While the politicians and the press and the pundits and the critics continue to rail about the unemployment and how to return jobs to Americans, the data continues to show plenty of jobs with no qualified workers. The real drought in American society is training and skilled labor. The national unemployment rate would probably be closer to 6% if we had more machinists and welders and drillers and IT technicians - all the jobs we have steered young people away from during our mindless push toward bachelor degrees for all students.
There are as many as 3.6 million unfilled jobs across America - the highest number of vacancies in years. To his credit, President Obama has made this more of a priority, calling for increased investment in community college and job training programs. That is certainly more than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have offered - as they simply believe that cuts in dividends and marginal rates will magically spur hiring. It won't. But at the same time, President Obama's plan has not seen the investment he touts - for his Race-to-the-Top has done nothing to promote Career and Technical Education.
Perhaps, if our leaders simply checked the news and asked employers, we might start putting people back to work.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Reasons to Vote for Mitt Romney
As I noted with the recent post on reasons to vote for President Obama, moderate voters look at the issue rationally and concede that neither candidate is going to destroy the country. The average American is looking for candidates who can present a moderate platform and plan which ignores the extremes and the exaggerations of his party and governs for all Americans. Certainly, there are reasons to criticize Mitt Romney - and much of it comes from comments he has made, notably the disparaging words about 47% of Americans. However, to focus on that is to ignore the achievements of a man who is by all accounts a successful businessman and political leader. From his stellar business career to his work with the Olympics to his term as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney offers countless reasons why moderate, rational, genuine people would think he is the better choice for president. For example, they know/believe:
1. His successful career as governor of Massachusetts where he balanced the budget every year by working with a legislature that was heavily weighted toward the Democrat Party.
2. His work in the Olympics in which he was literally called in to "save" an organization that was plagued by scandal and cost over-runs and waste. By cutting unnecessary spending and securing corporate sponsorship to fund part of the games, Mitt helped lead one of the most successful Olympics in history.
3. As a man who worked most of his career in finance, Mitt Romney proved he knows how to analyze data as a way of helping companies operate more efficiently. Granted, that sometimes means cutting aspects of a company that are a drag on the success of the company. However, that is necessary, and it is a skill that the federal government has clearly lacked for decades.
4. Along with Paul Ryan he is proposing bold and necessary changes to the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which are on unsustainable financial courses. Despite cries from many people, these changes must be made.
5. He will lower tax rates and encourage investment which will spur economic activity and produce jobs. By closing loopholes in a tax code that is ridiculously convoluted, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's plan will repair a disaster of special interest government.
6. He will cut out unnecessary and wasteful government programs that our current government has been reluctant to challenge. This includes subsidies to organizations such as the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. While many decry this as an attack on Big Bird, there are many Americans who do not believe the government should be in the business of funding broadcasting - especially when news sources such as NPR have a decidedly liberal slant.
7. A majority of Americans for a variety of reasons oppose the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - and never asked for such a monstrous piece of legislation - especially one that requires the purchase of a product like insurance. This was a huge overreach by the Obama Administration during a time of economic crisis.
8. Free birth control? People can pay for their own birth control. And Planned Parenthood is an organization that can - and maybe should - be entirely privately funded.
9. Mitt Romney will appoint federal judges who will rule against Roe v. Wade - which won't outlaw abortion, but would simply return the issue to the states.
10. They just like Mitt Romney better - they trust him to fix the economy in a way that they feel President Obama hasn't
1. His successful career as governor of Massachusetts where he balanced the budget every year by working with a legislature that was heavily weighted toward the Democrat Party.
2. His work in the Olympics in which he was literally called in to "save" an organization that was plagued by scandal and cost over-runs and waste. By cutting unnecessary spending and securing corporate sponsorship to fund part of the games, Mitt helped lead one of the most successful Olympics in history.
3. As a man who worked most of his career in finance, Mitt Romney proved he knows how to analyze data as a way of helping companies operate more efficiently. Granted, that sometimes means cutting aspects of a company that are a drag on the success of the company. However, that is necessary, and it is a skill that the federal government has clearly lacked for decades.
4. Along with Paul Ryan he is proposing bold and necessary changes to the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which are on unsustainable financial courses. Despite cries from many people, these changes must be made.
5. He will lower tax rates and encourage investment which will spur economic activity and produce jobs. By closing loopholes in a tax code that is ridiculously convoluted, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's plan will repair a disaster of special interest government.
6. He will cut out unnecessary and wasteful government programs that our current government has been reluctant to challenge. This includes subsidies to organizations such as the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. While many decry this as an attack on Big Bird, there are many Americans who do not believe the government should be in the business of funding broadcasting - especially when news sources such as NPR have a decidedly liberal slant.
