My wife and I repeated a discussion tonight we've had a number of times. She believes, as many in America do, that anyone can become anything they want if given the right opportunity and the right education. I maintain that everyone has inherent limitations that will permit them to achieve only so much, regardless of effort and opportunity. At heart, it is a nature vs. nurture discussion.
I'm the first to admit that upbringing and opportunity play an extremely large role in how much a person achieves. However, I can also demonstrate a number of situations where people succeeded despite a horrible upbringing, or became a colossal failure or psychopath while raised in a normal, loving environment. For me, nature has predetermined the zenith of your capabilities, nurture determines if you achieve your full potential.
I see the conversation as no different than the conversation of talent vs discipline. For some, talent will allow them to achieve superior results without having to practice their craft. For others, like Rod Smith of the Denver Broncos, they will work harder than everyone else and make up for a lack of natural talent with heart, determination and hard work. If Terrell Owens put as much work into his craft as Rod Smith does - or Jerry Rice did - he would have every receiving record in the book.
Americans have bought into the myth that "opportunity" is synonymous with "capability". America ostensibly provides everyone an equal opportunity to succeed - through equal access to education, and anti-discrimination laws. Whether or not you make the most of the opportunities is up to you. To believe that just because you are permitted to try means that you will undoubtedly succeed is why American Idol is able to entertain so many viewers with the horrendous singing of the hopefuls who actually believe their tone-deaf souls can win the competition.
Taking this another step further, to assume that everyone has a chance at college is laughable. Roughly 20% of the population attains a college degree, yet our High Schools focus curriculum on college preparatory material. Providing everyone the opportunity to obtain the requisite education to apply and gain acceptance to a university is noble and admirable. Neglecting 80% of the population and not preparing them for success in the world without a college degree is derelict and shameful.
The role of High School is to prepare our children to be successful adults and citizens - not to prepare them for college. For every student taking AP English or Calculus, there are four who need to learn how to read their lease agreements and balance their check book. For every student in debate class, preparing to be a lawyer, there are four who need to learn how to disassemble, repair, and reassemble a combustion engine, or how to type a formal email. By focusing the efforts of a school - and measuring its success - on the number of students it prepares for college, we inevitably neglect 80% of the population.
We need to view our educational system as an investment in our future tax base. If we assume it costs $200,000 to educate a child from ages five to eighteen, we need to ensure we have prepared them to provide a net return of $250,000 in taxes from ages 18 to 78 after deducting the cost for shared services (police, fire, roads) and used services (social security, medicaid, welfare). If we fail to prepare the non-college bound students for a semi-skilled job upon graduation - mechanic, typist, machinist, courier - we have prepared them for a life at minimum wage or, worse yet, a life on welfare or in jail; none of which provides a return on our investment.
We rant and lament pages and pages of ink on the poor fiscal management of our government. We debate the cause of our education system losing ground to other countries. We demand more money for our schools and teachers. But we never seek a solid return on our investment. We never seek to prepare those who will never attend college to be productive citizens. Instead, we ask for unearned diplomas and easier college admissions. We need to recognize that college is for the mind what professional sports are for the body - a place for the elite, the highly talented and the most disciplined. Not a place for every average Joe hoping to have a piece of paper so he can make $15 an hour.
It is time we demand that High Schools teach life skills to everyone, ingenuity to the gifted, and menial skills to the mentally suspect. We all need mechanics as much as we need doctors. We won't have a home unless we have both an architect and a carpenter. Though we will never value both roles the same financially, we must value them equally socially.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Disintegration of America
Forty years ago, America put a man on the moon. Since then, we fought in Vietnam, we've been in Iraq twice, and we've generated the worlds largest debt. We are the leading global producer of pollution. We spend more money in gross and per-capita on our military than any other nation, and are in the bottom third in industrialized nations for spending on education and health care. When did the land of opportunity become the nation of militaristic imperialism?
While our leadership focuses on protecting our oil interest in the Middle East, Brazil has become independent of foreign oil. While we continue to provide money, through the purchase of OPEC oil, to the terrorists who seek to destroy us, Europe sets the minimum fuel efficiency standards for automobiles at 42 MPG. The current administration's ties to the American oil industry have closed its eyes to the benefits of higher fuel efficiency standards, research into biofuels, and the pursuit of pollution-free energy.
