners and viewers would receive balanced input on a controversial issue, thus the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in a unanimous vote by the FCC in 1987. In that decision they stated "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." (cite Wikipedia). Since then, all forms of electronic media have proliferated as technology enabled cable, satellite and internet communications.
Supporters of The Fairness Doctrine often cite the principle that the airwaves are 'owned' by the public and it's 'unfair' for one viewpoint to be unbalanced by others because a license is granted by the Federal Communications Commission to use a 'scarce' resource. Conservatives argue that the 'mainstream media' is dominated by news and current event programming created, omitted or edited by people mostly liberal/Democrat. Liberals generally argue that large corporations owning multiple radio and TV stations and newspapers in the same market restricts the broad spectrum of opinion necessary for a truly democratic society.
However, media leaders will say they are as fair and balanced as possible. Broadcast (and print) journalists argue that their important role in the public square requires them to be unbiased and that they are trained to seek the facts and omit opinion in reporting. This mantra has a nice ring to it, but it's nonsense. No person is unbiased, journalists included. How journalists and reporters think, report, vote, associate, and generally live their lives determine their biases. To pretend they don't have them or that they don't influence their media work is hypocritical. Better to admit a bias so readers, viewers and listeners know clearly what they are getting.
Given the proliferation of cable programming and internet sources, the Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur whose time has long since passed. The public is no longer starved for information by the 'scarce' resource of the airwaves used by a few broadcasters to provide news and opinion. We can stay informed or be influenced by any number of news and opinion sources.
Today's media landscape is diverse and growing increasingly so. The Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur in today's media world and best left to history's dustbin. If liberals are unhappy with their lot in talk radio, perhaps they need better spokespersons or better ideas or both.
August 17, 2007
Risk and the new financial order | Surviving the markets | Economist.com
Risk and the new financial order | Surviving the markets | Economist.com
A realistic assessment from the Economist of the present financial pain in the markets. The bottom line: the pain is not yet over as markets reprice risk from the hodge-podge of tradeable debt instruments.
A realistic assessment from the Economist of the present financial pain in the markets. The bottom line: the pain is not yet over as markets reprice risk from the hodge-podge of tradeable debt instruments.
August 16, 2007
Broadband snakes through power lines | ZDNet Photo Gallery
Broadband snakes through power lines | ZDNet Photo Gallery
A few simplistic photos showing how Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) works. There's some movement to introduce this service by a company called Current in the Dallas-Fort worth Area, which just entered a distribution agreement with DirectTV. I think the power company in Cincinnati has a trial underway. However, it seems early in the life of this technology and even if it's technically successful, the ability to compete against the dominant providers, telcos and cablecos, remains questionable. Rural areas may offer the best market for this technology, those areas where DSL, fiber and coax don't reach.
A few simplistic photos showing how Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) works. There's some movement to introduce this service by a company called Current in the Dallas-Fort worth Area, which just entered a distribution agreement with DirectTV. I think the power company in Cincinnati has a trial underway. However, it seems early in the life of this technology and even if it's technically successful, the ability to compete against the dominant providers, telcos and cablecos, remains questionable. Rural areas may offer the best market for this technology, those areas where DSL, fiber and coax don't reach.
August 15, 2007
Google and Microsoft Look to Change Health Care - New York Times
Google and Microsoft Look to Change Health Care - New York Times
I'm encouraged that these two giants are actively engaged in leading the transition to online health records because massive inertia exists within the medical establishment to move to online health records. This inertia is not so much willful as it is snarled in the regulatory and privacy webs that keep such an enormous project from moving ahead more rapidly.
Approaching the problem from the patient/consumer perspective is the right direction as long as we end up with systems that are fully interoperable. The last thing we want is several incompatible and competing systems. Standards for electronic medical records are key to this and much work is underway in this arena. The question is how long the process will take. The Wikipedia reference above suggests to me that we are many years from implementation of a universal EMR.
Consumer 'pull' may yet overcome industry/establishment 'push' if the patient options are easy to use. I hope the debate can ratchet up soon so this show can get on the road. I find it archaic that I cannot communicate with my primary care physician via email. I don't expect that he would personally handle all my email, but office staff could assist with simple questions, prescription refills, etc.
I'm encouraged that these two giants are actively engaged in leading the transition to online health records because massive inertia exists within the medical establishment to move to online health records. This inertia is not so much willful as it is snarled in the regulatory and privacy webs that keep such an enormous project from moving ahead more rapidly.
Approaching the problem from the patient/consumer perspective is the right direction as long as we end up with systems that are fully interoperable. The last thing we want is several incompatible and competing systems. Standards for electronic medical records are key to this and much work is underway in this arena. The question is how long the process will take. The Wikipedia reference above suggests to me that we are many years from implementation of a universal EMR.