7. A majority of Americans for a variety of reasons oppose the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - and never asked for such a monstrous piece of legislation - especially one that requires the purchase of a product like insurance. This was a huge overreach by the Obama Administration during a time of economic crisis.
8. Free birth control? People can pay for their own birth control. And Planned Parenthood is an organization that can - and maybe should - be entirely privately funded.
9. Mitt Romney will appoint federal judges who will rule against Roe v. Wade - which won't outlaw abortion, but would simply return the issue to the states.
10. They just like Mitt Romney better - they trust him to fix the economy in a way that they feel President Obama hasn't
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Reasons to Vote for President Obama
As the election nears its home stretch, and Hurricane Sandy opens up all sorts of new conversations regarding government and its role and bi-partisanship and the common good, it's worth taking a look at why we would vote for either candidate. More importantly, it's worth acknowledging that both candidates have the good of the country at heart, and, as I told a woman who knocked on my door the other day, "If President Obama or Mitt Romney wins, the country is not going to fall to pieces." We aren't going to go over the fiscal cliff, the government won't take over our lives, and America won't be on its way down.
With that in mind, I am considering the naive hope that we can simply learn to concede and acknowledge opposing view while moving toward more moments of consensus, such as we saw between New Jersey Governor Chris Cristi and President Obama this week. Despite a move toward political division and intransigence, we are all Americans first. This is a point we are reminded of in the new book by former moderate Republican congressman Micky Edwards. Edwards posed some valuable ideas about partisanship in the Atlantic Monthly when he considered How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. His ideas about partisanship are worth considering.
So, even though there are many arguments against a second term for President Obama, here is a list of reasons why rational, educated, and genuine Americans would think President Obama is the better choice for president. They probably know and/or believe:
1. The American economy that was about to go off a cliff in 2008 didn't, and has rebounded to a stable and growing - albeit weakly - status.
2. The stock market has been hovering near 14,000 for a while now, and corporations are posting record profits while sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash reserves.
3. The economy that was hemorrhaging jobs is now adding them, even in manufacturing areas like the auto industry.
4. The auto industry and all its related jobs is doing quite well.
5. They cannot be kicked off their insurance coverage for getting sick and they are allowed to access coverage even if they have a pre-existing condition.
6. They don't trust health insurance companies to have their best interests at heart.
7. They acknowledge the jobs saved by the stimulus program - which may have included teachers, police officers, and firefighters in their town.
7A. They understand the stimulus program was 40% tax cuts insisted upon by the Republican party.
8. They know jobs were lost because of corporate misdoings, not government interference.
9. They don't believe that education budgets need to be cut.
10. They don't blame poor people and food stamps and foreign aid for the rising debt and deficit.
11. The Iraq war is over and soldiers are coming home.
12. The war in Afghanistan is winding down and Al-Qeada has been massively weakened and disrupted across the world.
13. No terrorist attacks in the US.
14. Osama bin Laden is dead.
15. The believe a woman's reproductive system is her private medical issue.
16. They simply like him better. They feel he understands their problems more. They think he shares their values and is committed to their well-being.
With that in mind, I am considering the naive hope that we can simply learn to concede and acknowledge opposing view while moving toward more moments of consensus, such as we saw between New Jersey Governor Chris Cristi and President Obama this week. Despite a move toward political division and intransigence, we are all Americans first. This is a point we are reminded of in the new book by former moderate Republican congressman Micky Edwards. Edwards posed some valuable ideas about partisanship in the Atlantic Monthly when he considered How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. His ideas about partisanship are worth considering.
So, even though there are many arguments against a second term for President Obama, here is a list of reasons why rational, educated, and genuine Americans would think President Obama is the better choice for president. They probably know and/or believe:
1. The American economy that was about to go off a cliff in 2008 didn't, and has rebounded to a stable and growing - albeit weakly - status.
2. The stock market has been hovering near 14,000 for a while now, and corporations are posting record profits while sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash reserves.
3. The economy that was hemorrhaging jobs is now adding them, even in manufacturing areas like the auto industry.
4. The auto industry and all its related jobs is doing quite well.
5. They cannot be kicked off their insurance coverage for getting sick and they are allowed to access coverage even if they have a pre-existing condition.
6. They don't trust health insurance companies to have their best interests at heart.
7. They acknowledge the jobs saved by the stimulus program - which may have included teachers, police officers, and firefighters in their town.
7A. They understand the stimulus program was 40% tax cuts insisted upon by the Republican party.