While America spends $640 billion a year - $53 billion a month - on a war to protect oil, Asian nations are spending on education. Each month, China and India grow closer to surpassing us as the center of the global economy because their populations gain the benefits of government sponsored education at leading American universities. While we focus money on preventing people who want to move here and work for a living, poorer nations are providing free Wi-Fi access to its poorest citizens in hopes of increasing their access to knowledge.
As the 2008 election approaches, ask yourself these questions:
While our leadership focuses on protecting our oil interest in the Middle East, Brazil has become independent of foreign oil. While we continue to provide money, through the purchase of OPEC oil, to the terrorists who seek to destroy us, Europe sets the minimum fuel efficiency standards for automobiles at 42 MPG. The current administration's ties to the American oil industry have closed its eyes to the benefits of higher fuel efficiency standards, research into biofuels, and the pursuit of pollution-free energy.
While America spends $640 billion a year - $53 billion a month - on a war to protect oil, Asian nations are spending on education. Each month, China and India grow closer to surpassing us as the center of the global economy because their populations gain the benefits of government sponsored education at leading American universities. While we focus money on preventing people who want to move here and work for a living, poorer nations are providing free Wi-Fi access to its poorest citizens in hopes of increasing their access to knowledge.
As the 2008 election approaches, ask yourself these questions:
- Will this candidate eliminate our dependence on foreign oil so we can stop funding the terrorist groups that attack us?
- Will this candidate focus more on educating our citizens than it will on arming them?
- Will this candidate fill their political appointments based on merit instead of religious affiliation?
- Does this candidate care more about preparing America for the future or holding on the glory of its past?
No other questions truly matter.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Differences: Men Vs. Women
At a company function, recently, I had a friendly discussion about the differences between men and women when it came to shopping. Basically, the differences came down to the following:
1) Women view shopping as an activity. Women are the reason that vacation destinations will list "great shopping" as a reason to visit. If a man sees "great shopping" in the top ten reasons to vacation, they don't go there.
2) Women will buy something they don't need just because it is on sale. Men will buy something they don't need because it is "really cool".
3) Women buy crap and brag about how little they spent for it. Men will overpay for something - like a boat - so they can brag about how much they spent for it.
The conversation started me thinking: what other ways to men and women differ? More importantly why do they differ - other than for the obvious anatomical reasons?
For example:
Recent studies are now objectively determining why men earn more - women don't ask for it and they work in professions - teaching, nursing - that pay less than traditional male jobs - lawyer, doctor.
But why do women laugh more? Personally, I think it's because men are always trying to impress women with humor because women always say they want a man who can make them laugh - though they always marry a man who pays their bills.
Any man worth his penis also knows that women win in court - not necessarily as lawyers, but as plaintiffs. It's to the point that there is a disincentive for men to marry. More than half of all marriages end in divorce. The wealthier party - typically the male because they earn more - loses half their net worth. Kids end up with the mother in an overwhelming majority of custody battles, and men often pay child support for children they never get to see. Why get married?
For me, the biggest difference between men and women is what they need to carry when they go out. Women tote a ten pound bag with everything from their M.I.L.K. - Money, ID, Lipstick, Keys - to a change of clothes. They carry so much that the cell phone ends up at the bottom of the bag and they can never hear it ring. Men, on the other hand, carry everything they need in a small leather pouch that fits in their back pocket. Talk about efficiency!
Finally, how many men have successful day time talk shows? How many shows that air during work hours are geared towards men? Why do you think that is?
NOTE: I make no value statements as to which is the better gender (or I get none from the wife), I just note the differences and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
1) Women view shopping as an activity. Women are the reason that vacation destinations will list "great shopping" as a reason to visit. If a man sees "great shopping" in the top ten reasons to vacation, they don't go there.
2) Women will buy something they don't need just because it is on sale. Men will buy something they don't need because it is "really cool".
3) Women buy crap and brag about how little they spent for it. Men will overpay for something - like a boat - so they can brag about how much they spent for it.