Consumer 'pull' may yet overcome industry/establishment 'push' if the patient options are easy to use. I hope the debate can ratchet up soon so this show can get on the road. I find it archaic that I cannot communicate with my primary care physician via email. I don't expect that he would personally handle all my email, but office staff could assist with simple questions, prescription refills, etc.
August 13, 2007
Small Investors Seen as Safer in Stock Slide - New York Times
Small Investors Seen as Safer in Stock Slide - New York Times
This seems to me a realistic assessment of the current market volatility and the fundamentals underlying the market in today's economy.
This seems to me a realistic assessment of the current market volatility and the fundamentals underlying the market in today's economy.
August 12, 2007
Select Hospitals Reap a Windfall Under Child Bill - New York Times
Select Hospitals Reap a Windfall Under Child Bill - New York Times
Pork is pork is pork. Nothing changes. Washington politicians do everything they can to send taxpayers' money home. Any large bill can provide cover for this age old reality in Congress. This is not a party thing, it's a normal way of political life in Washington. Perhaps it's what people expect. Certainly, Vermont's special interests expect largess for all sorts of projects from their two Senators and lone Representative in D.C.
The Democrats' public statements about transparency are true ("When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised to be more open and accountable, saying they would disclose the purpose of each earmark, the name of the lawmaker requesting it and the name and address of the intended recipient." "But Democrats said they had no list of the projects in the recently passed bill and no explicit criteria or standards for judging which hospitals should be reassigned to an area with higher Medicare payments.").
Their pork barrel politics is plain to see. I guess that's what they mean by transparency. The feeble arguments used by Democrat leaders are laughable:
Pork is pork is pork. Nothing changes. Washington politicians do everything they can to send taxpayers' money home. Any large bill can provide cover for this age old reality in Congress. This is not a party thing, it's a normal way of political life in Washington. Perhaps it's what people expect. Certainly, Vermont's special interests expect largess for all sorts of projects from their two Senators and lone Representative in D.C.
The Democrats' public statements about transparency are true ("When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised to be more open and accountable, saying they would disclose the purpose of each earmark, the name of the lawmaker requesting it and the name and address of the intended recipient." "But Democrats said they had no list of the projects in the recently passed bill and no explicit criteria or standards for judging which hospitals should be reassigned to an area with higher Medicare payments.").
Their pork barrel politics is plain to see. I guess that's what they mean by transparency. The feeble arguments used by Democrat leaders are laughable:
"Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said people should keep the big picture in mind."
“It’s easy to criticize individual provisions of large, complex bills,” Mr. Elshami said, but “the focus should be on the huge number of uninsured children who will be eligible for life-saving health care under our bill.”
"Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is chairman of the subcommittee, acknowledged that “it’s hard to decipher” the cryptic language used in the bill to identify specific hospitals. “It’s always been thus,” Mr. Stark said in an interview. “I am at a loss to explain why.”Granting relief to particular hospitals is sometimes a way for Congress to improve “the equity and fairness” of Medicare payments, Mr. Stark said. Under Medicare, he added, “you are basically setting prices, and the system is clumsy.”"
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times
So, we learn from this article that "get out of Iraq now" is really a slogan to keep the radical left fringe fired up and to raise political campaign dollars. It's all rhetoric. The Democrats have been disingenuous in demanding that we leave Iraq now because any thinking person understands the risks and consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq or that region.
One can argue that we should not have gone there in force, but that argument is as hollow as saying that Hussein's repressive regime was good for the region because it kept 'order' by providing Sunni dominance over the Shia and all sorts of totalitarian atrocities. Because Hussein had corrupted the U.N. by bribing leaders with his oil money, it was clear the U.N. was incapable of any action to enforce its resolutions, absent the Coalition invasion.
Apparently Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are the only 'true believers.' The decision to run against Pelosi exemplifies her irrationality after her 'poor me' statement to back out of the spotlight. Her political race against Madam Speaker in San Francisco ought to be fun to watch.
So, we learn from this article that "get out of Iraq now" is really a slogan to keep the radical left fringe fired up and to raise political campaign dollars. It's all rhetoric. The Democrats have been disingenuous in demanding that we leave Iraq now because any thinking person understands the risks and consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq or that region.
One can argue that we should not have gone there in force, but that argument is as hollow as saying that Hussein's repressive regime was good for the region because it kept 'order' by providing Sunni dominance over the Shia and all sorts of totalitarian atrocities. Because Hussein had corrupted the U.N. by bribing leaders with his oil money, it was clear the U.N. was incapable of any action to enforce its resolutions, absent the Coalition invasion.
Apparently Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are the only 'true believers.' The decision to run against Pelosi exemplifies her irrationality after her 'poor me' statement to back out of the spotlight. Her political race against Madam Speaker in San Francisco ought to be fun to watch.