8. They know jobs were lost because of corporate misdoings, not government interference.
9. They don't believe that education budgets need to be cut.
10. They don't blame poor people and food stamps and foreign aid for the rising debt and deficit.
11. The Iraq war is over and soldiers are coming home.
12. The war in Afghanistan is winding down and Al-Qeada has been massively weakened and disrupted across the world.
13. No terrorist attacks in the US.
14. Osama bin Laden is dead.
15. The believe a woman's reproductive system is her private medical issue.
16. They simply like him better. They feel he understands their problems more. They think he shares their values and is committed to their well-being.
Friday, October 26, 2012
The High Cost of Higher Education
As both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney continue to battle over who will better serve students and workers in preparing for their future, TIME Magazine has an excellent feature on the rising costs and changing face of higher education in this country. Of interest to me is the role that government plays in subsidizing education and research - much to the ignorance of the average American. I went to the University of Illinois, and most people I know went to public universities. Additionally, many people I know who attended private universities did so with the help of government subsidized student loans. In the years 2012, the average tuition and fees for a private school is $28,000 per year, while the average tuition and fees for a public university is roughly $8,500 per year. So, the question you have to ask yourself is this: if you went to a public university or if you have kids who are attending college or plan to attend college, why would you ever support political candidates who seek to cut government funding for education by up to 20%?
Why?
Why?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
A Longer or Just Different School Year
My school generally starts school during the week of August 20, has a one-week fall break in October, a two-week winter break in December, a one-week spring break in March, and lets out for summer by June 7. It's quite a nice schedule - especially the addition of the fall break. When I first moved to Colorado and discovered "fall break," I thought it was the greatest invention in the history of school schedules. After nine or ten weeks to kick off the year, a week around Halloween was the perfect time to recharge. I can't imagine ever going back to a "shorter" school year that starts around Labor Day and gets out by the end of May, but has shorter breaks during the year. Summer is long enough as it is, and the quarterly breaks are great.
Now, as more school districts consider changes to the traditional schedule, decisions about breaks are beginning to drive the discussion. That said, I am no fan of year-round school, and I am opposed to blanket statements that we simply need a longer school year. However, a shorter summer break with extended fall, winter, and spring breaks makes all the sense in the world. Summer vacation is a time-honored tradition in American culture, and it is one that should remain. Summer is a time for extended camps and summer employment, leisure time and more athletic opportunities. While we currently have one-week breaks in the spring and fall, I would gladly lop three weeks off the summer on either side, and take two weeks in fall, two weeks in spring, and three in the winter. That would still leave eight or more solid weeks in the summer.
Nothing wrong with that.
Friday, October 5, 2012
The College and Education Bubble
It's no mystery that too many people are going to college. With 29% of the country currently holding bachelor degrees or better, and unemployment a significant problem for them, especially if they just graduated, the conventional wisdom is that we need to re-think this obsession with college degrees. Certainly, at a time that millions are out of work while millions of jobs in skilled labor go unfilled, the economy's long reliance on the college degree as credibility is passing.
With that in mind, Virginia Heffernan of Yahoo News offers her insights on How to Burst the College Bubble. Heffernan's point is similar to many earlier criticisms of the college-degree-as-screening device made by people such as Charles Murray who wrote Real Education, and developed further with the work of Anya Kamenetz who published Generation Debt and DIY-U (Do It Yourself University). In essence, the obsessive focus on college degrees has actually diminished the focus and value of education. Heffernan looks forward - albeit quite quixotically - to a time when "you'd study not to get a credential .. but to improve your mind or acquire a skills, [much like] the reason you go to karate ... or yoga class."
The college degree as screening device has its merits - but employers could "devise their own tests to find valuable hires." And the idea that a credential qualified someone, as opposed to a real demonstration of skill, would be lessened. Or perhaps, as new platforms like Coursera propose, employers would emphasize the seat time on campus less than the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Granted, there is still a legitimate argument for a classical education as the foundation of culture. And the more well rounded people are, the more they generally contribute to society. That said, we may be long overdue for a bursting of the College Bubble.
With that in mind, Virginia Heffernan of Yahoo News offers her insights on How to Burst the College Bubble. Heffernan's point is similar to many earlier criticisms of the college-degree-as-screening device made by people such as Charles Murray who wrote Real Education, and developed further with the work of Anya Kamenetz who published Generation Debt and DIY-U (Do It Yourself University). In essence, the obsessive focus on college degrees has actually diminished the focus and value of education. Heffernan looks forward - albeit quite quixotically - to a time when "you'd study not to get a credential .. but to improve your mind or acquire a skills, [much like] the reason you go to karate ... or yoga class."