The conversation started me thinking: what other ways to men and women differ? More importantly why do they differ - other than for the obvious anatomical reasons?
For example:
Recent studies are now objectively determining why men earn more - women don't ask for it and they work in professions - teaching, nursing - that pay less than traditional male jobs - lawyer, doctor.
But why do women laugh more? Personally, I think it's because men are always trying to impress women with humor because women always say they want a man who can make them laugh - though they always marry a man who pays their bills.
Any man worth his penis also knows that women win in court - not necessarily as lawyers, but as plaintiffs. It's to the point that there is a disincentive for men to marry. More than half of all marriages end in divorce. The wealthier party - typically the male because they earn more - loses half their net worth. Kids end up with the mother in an overwhelming majority of custody battles, and men often pay child support for children they never get to see. Why get married?
For me, the biggest difference between men and women is what they need to carry when they go out. Women tote a ten pound bag with everything from their M.I.L.K. - Money, ID, Lipstick, Keys - to a change of clothes. They carry so much that the cell phone ends up at the bottom of the bag and they can never hear it ring. Men, on the other hand, carry everything they need in a small leather pouch that fits in their back pocket. Talk about efficiency!
Finally, how many men have successful day time talk shows? How many shows that air during work hours are geared towards men? Why do you think that is?
NOTE: I make no value statements as to which is the better gender (or I get none from the wife), I just note the differences and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
Carrie Underwood Promotes Domestic Violence
Carrie Underwood, winner of American Idol 4, and several CMA awards has a new number one hit single with "Before He Cheats". On the surface, this song encourages women to take a stand against unfaithful lovers. In the video, between scenes of her "boyfriend" kissing another woman, Carrie attacks his truck with a baseball bat, shattering glass and damaging the truck's body. The video is very powerful, and, coupled with the lyrics, you cheer for Carrie as she commits felonious destruction of property as retribution for a cheating heart.
But what are we really encouraging? What if the roles were reversed, and a man takes a baseball bat to a woman's vehicle because she left him for another man? A cursory review of the domestic violence laws in most states indicates that if the roles were reversed, the man would be prosecuted and jailed for domestic violence and stalking.
I would also offer, that if the roles were reversed, there would be outrage. If Garth Brooks or Tim McGraw sang a song called "Her Cheating Heart" coupled with lyrics about burning down her house, or even just scratching the paint on her car, and then created a video of one of them spying on her through a window, the women of N.O.W. would be picketing their concerts. You'd hear Congresswomen lamenting the woes of women and how promoting domestic violence in music and video is dangerous and unforgivable. Oprah would interview female victims of the "McGraw Effect".
When the man is the victim, however - or, more directly, his personal property - there is no outrage. Who will speak of the inequity? Tom Leykis and Jerry Springer? Maybe. More likely is that men will do what they always do: sit back, take it like a man, and know that some guy, somewhere, is scoring with Carrie and plans to leak the video on the internet. I'm thinking her next song will be "Before He Leaks".
But what are we really encouraging? What if the roles were reversed, and a man takes a baseball bat to a woman's vehicle because she left him for another man? A cursory review of the domestic violence laws in most states indicates that if the roles were reversed, the man would be prosecuted and jailed for domestic violence and stalking.
I would also offer, that if the roles were reversed, there would be outrage. If Garth Brooks or Tim McGraw sang a song called "Her Cheating Heart" coupled with lyrics about burning down her house, or even just scratching the paint on her car, and then created a video of one of them spying on her through a window, the women of N.O.W. would be picketing their concerts. You'd hear Congresswomen lamenting the woes of women and how promoting domestic violence in music and video is dangerous and unforgivable. Oprah would interview female victims of the "McGraw Effect".
When the man is the victim, however - or, more directly, his personal property - there is no outrage. Who will speak of the inequity? Tom Leykis and Jerry Springer? Maybe. More likely is that men will do what they always do: sit back, take it like a man, and know that some guy, somewhere, is scoring with Carrie and plans to leak the video on the internet. I'm thinking her next song will be "Before He Leaks".