August 8, 2007
The Holocaust and Man's Evil
I don't know the truth of the British action below, but I do know that many in this crazy world would deny the Holocaust and also the extermination of millions of Russians under Stalin. To teach this reality and truth should never be denied. If the report is true, shame on those who made such a decision. More on this British issue is here at Snopes.
Those of us who do remember, at least the accounts we have read and heard, and those of us who have visited places like Dachau, Buchenwald, et al owe it to those younger to never let the reality of what people are capable of doing to each other fade from memory.
Those who believe that Man is inherently good, should learn otherwise in light of what history shows us to be the opposite. Warm feelings and emotionalism will not replace the harsh facts of our history on this planet.
(Received via email 8/18/07)
Those of us who do remember, at least the accounts we have read and heard, and those of us who have visited places like Dachau, Buchenwald, et al owe it to those younger to never let the reality of what people are capable of doing to each other fade from memory.
Those who believe that Man is inherently good, should learn otherwise in light of what history shows us to be the opposite. Warm feelings and emotionalism will not replace the harsh facts of our history on this planet.
(Received via email 8/18/07)
.......in memory
Strange as it may seem to be, only recently it was reported that the British School system has been ordered to cease teaching about the Holocaust since it offends the nature of the Muslim citizens. AND THEY DID IT! God save the Queen.... think about it...
Please read the little cartoon carefully, it's powerful. Then read the comments at the end, and please - forward it! We cannot, we must not, ever forget what happened in Europe over 60 years ago, because it could happen again. Anyone, any group, could be the target. It has been said that those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, those who are attempting to rewrite history are probably planning to repeat it! The hatred is already there, in place, taught to the children from infancy, with promises of glory and honor to those who carry out the plans. Forewarned is forearmed, and I'm doing my small part by forwarding this message. I hope you'll do the same. Make sure your children and grandchildren understand this too.
In Memoriam
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This email is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because the Islamo-Fascists want to do it again.
This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!
Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it aro und the world.
Please send this e-mail to 10 people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain.
Please don't just delete it. It will only take you a minute to pass this along - Thanks!
Strange as it may seem to be, only recently it was reported that the British School system has been ordered to cease teaching about the Holocaust since it offends the nature of the Muslim citizens. AND THEY DID IT! God save the Queen.... think about it...
Please read the little cartoon carefully, it's powerful. Then read the comments at the end, and please - forward it! We cannot, we must not, ever forget what happened in Europe over 60 years ago, because it could happen again. Anyone, any group, could be the target. It has been said that those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. In this case, those who are attempting to rewrite history are probably planning to repeat it! The hatred is already there, in place, taught to the children from infancy, with promises of glory and honor to those who carry out the plans. Forewarned is forearmed, and I'm doing my small part by forwarding this message. I hope you'll do the same. Make sure your children and grandchildren understand this too.
In Memoriam
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This email is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because the Islamo-Fascists want to do it again.
This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!
Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it aro und the world.
Please send this e-mail to 10 people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain.
Please don't just delete it. It will only take you a minute to pass this along - Thanks!
Vermont Transportation Investments
(posted by me in the Burlington Free Press' online forum on August 3; published in their print edition on August 7, 2007)
The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice.
In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'
If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.
I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.
True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.
Legislators...are you listening?
The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice.
In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'
If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.
I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.
True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.
Legislators...are you listening?
Culture, Character & Jobs
Two news items in the same week spoke volumes about our culture, education system and the values that are shaped in our young people. The first was a story that quoted William Stenger, Chair of the Next Generation Commission, the group charged with recommending how we can keep our young people in Vermont rather than seeking jobs elsewhere. Stenger said that one third of our Vermont kids during or after secondary education become "drifters," another third obtain solid jobs, while the remainder go on to more education.
The second item was a story about how the Japanese auto company, Toyota, provides skill-building for its employees to make the Lexus, an automobile with a world-class reputation for quality. However, Toyota spends even more time and resources fostering the development of solid character in the individuals to help them become effective team workers. Toyota believes that an individual's motivation and character create the culture of quality pivotal to their business success.
Almost immediately, William Mathis, a Rutland school superintendent and UVM instructor issued a rebuke to Stenger's drifter characterization as 'mean, 'harsh,' and 'factually incorrect.' Mathis suggests that Vermont employers don't provide enough high quality, good paying jobs as the reason graduates leave the state, despite the state's low unemployment rate (under 4% for years). Data shows that net new private sector job growth has averaged below 2,000 jobs annually since year 2000. We graduate about 7,000 people each year from high school and approximately 1,000 drop out of school annually. But the job outlook is improving.
Vermont's Department of Labor predicts that for the next few years, we will add about 3,600 new jobs and replace about 8,100 annually. This means that about 11,700 jobs will be available each year with only 8,000 new Vermont workers available to take them. Mathis is probably wrong in one respect given these data. If graduates were well-skilled and motivated, the jobs should be available for them. Stenger is surely correct in that a large number of graduates are either not motivated or not educated/skilled for these jobs, or both.