The college degree as screening device has its merits - but employers could "devise their own tests to find valuable hires." And the idea that a credential qualified someone, as opposed to a real demonstration of skill, would be lessened. Or perhaps, as new platforms like Coursera propose, employers would emphasize the seat time on campus less than the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Granted, there is still a legitimate argument for a classical education as the foundation of culture. And the more well rounded people are, the more they generally contribute to society. That said, we may be long overdue for a bursting of the College Bubble.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Don't Follow Your Passion - And Stop Telling Kids to Do That
Students come to school for more than just content knowledge - they are looking to figure themselves out and find their way in the world. On a practical level, they are on a path to their career and future life. However, some people lament the pressure on students to make "life decisions" at the age of seventeen or nineteen .... or twenty-six? The problem for many kids is they don't know who they are or "what they want to do with their lives." And, too many counselors and teachers and parents and friends offer the misleading advice to "follow your passion."
People like Discovery Channel's Mike Rowe and Georgetown professor Cal Newport disagree.
Years ago, I watched Mike Rowe's "Ted Talk" in which he said following his passion was "the worst advice I ever got. Follow your passion and go broke, right?" And I was always fascinated by his insight - especially because I did follow my passion. In Rowe's opinion, some people should follow their passions, some people should follow their skills, and some people should just follow the market. Certainly, that is more practical than just telling all kids to "find something you love, and then find a job that pays you to do it." That's actually pretty weak and useless advice. And that sentiment has been furthered with a recent op-ed in the New York Times from a professor named Cal Newport and his new book called So Good They Can't Ignore You. Cal writes about his decision to pursue a Ph.D. in his twenties instead of taking an exciting new job or taking an advance to publish his first book.
Cal Newport certainly has a lot of great insight about making life decisions, and his books and blog are certainly worth checking out. I am impressed with the idea behind his book - though I haven't read it yet - because I was offering similar advice to my seniors today. My thought today was Make Yourself Indispensable, and that has become a theme in much business writing these days. People are going to need to adapt and become more multifaceted if they want to remain employable and successful. And I will be recommending several of Newport's books to my students. He published his first at the age of twenty-one about how to "do college." And he has subsequently published other bits of academic advice:
How to Win At College: Surprising Secrets For Success from the Country's Top Students
How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Into College by Standing Out
How to Become a Straight A Student: The Unconventional Strategies Real College Students Use to Score High While Studying Less
Advice like Mike Rowe's and Cal Newport's cannot be emphasized enough - especially in the contemporary world of always changing technologies and markets.
People like Discovery Channel's Mike Rowe and Georgetown professor Cal Newport disagree.
Years ago, I watched Mike Rowe's "Ted Talk" in which he said following his passion was "the worst advice I ever got. Follow your passion and go broke, right?" And I was always fascinated by his insight - especially because I did follow my passion. In Rowe's opinion, some people should follow their passions, some people should follow their skills, and some people should just follow the market. Certainly, that is more practical than just telling all kids to "find something you love, and then find a job that pays you to do it." That's actually pretty weak and useless advice. And that sentiment has been furthered with a recent op-ed in the New York Times from a professor named Cal Newport and his new book called So Good They Can't Ignore You. Cal writes about his decision to pursue a Ph.D. in his twenties instead of taking an exciting new job or taking an advance to publish his first book.
Cal Newport certainly has a lot of great insight about making life decisions, and his books and blog are certainly worth checking out. I am impressed with the idea behind his book - though I haven't read it yet - because I was offering similar advice to my seniors today. My thought today was Make Yourself Indispensable, and that has become a theme in much business writing these days. People are going to need to adapt and become more multifaceted if they want to remain employable and successful. And I will be recommending several of Newport's books to my students. He published his first at the age of twenty-one about how to "do college." And he has subsequently published other bits of academic advice:
How to Win At College: Surprising Secrets For Success from the Country's Top Students
How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Into College by Standing Out
How to Become a Straight A Student: The Unconventional Strategies Real College Students Use to Score High While Studying Less
Advice like Mike Rowe's and Cal Newport's cannot be emphasized enough - especially in the contemporary world of always changing technologies and markets.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The Amazing Race - Season 21 - Kicks Off In Los Angeles
OK, who doesn't know what an abacus is?
Fresh off its most recent Emmy Award for Best Reality TV, CBS' phenomenally successful "race around the world," The Amazing Race kicked off its twenty-first season in Pasadena, California tonight. A quick opening challenge put the teams on the plane to Shanghai, China, and the race around the world has begun again. I have to admit, though, I was disappointed by the opening city, as its becoming tiresome to begin in Los Angeles and then quickly hop over to China. Granted, last season took off for Argentina as the first stop, and a couple seasons back, they left from Massachusetts. But, in general, the Amazing Race leaves from LA and heads to Southeast Asia, and the whole thing is becoming cliche. My family was predicting an East Coast start heading to Europe, and I was calling for a kickoff from Washington, D.C. to honor the presidential election. Alas, it was not to be, and the teams were quickly out of LAX and on to China.