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
WalMart is Not Evil
MSNBC posted an article today about communities that fight big box WalMart stores from appearing in their community. The opposition to WalMart has always fascinated me. Communities rally together against WalMart as if it were a strip club going up between a church and a nursery school.
I just don't get it.
According to the article, the opposition typically falls into one of three groups:
1) Those who fear neighborhood blight
2) Those who fear the small shops will have to close
3) Those who think WalMart underpays its employees.
Neighborhood Blight
Of the three reasons, this is the only one for which I can muster a modicum of support. However, examining this claim further only leads to more questions. WalMart does not propose to build a store in an area zoned for residential development. Arguably, if WalMart does not erect one of its buildings, another business would in the near future. If an organization does not want stores to build in a certain area, they should lobby the local government to change the zoning rules. At this point, it becomes apparent they are discriminating against WalMart in favor of other businesses - a clear violation of any concept of fairness.
Closing Small Shops
If I owned a small shop in a town where WalMart planned to setup shop, I'd fight them, too. Why would I want a competitor? Especially a competitor who will be more convenient and sell the same things I sell at a price lower than I actually buy it for myself! Competition is good for the economy. The most competitive companies get the consumer's dollar. If you are not competitive enough to survive even if WalMart moves in, you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. Don't hurt the consumers to save one business. It isn't American.
Underpaid Employees
This one galls me the most. We have unions fighting WalMart, liberal groups fighting WalMart, but not one single employee! If WalMart's wages were an issue, their employees would go and work at Target. If the option is no job, or a minimum wage job at WalMart, they'll take the job at WalMart. If WalMart paid them more, it would either employee fewer or be forced to close its doors and leaving employees with no jobs.
You'll see me fighting WalMart if they become a monopoly, engage in illegal practices....or try to move into my neighborhood - NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
I just don't get it.
According to the article, the opposition typically falls into one of three groups:
1) Those who fear neighborhood blight
2) Those who fear the small shops will have to close
3) Those who think WalMart underpays its employees.
Neighborhood Blight
Of the three reasons, this is the only one for which I can muster a modicum of support. However, examining this claim further only leads to more questions. WalMart does not propose to build a store in an area zoned for residential development. Arguably, if WalMart does not erect one of its buildings, another business would in the near future. If an organization does not want stores to build in a certain area, they should lobby the local government to change the zoning rules. At this point, it becomes apparent they are discriminating against WalMart in favor of other businesses - a clear violation of any concept of fairness.
Closing Small Shops
If I owned a small shop in a town where WalMart planned to setup shop, I'd fight them, too. Why would I want a competitor? Especially a competitor who will be more convenient and sell the same things I sell at a price lower than I actually buy it for myself! Competition is good for the economy. The most competitive companies get the consumer's dollar. If you are not competitive enough to survive even if WalMart moves in, you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. Don't hurt the consumers to save one business. It isn't American.
Underpaid Employees
This one galls me the most. We have unions fighting WalMart, liberal groups fighting WalMart, but not one single employee! If WalMart's wages were an issue, their employees would go and work at Target. If the option is no job, or a minimum wage job at WalMart, they'll take the job at WalMart. If WalMart paid them more, it would either employee fewer or be forced to close its doors and leaving employees with no jobs.
You'll see me fighting WalMart if they become a monopoly, engage in illegal practices....or try to move into my neighborhood - NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Evolution is not just real; it's mandatory.
We live in exciting times; some might even say scary. We definitely live in a world with exponential change, closing gaps - geographic, educational, wealth - and economic growth. We live in a time when technology is advancing so fast, we can see that at the current pace, we will have surpassed our imagination.
We live in a time where "literati" will have a new meaning. We have surpassed the "information age" and are rapidly accelerating into the "knowledge age". Mere bits and bytes of data are insufficient. Knowledge itself is becoming obsolete.
Unfortunately, by the time we realize we have entered the "knowledge age", we will already be behind those who have recognized that knowledge is not what is important. The application of that knowledge is what matters. And they will be behind, still, those who recognize that it is not the application of knowledge, but the creation of new knowledge, what Buddhists must view as Nirvana, that will matter.