Of course many people will move to Vermont for some jobs, but only if the state is an affordable place to live and the jobs pay enough. Otherwise many jobs will be filled elsewhere as businesses choose to move or grow outside of Vermont. Affordability for both employers and workers is the real problem that Governor Douglas articulates so frequently.
However, I find a more disturbing fact from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. From 2001-2005, Vermont, at 4.5%, had by far the highest growth in government (state and local) jobs among the six New England states. In fact, three states substantially reduced the number of government jobs while we had double the growth rate in Maine and triple that in New Hampshire! These jobs are funded by our taxes and we wonder why Vermonters complain about the high cost of government!
In thinking about the values and attitudes of our young people in Vermont and elsewhere, 'the group' is the thing, rather than personal excellence at whatever level of capability an individual may possess. A person who is not motivated to achieve his/her personal best risks the 'drifter' label. Certainly, many youngsters strive to excel and understand that competition is a valuable spur to achieving one's best. But the dominant theme appears to be group harmony, social success and teaming over and above individual excellence. Is this why the valedictory and salutatory honors have been eliminated in some high schools...to achieve harmony?
Certainly, success for most people includes doing well in groups and teams. However, many people excel when they are driven by their competitive inner self rather than group acceptance. And true leadership is most certainly spurred from within, not based on social acceptance. A leader usually has a single-minded purpose that requires stimulating others to give their best to an effort, not merely 'fitting in' with the crowd.
It seems our schools, by immersion in the broader culture, sometime foster community 'group-think' on life's issues rather than personal achievement balanced with contributing to the common good. All too often, we are encouraged to believe that we are disadvantaged because of our gender or gender preference or race or family condition, etc.,which cause our personal and societal problems.
Our school leaders and teachers should avoid the trap of believing and inculcating values that do not encourage clear thinking for young people. Adults must be diligent to describe and model a high standard, not one that produces expectations that society or government or 'they' owe 'us' something. Achieving group harmony, blaming 'discrimination,' and entitlement thinking instead of working hard to attain individual achievement, are debilitating messages. They help produce the 'drifters' that Stenger describes.
This entitlement culture has been reinforced for a generation as we have migrated away from achieving personal excellence in favor of group harmony and community. A vibrant culture and economy is built upon individuals working hard to be all they can be and doing their utmost to achieve success and happiness while giving back to the community at the same time. Our educators and other adults shortchange the next generation if they model or inculcate values that may subliminally promote or sanction drifting rather than personal achievement for the common good.
Toyota has it right, inner motivation and character matter most for a quality job.
Vermont Transportation Energy Study
The UVM Transportation Center recently published this report about energy usage in the transportation sector. Some valuable information in the report. It should serve to inform policy makers about one aspect of Vermont's transportation sector.
I would love to see a study of the future costs of options to bring Vermont's transportation infrastructure into better condition.
I would love to see a study of the future costs of options to bring Vermont's transportation infrastructure into better condition.
August 7, 2007
Philadelphia Italian Market Photo
A photo I took in Philadelphia a few years ago while we were attending a friend's wedding has been included in an online guide to the city. If the widget works, clicking on the photo tab under the map should reveal the photo (among others) which was originally posted here on Flickr.
August 3, 2007
Vermont's Transportation Infrastructure
The disaster in Minnesota should be a wakeup call for Vermont. While a bridge disaster of that scale is unlikely here, Vermont's infrastructure, particularly bridges, is in poor shape. Leaders will do all they can to reassure the public that it's unlikely here.
The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice to catch up with demand.
In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'
If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.
I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.
True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.
Legislators...are you listening?
The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice to catch up with demand.
In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'
If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.
I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.
True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.
Legislators...are you listening?
August 1, 2007
In Praise of Tap Water - New York Times
In Praise of Tap Water - New York Times
I agree with this editorial about the necessity for clean tap water and the wasteful use of plastic bottles and the added costs in fuel for shipping it. We have gone way overboard in our use of bottled water, succumbing to the marketing hype and the social pressures that result in group-think that bottled water is 'better.'
We should be thankful that we have such a clean and safe water supply in this country. The price of my tap water is a bargain at twice the price.
The editorial omits an important reason that bottled water is so successful...convenience, particularly for commuters and other travelers.
I agree with this editorial about the necessity for clean tap water and the wasteful use of plastic bottles and the added costs in fuel for shipping it. We have gone way overboard in our use of bottled water, succumbing to the marketing hype and the social pressures that result in group-think that bottled water is 'better.'
We should be thankful that we have such a clean and safe water supply in this country. The price of my tap water is a bargain at twice the price.
The editorial omits an important reason that bottled water is so successful...convenience, particularly for commuters and other travelers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)