The teams are as eclectic - and strangely predictable - as always, and I don't see any real favorites yet. Certainly, the winning team tonight - which was the dating divorced couple - ran a nice first leg. And the Amazing Race creators have developed a fascinating new twist with a potential million dollar bonus if the first leg winner actually wins the whole race. Now, the pressure is on this young couple. And the big news - and bittersweet moment - from the opening is the couple from Crested Butte with the girl who survived debilitating injuries from meninigitis as a young woman. At the moment that it counted most, the Colorado couple was out front and told a couple teams where to find the final clue - one team made them pay and ran them down for first place. Certainly, it was hard to watch. But they didn't have to share the information. That's just the way the race goes. Though it was tough to watch double amputee Amy struggle and get passed right before the pit stop. Angst.
Beyond that, there were certainly some annoying situations for long time race viewers. For example, you never simply follow a team without first getting your clue, as the Chippendale dancers did. They lost valuable time by running after a team before they had their final clue. And, it was tough to see the monster truck driver make the mistake of not reading the clue - and being forced to eat a double dose of the frogs' fallopian tubes. Retch! But that's a standard practice for the Amazing Race. Always read your clue closely. I mean, really. Who doesn't know these basic practices. And I don't care about the intensity of the race and making rash decisions. If you watch regularly, you know to play the game prudently. Certainly, the old couple lost after their ill-fated trip to the Bank of China. They even commented how fortunate they were to get that tip - and it cost them the entire race. Oops.
I have to say that I still lament the loss of Elimination Station on the website last season. It was one of our favorite parts of the show, and I still would like to see it return. Regardless, it's nice to see the return of The Amazing Race. Who's your favorite?
Fresh off its most recent Emmy Award for Best Reality TV, CBS' phenomenally successful "race around the world," The Amazing Race kicked off its twenty-first season in Pasadena, California tonight. A quick opening challenge put the teams on the plane to Shanghai, China, and the race around the world has begun again. I have to admit, though, I was disappointed by the opening city, as its becoming tiresome to begin in Los Angeles and then quickly hop over to China. Granted, last season took off for Argentina as the first stop, and a couple seasons back, they left from Massachusetts. But, in general, the Amazing Race leaves from LA and heads to Southeast Asia, and the whole thing is becoming cliche. My family was predicting an East Coast start heading to Europe, and I was calling for a kickoff from Washington, D.C. to honor the presidential election. Alas, it was not to be, and the teams were quickly out of LAX and on to China.
The teams are as eclectic - and strangely predictable - as always, and I don't see any real favorites yet. Certainly, the winning team tonight - which was the dating divorced couple - ran a nice first leg. And the Amazing Race creators have developed a fascinating new twist with a potential million dollar bonus if the first leg winner actually wins the whole race. Now, the pressure is on this young couple. And the big news - and bittersweet moment - from the opening is the couple from Crested Butte with the girl who survived debilitating injuries from meninigitis as a young woman. At the moment that it counted most, the Colorado couple was out front and told a couple teams where to find the final clue - one team made them pay and ran them down for first place. Certainly, it was hard to watch. But they didn't have to share the information. That's just the way the race goes. Though it was tough to watch double amputee Amy struggle and get passed right before the pit stop. Angst.
Beyond that, there were certainly some annoying situations for long time race viewers. For example, you never simply follow a team without first getting your clue, as the Chippendale dancers did. They lost valuable time by running after a team before they had their final clue. And, it was tough to see the monster truck driver make the mistake of not reading the clue - and being forced to eat a double dose of the frogs' fallopian tubes. Retch! But that's a standard practice for the Amazing Race. Always read your clue closely. I mean, really. Who doesn't know these basic practices. And I don't care about the intensity of the race and making rash decisions. If you watch regularly, you know to play the game prudently. Certainly, the old couple lost after their ill-fated trip to the Bank of China. They even commented how fortunate they were to get that tip - and it cost them the entire race. Oops.
I have to say that I still lament the loss of Elimination Station on the website last season. It was one of our favorite parts of the show, and I still would like to see it return. Regardless, it's nice to see the return of The Amazing Race. Who's your favorite?