We live in a time that requires us to evolve. We must evolve as intellectuals, as Americans, and, most importantly, as a human race. As intellectuals, we must look beyond what is ordinary, and recognize the attainability of the extraordinary. As Americans, we must recognize that we will soon be looking up to the new global superpower. We must recognize that the new superpower will no longer have a white face; no longer be a Christian. We must evolve as humans, to see that humanity is what matters, not race, not religion, not gender.
Must we evolve to a collective? A communism of knowledge, if not of economics. Will this new communal thinking remove our creativity, our intelligence, and our individualism? Or, as Linux, Firefox, YouTube, MySpace, and Wikipedia have all shown us, will the community only ENHANCE our creativity, EXPAND our intellectual prowess, and EXPLOIT our individualism on a new stage?
Only time will tell. The one thing that is clear is that you will either sit on the side and watch it pass by at the speed of fiber optics, or you'll change with it. Evolve with it. Those who don't evolve won't have offspring who survive.
Maybe Darwin really had something.
http://scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv
We live in a time where "literati" will have a new meaning. We have surpassed the "information age" and are rapidly accelerating into the "knowledge age". Mere bits and bytes of data are insufficient. Knowledge itself is becoming obsolete.
Unfortunately, by the time we realize we have entered the "knowledge age", we will already be behind those who have recognized that knowledge is not what is important. The application of that knowledge is what matters. And they will be behind, still, those who recognize that it is not the application of knowledge, but the creation of new knowledge, what Buddhists must view as Nirvana, that will matter.
We live in a time that requires us to evolve. We must evolve as intellectuals, as Americans, and, most importantly, as a human race. As intellectuals, we must look beyond what is ordinary, and recognize the attainability of the extraordinary. As Americans, we must recognize that we will soon be looking up to the new global superpower. We must recognize that the new superpower will no longer have a white face; no longer be a Christian. We must evolve as humans, to see that humanity is what matters, not race, not religion, not gender.
Must we evolve to a collective? A communism of knowledge, if not of economics. Will this new communal thinking remove our creativity, our intelligence, and our individualism? Or, as Linux, Firefox, YouTube, MySpace, and Wikipedia have all shown us, will the community only ENHANCE our creativity, EXPAND our intellectual prowess, and EXPLOIT our individualism on a new stage?
Only time will tell. The one thing that is clear is that you will either sit on the side and watch it pass by at the speed of fiber optics, or you'll change with it. Evolve with it. Those who don't evolve won't have offspring who survive.
Maybe Darwin really had something.
http://scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv
Sunday, January 28, 2007
My Public Service Announcement (PSA)
The last two weeks, I was reminded of why I hate church, with two examples.
1) Last weekend, my wife's sister "dedicated" her daughter in a church ceremony. This church has replaced baby baptism with baby dedications where the parents publicly announce they are dedicating their child to God. Though I have a lot of issues with forcing the Bible down children's throats, more directly - brainwashing them, especially since the Bible is conspicuously vague on how to handle children, I'm actually okay with the dedication vs. the baptism. It is a commitment by the parents to raise their child according to their beliefs, which is really what we should expect of parents (and hope they believe the right things).
However, while I was there, the church did an "advertisment" - there really isn't a more descriptive word - for their "Biblical Finance" class. On the surface, I support its intent - speak to the congregation about how to stay out of debt using a language they are used to following - scripture. Where I have a HUGE issue, is that they charge a fee for the class and consider it part of the non-profit arm of the church.
A church has a non-profit designation because it relies on "donations". There is no cover charge to attend a service. Churches that charge a mandatory fee for anything - Bible study, camp, etc - explicitly violate the charter of a "non-profit" and should pay tax as a capital enterprise. This church also has a book store in it that sells religious goods. Again, a RETAIL enterprise inside the church! Didn't Christ destroy the merchants at the temple in a rage??? This is the type of hypocrisy that sets me off.
2) I had an interesting combination of television this evening. We watched the movie "Mississippi Burning" - a movie about the KKK murder of activists in the 1960's - and then watched a documentary on the current day evangelicals in America. What was absolutely shocking to me, and quite scary, was how close the rhetoric of the modern-day evangelicals is to that of the Klan. They hate gays. They hate Jews. One "man of God" even complained that the IRS was auditing his "ministry" because of their involvement in politics because he is white! "They don't do this to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson", he actually said on camera.