Seoul Sausage Wins The 2012 Great Food Truck Race
The Food Network's Great Food Truck Race of 2012 aired its finale tonight from the coast of Maine, and, as it should have been, the boys from Seoul Sausage reined victorious over the spirited girls from Nonna's Kitchenette. For the second year in a row, the Great Food Truck Race was won by a trio of Korean guys cooking up American food truck versions of Korean specialties like Korean BBQ and fried kimchi balls. That's saying something about the culinary tastes of the growing food truck culture - and it says something about the culinary chops of these young men. This year, the winner was never really in doubt from also the first week. Though the boys of Seoul Sausage almost always failed to win the truck stop challenges, what really mattered in the end was the ability to consistently put out good food and draw the crowds. That's the secret of the food truck culture, and these boys should be proud that they have made a career decision which has been validated from coast to coast in seven different cities.
The girls from Nonna's certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, though they are obviously not as polished as the boys from Seoul Sausage. I'd bet these girls could find some backing and get enough support to make a go of it in food truck culture on their own. Certainly, it would have been nice to have the initial investment taken care of - a fully furnished food truck and $50K is going to set the Korean lads up well for success. However, 99.9% of people who establish successful food trucks don't win a contest and have the foundation set up for them. So, the gals from Jersey should simply take a lesson and understand that they do have what it takes to make it in the food business. Of course, it's worth noting that they were actually much farther behind Seoul Sausage than Tyler Florence made it seem. While Tyler says they lost by $103, it was actually a loss by $603. They won a challenge that gave them a huge financial bonus - and that perk doesn't exist in the business world. So, even when Tyler said they were within five dollars of each other, it was never really that close from a business world perspective.
Regardless, this turned out to be a satisfying season for the Food Network's Great Food Truck Race. I'll admit that when the season started, I didn't like they idea of having novices compete for their own food truck. I wanted to see skilled food trucks duke it out. However, the concept has grown on me, and I am thrilled that the Food Network is supporting aspiring chefs, instead of already established ones, with this format. Even the boys from Pop-a-Waffle learned they can compete in the food truck business - and despite my criticism of their food quality and ... appearance, I hope they pursue their dream as well.
Congrats to the boys of Seoul Sausage. You made your parents proud. Good luck to Nonna's as well. And hats off to the Food Network for another great show. Now, some more of Jeff the Sandwich King. And more on healthy and quality cuisine.
The girls from Nonna's certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, though they are obviously not as polished as the boys from Seoul Sausage. I'd bet these girls could find some backing and get enough support to make a go of it in food truck culture on their own. Certainly, it would have been nice to have the initial investment taken care of - a fully furnished food truck and $50K is going to set the Korean lads up well for success. However, 99.9% of people who establish successful food trucks don't win a contest and have the foundation set up for them. So, the gals from Jersey should simply take a lesson and understand that they do have what it takes to make it in the food business. Of course, it's worth noting that they were actually much farther behind Seoul Sausage than Tyler Florence made it seem. While Tyler says they lost by $103, it was actually a loss by $603. They won a challenge that gave them a huge financial bonus - and that perk doesn't exist in the business world. So, even when Tyler said they were within five dollars of each other, it was never really that close from a business world perspective.
Regardless, this turned out to be a satisfying season for the Food Network's Great Food Truck Race. I'll admit that when the season started, I didn't like they idea of having novices compete for their own food truck. I wanted to see skilled food trucks duke it out. However, the concept has grown on me, and I am thrilled that the Food Network is supporting aspiring chefs, instead of already established ones, with this format. Even the boys from Pop-a-Waffle learned they can compete in the food truck business - and despite my criticism of their food quality and ... appearance, I hope they pursue their dream as well.
Congrats to the boys of Seoul Sausage. You made your parents proud. Good luck to Nonna's as well. And hats off to the Food Network for another great show. Now, some more of Jeff the Sandwich King. And more on healthy and quality cuisine.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Jim McMahon & Concussions & Dementia & NFL Safety
Jim McMahon was the larger-than-life professional athlete of my youth. The headband-wearing Chicago Bears quarterback was a rock star in shoulder pads, and he defined toughness and cool. I can still recall the images of him being upended and spun around by blitzing linebackers, and his toughness and attitude endeared him to millions of fans, especially young teen males. And, so the news of Jim McMahon's early onset dementia and the fading of his shining personality is a bit of sadness that takes away the innocence of football fans. The curtain has been pulled back, and now we are gaining some insight into the incredibly high price paid by these gladiators of the contemporary age.
A needless price that is too high.
In a series of recent profiles and interview pieces, Jim McMahon and his wife have revealed that he is suffering from dementia at the age of 53. As one of the hundreds of former NFL players that is currently suing the league for not more effectively warning them of the dangers and working to protect players, McMahon has recently said that given the choice again, he would have never played football. That is a shocking and sad assertion by one of the league's most colorful personalities. If anyone lived the dream of the NFL player, it was the crazy, competitive, irreverent, and lively Jim McMahon. He was the Chicago Bears. He was the Super Bowl Shuffle. Everyone wanted Jim McMahon on their team - and this was the days before Fantasy Football.
Now, he's a shell of a man. And it doesn't have to be this way.
The lawsuit by NFL players and the increasingly serious news of concussions and their long-term effects have generated discussion of how the sport of football will proceed. And, it's filtering all the way down to the Pop Warner and high school leagues. In fact, some articles report that the number of high school players participating in football is dropping for the first time anyone can remember. Are parents and kids rethinking the risks of a few weeks of Friday night glory. I know I am quite glad my son is a baseball and basketball player, as well as a distance runner. I would not want my son playing the sport - though I must admit the hypocrisy of being a serious fan of the game. Of course, I am not opposed to changes to increase safety. And, I am actually a proponent of the most serious and effective rule changes on the table. If football wants to make its sport safer ...
Ban the helmet.
It's really that simple. Football needs to return to its origins and get rid of helmets. For, it's no surprise to anyone that helmets give a false sense of security. No one without a helmet is going to being willing to smash his bare head against another body. That's the beauty of rugby. And it was the beauty of football in the early days. By getting rid of helmets, the game will inherently become more athletic and less about brute force. Additionally, football leagues should move to ban the three-point stance. By requiring offensive and defensive lineman to begin plays in an upright position, they will be less able to propel themselves forward into head-smashing situations. Ultimately, this will be good for the game. More importantly, it will honor and respect the safety of the young men who sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment.
So, in the name of a fading Jim McMahon - and hundreds of other nameless men suffering - ban the helmet. Ban the helmet and save football.
A needless price that is too high.
In a series of recent profiles and interview pieces, Jim McMahon and his wife have revealed that he is suffering from dementia at the age of 53. As one of the hundreds of former NFL players that is currently suing the league for not more effectively warning them of the dangers and working to protect players, McMahon has recently said that given the choice again, he would have never played football. That is a shocking and sad assertion by one of the league's most colorful personalities. If anyone lived the dream of the NFL player, it was the crazy, competitive, irreverent, and lively Jim McMahon. He was the Chicago Bears. He was the Super Bowl Shuffle. Everyone wanted Jim McMahon on their team - and this was the days before Fantasy Football.
Now, he's a shell of a man. And it doesn't have to be this way.
The lawsuit by NFL players and the increasingly serious news of concussions and their long-term effects have generated discussion of how the sport of football will proceed. And, it's filtering all the way down to the Pop Warner and high school leagues. In fact, some articles report that the number of high school players participating in football is dropping for the first time anyone can remember. Are parents and kids rethinking the risks of a few weeks of Friday night glory. I know I am quite glad my son is a baseball and basketball player, as well as a distance runner. I would not want my son playing the sport - though I must admit the hypocrisy of being a serious fan of the game. Of course, I am not opposed to changes to increase safety. And, I am actually a proponent of the most serious and effective rule changes on the table. If football wants to make its sport safer ...
Ban the helmet.
It's really that simple. Football needs to return to its origins and get rid of helmets. For, it's no surprise to anyone that helmets give a false sense of security. No one without a helmet is going to being willing to smash his bare head against another body. That's the beauty of rugby. And it was the beauty of football in the early days. By getting rid of helmets, the game will inherently become more athletic and less about brute force. Additionally, football leagues should move to ban the three-point stance. By requiring offensive and defensive lineman to begin plays in an upright position, they will be less able to propel themselves forward into head-smashing situations. Ultimately, this will be good for the game. More importantly, it will honor and respect the safety of the young men who sacrifice their bodies for our entertainment.
So, in the name of a fading Jim McMahon - and hundreds of other nameless men suffering - ban the helmet. Ban the helmet and save football.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Conservatism and the Problem for Mitt Romney and the GOP in 2012
Being an unaffiliated independent voter who generally splits between Democrats and Republicans while looking for the most moderate and pragmatic legislators I can find, I have watched the implosion of Mitt Romney's campaign and the resilient nature of President Obama's administration with absolute fascination. At times like this I look to the moderate voices on conservatism and politics, trying to sift through the white noise of ideology and campaigning. As I noted recently with the recent national polls - and conservative commentary backlash - on Mitt Romney, I have tried to explain how it's not about Mitt - it's about the message.