When you look at Jim Baker and Terry Haggard, it is quite clear what these men are really after - POWER. Jerry Falwell (alive when I wrote this) and James Dobson are the most evil men in the world because they take the most fundamental part of a human - the search for truth - and turn it into profit for themselves.
Finally, nothing angers me more than when "Christians" completely miss the greatest gift God gave us. It is not, as many would have you believe, His Son, Jesus. God gave us all a gift long before that, and is the most fundamental gift - an "inalienable right", one could say - that He ever gave us. God gave us "Free Will".
Without free will, there would only have ever been Adam and Eve. God recognized that the only true love is the love that is not forced. The love that comes willingly. Our founding fathers acknowledged that gift by separating church from state and allowing us to worship our God in our own way. Free will is not only fundamental to democracy, it is the first gift God ever gave us.
If we want to see what a theocracy looks like, we can look at Tibet, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Iran. I will not let America become that. I will not let America become a nation ruled by the same zealots that threw Copernicous and Galileo in prison as heretics because they contradicted religious "fact" - and ultimately were proven correct.
"Church" is why the greatest scientists in history were athiests.
...the more you know.
1) Last weekend, my wife's sister "dedicated" her daughter in a church ceremony. This church has replaced baby baptism with baby dedications where the parents publicly announce they are dedicating their child to God. Though I have a lot of issues with forcing the Bible down children's throats, more directly - brainwashing them, especially since the Bible is conspicuously vague on how to handle children, I'm actually okay with the dedication vs. the baptism. It is a commitment by the parents to raise their child according to their beliefs, which is really what we should expect of parents (and hope they believe the right things).
However, while I was there, the church did an "advertisment" - there really isn't a more descriptive word - for their "Biblical Finance" class. On the surface, I support its intent - speak to the congregation about how to stay out of debt using a language they are used to following - scripture. Where I have a HUGE issue, is that they charge a fee for the class and consider it part of the non-profit arm of the church.
A church has a non-profit designation because it relies on "donations". There is no cover charge to attend a service. Churches that charge a mandatory fee for anything - Bible study, camp, etc - explicitly violate the charter of a "non-profit" and should pay tax as a capital enterprise. This church also has a book store in it that sells religious goods. Again, a RETAIL enterprise inside the church! Didn't Christ destroy the merchants at the temple in a rage??? This is the type of hypocrisy that sets me off.
2) I had an interesting combination of television this evening. We watched the movie "Mississippi Burning" - a movie about the KKK murder of activists in the 1960's - and then watched a documentary on the current day evangelicals in America. What was absolutely shocking to me, and quite scary, was how close the rhetoric of the modern-day evangelicals is to that of the Klan. They hate gays. They hate Jews. One "man of God" even complained that the IRS was auditing his "ministry" because of their involvement in politics because he is white! "They don't do this to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson", he actually said on camera.
When you look at Jim Baker and Terry Haggard, it is quite clear what these men are really after - POWER. Jerry Falwell (alive when I wrote this) and James Dobson are the most evil men in the world because they take the most fundamental part of a human - the search for truth - and turn it into profit for themselves.
Finally, nothing angers me more than when "Christians" completely miss the greatest gift God gave us. It is not, as many would have you believe, His Son, Jesus. God gave us all a gift long before that, and is the most fundamental gift - an "inalienable right", one could say - that He ever gave us. God gave us "Free Will".
Without free will, there would only have ever been Adam and Eve. God recognized that the only true love is the love that is not forced. The love that comes willingly. Our founding fathers acknowledged that gift by separating church from state and allowing us to worship our God in our own way. Free will is not only fundamental to democracy, it is the first gift God ever gave us.
If we want to see what a theocracy looks like, we can look at Tibet, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Iran. I will not let America become that. I will not let America become a nation ruled by the same zealots that threw Copernicous and Galileo in prison as heretics because they contradicted religious "fact" - and ultimately were proven correct.
"Church" is why the greatest scientists in history were athiests.
...the more you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)