Conservatism is struggling to find a voice among the moderate middle voters, even though they naturally and consciously veer to the right. The problem is well articulated by David Brooks this week in the New York Times with his insightful commentary The Conservative Mind. Most outspoken Republicans these days will actually miss the allusion in Brooks' title to the seminal work by Russel Kirk, an iconic figure in the annals of American conservatism. And, that is the problem. The flippant free-market ranters of the conservative right these days have little in common with the roots of conservatism among people like Kirk and Edmund Burke. The conservative mind is about believing and supporting the traditional institutions that are the foundation of civilization - as Brooks notes, the conservative wants to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Conservatism is not about opposing or having contempt for government. In fact, the conservative knows the integral role government plays in restraining the irrational and primal side of the individual that puts the entire society at risk. And, granted, the conservative values liberty above most things, and he worries about collectivism and cultures of dependency. But there is little faith among the conservative for the "unbridled free market," which puts society as at much risk. The social and financial inequality that results is not good for civilization. Conservative blogger Rod Dreher (read and alluded to by Brooks) also argues for this pragmatism and cites the Ten Conservative Principles developed and articulated by Russel Kirk. These are ideas that are worth reviewing - and Dreher's work with The American Conservative should be regular reading for the average Republican.
Certainly, checking in at The American Conservative from time to time is worthwhile - for it is the best explanation the GOP is going to find for Why Romney Is Losing. I would like to see the GOP shift back to the thinking of people like Kirk and Burke and Disraeli and Brooks and Dreher. But I don't hold out hope. Thus, I continue to be stuck by the problem of not being overly thrilled with the Obama Presidency yet being repelled by the Romney Campaign.
Troubling.
Conservatism is struggling to find a voice among the moderate middle voters, even though they naturally and consciously veer to the right. The problem is well articulated by David Brooks this week in the New York Times with his insightful commentary The Conservative Mind. Most outspoken Republicans these days will actually miss the allusion in Brooks' title to the seminal work by Russel Kirk, an iconic figure in the annals of American conservatism. And, that is the problem. The flippant free-market ranters of the conservative right these days have little in common with the roots of conservatism among people like Kirk and Edmund Burke. The conservative mind is about believing and supporting the traditional institutions that are the foundation of civilization - as Brooks notes, the conservative wants to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Conservatism is not about opposing or having contempt for government. In fact, the conservative knows the integral role government plays in restraining the irrational and primal side of the individual that puts the entire society at risk. And, granted, the conservative values liberty above most things, and he worries about collectivism and cultures of dependency. But there is little faith among the conservative for the "unbridled free market," which puts society as at much risk. The social and financial inequality that results is not good for civilization. Conservative blogger Rod Dreher (read and alluded to by Brooks) also argues for this pragmatism and cites the Ten Conservative Principles developed and articulated by Russel Kirk. These are ideas that are worth reviewing - and Dreher's work with The American Conservative should be regular reading for the average Republican.
Certainly, checking in at The American Conservative from time to time is worthwhile - for it is the best explanation the GOP is going to find for Why Romney Is Losing. I would like to see the GOP shift back to the thinking of people like Kirk and Burke and Disraeli and Brooks and Dreher. But I don't hold out hope. Thus, I continue to be stuck by the problem of not being overly thrilled with the Obama Presidency yet being repelled by the Romney Campaign.
Troubling.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Messy Classrooms & Sloppy Professionalism
Some may like us to believe that "A messy desk is a sign of a genius." The question for the education profession is whether a messy classroom is a reflection on the instruction or the quality of the teacher. Having taught for many years in several schools, I have seen it all when it comes to classroom design and maintenance. And, I am always baffled - and rather put off - by the classrooms that reflect the scattered nature of a student's locker or a teenager's bedroom. In a basic sense of professionalism, there would seem to be no justification for books haphazardly left on the floor or loose papers strewn across the desk, bookshelves, and corners. Such a disregard for order and decorum seems to imply a casualness that could be perceived by students as less than serious.
Granted, I am a bit OCD in the way I like my classroom and desk. In fact, years ago a colleague came in to my classroom to chat and paused, looking carefully at my desk. "You live," she told me, "in a right-angle world." And, my room is rather neat an orderly, though not lacking in character and some form of decoration. Though that would seem to create and reflect the kind of order that is necessary for a learning environment. Students, it seems without doubt, need structure in their lives and classes. In fact, the classroom and school are sometimes the only order they can count on. Beyond that idea though, there should be an expectation that teachers rooms are tidy.
Granted, I am a bit OCD in the way I like my classroom and desk. In fact, years ago a colleague came in to my classroom to chat and paused, looking carefully at my desk. "You live," she told me, "in a right-angle world." And, my room is rather neat an orderly, though not lacking in character and some form of decoration. Though that would seem to create and reflect the kind of order that is necessary for a learning environment. Students, it seems without doubt, need structure in their lives and classes. In fact, the classroom and school are sometimes the only order they can count on. Beyond that idea though, there should be an expectation that teachers rooms are tidy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)