previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star (1/22/2012)
Right-to-work (RTW) is another of Gov. Daniels’ crises of the season. From daylight-savings time to leasing the Indiana Toll Road, to privatizing (and substituting computers for people) welfare offices, overseeing significant rollbacks in governmental services (BMV), property tax caps, and school reforms, Gov. Daniels isn’t afraid to lead the state into political turmoil.
To be fair, Gov. Daniels didn’t want the RTW fight. But he couldn’t find any traction among Republicans for his reform agenda (sentencing reform and local government reorganization), so he’s following the Republican lawmakers instead. Nevertheless, he has made RTW his number one issue and will no doubt take credit for this dubious “job-creating” policy. Indeed, almost everything Gov. Daniels has done has been justified as economic development. How is that going anyway?
For the record, I have made public statements at academic conferences that I do not favor “closed shops.” I understand the free-rider problem (non-members receive the benefits of collective bargaining without having to financially support the costs of achieving those efforts). I’d think Republicans would understand that, too, as they are quick to point out free-riders all the time (welfare recipients). I think closed shops lead unions away from continually making their case. Never underestimate the power of peer pressure.
I’m disappointed in both the unions’ and Democratic Party’s response to RTW. By focusing so narrowly on pay, they miss so much more about the impact of unions on the Indiana workplace. I’d like to see them reframe the question from right-to-work to “rights-at-work.”
Indiana, as most states, is an “employment-at-will” state. This legal doctrine essentially states: a person employed for an indefinite period is employed “at-will” and either the employee or the employer may terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason or no reason and without notice. Those who work under a contract are not subject to “employment-at-will.”
There is not enough room here to go into the intricacies of how the law has evolved around employment-at-will, but think of it this way: the legislature (or Congress) and the courts can make public policy exceptions (law) to the doctrine. The broadest exceptions are in the area of demographic discrimination and for when an employee refuses to do something that is illegal (perhaps immoral). Indiana is known as one of the least fettered by public policy exceptions employment-at-will state. Stated another way, Indiana is a state where an employer is the freest to fire employees “at-will;” or, a state where employees have the fewest rights at work.
Over time, the Indiana Supreme Court (ICS) has preserved the employer’s right to fire in cases that, in my experience, really open the eyes of lay people. For instance, the ICS ruled that an employer was free to fire an employee for marrying someone the employer did not approve of. Unless a whistleblower is protected by a very narrow statute, even an employer engaged in illegal activities can legally fire a worker for informing authorities about it. One exception to “employment-at-will” is for an employee exercising their constitutional rights, such as filing a lawsuit against their employer. Indeed, the ICS reinstated an employee who was fired for filing in small claims court over travel expenses. The employee prevailed in the suit but was fired again when he tried to collect his claim.
Back to the ICS. It found that while the employee had the right to sue, he had no right to collect. It is safe to say that suing an Indiana employer for wrongful termination is very, very hard.
Hence, I wish the opposition to RTW would point out how union workers are not subject to the capricious will of employers. And this is becoming a bigger issue as employers mine deeper into their employees’ off-work activities, especially as it relates to health care. Employers are firing employees who they deem too expensive for their health-care plans or who engage in otherwise private behavior they disagree with. Should an employer be able to dictate an employee’s diet, their preferred form of recreation, their political affiliations?
More than just higher pay, union employees can’t be fired for such nonsense. Why? Because their union negotiates a contract on their behalf to protect them from such things. RTW is about undermining collective bargaining and thus those protections.
It may be that most employers respect “boundaries” and would never fire an employee for such ridiculous reasons as not liking who they married. But unless you are working under contract, they can.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Win your arguments with "fuddle," not facts
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/11/2011
Remember C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”? It is a satire involving Screwtape, a senior demon from Hell, instructing his nephew, Wormwood, in how to secure the damnation of a man, known at “The Patient.” I had not thought of this book for a long time until I read about Frank Luntz’ plenary speech at the Republican Governors Association meeting last week in Orlando. Luntz is perhaps the top Republican political message master.
“Letters” opens with Screwtape mentoring Wormwood on how to sway “The Patient.” Screwtape emphasizes the importance of language over evidence and argument. “Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true!” Screwtape continues about the folly of trying to argue the points, “The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground.”
Luntz addressed the Governors about how to talk about Occupy Wall Street. Said Luntz, “ "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." If Luntz took the role of Screwtape advising his Wormwooods (the Governors) on how to talk about Occupy Wall Street and address increasing questions from constituents about “income inequality” and “paying your fair share” it might sound like this if you substitute the public for “the Patient”: (quotes are from Luntz’ address)
My dear Wormwoods,
Don’t try to argue with them. "First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system." If you argue with them, you might have to argue Biblical references or statistics.
Always blame Washington. Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."
Call it what it isn’t, just don’t call it capitalism. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market’. The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem." Christianity doesn’t view greed well, preaches equality before God, and concern for the poor.
Even the rich are beginning to say wicked things, like Warren Buffet endorsing a millionaires’ tax. The public now responds favorably to talk of raising taxes on the rich. Thus “… talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."
Don’t talk about jobs. "Watch this," Luntz-Screwtape said. He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised. "So why are we talking about jobs?" A job just pays for food, rent, and cable. A career is about status and power.
We have been too successful at instilling feelings of greed in the public. As you cut your state budgets, don’t say sacrifice. "There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together." Success is on our terms.
If Luntz were Screwtape he might have finished with a quote from “Letters:” “You begin to see the point? … Above all, do not attempt to use science … as a defence against [OWS]. … If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don't let him get away from that invaluable "real life." But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is "the results of modern investigation." Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!
Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE”
I wonder if Frank Luntz ever read “The Screwtape Letters?” If so, he might have missed the satire.
Remember C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”? It is a satire involving Screwtape, a senior demon from Hell, instructing his nephew, Wormwood, in how to secure the damnation of a man, known at “The Patient.” I had not thought of this book for a long time until I read about Frank Luntz’ plenary speech at the Republican Governors Association meeting last week in Orlando. Luntz is perhaps the top Republican political message master.
“Letters” opens with Screwtape mentoring Wormwood on how to sway “The Patient.” Screwtape emphasizes the importance of language over evidence and argument. “Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true!” Screwtape continues about the folly of trying to argue the points, “The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground.”
Luntz addressed the Governors about how to talk about Occupy Wall Street. Said Luntz, “ "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." If Luntz took the role of Screwtape advising his Wormwooods (the Governors) on how to talk about Occupy Wall Street and address increasing questions from constituents about “income inequality” and “paying your fair share” it might sound like this if you substitute the public for “the Patient”: (quotes are from Luntz’ address)
My dear Wormwoods,
Don’t try to argue with them. "First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system." If you argue with them, you might have to argue Biblical references or statistics.
Always blame Washington. Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."
Call it what it isn’t, just don’t call it capitalism. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market’. The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem." Christianity doesn’t view greed well, preaches equality before God, and concern for the poor.
Even the rich are beginning to say wicked things, like Warren Buffet endorsing a millionaires’ tax. The public now responds favorably to talk of raising taxes on the rich. Thus “… talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."
Don’t talk about jobs. "Watch this," Luntz-Screwtape said. He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised. "So why are we talking about jobs?" A job just pays for food, rent, and cable. A career is about status and power.
We have been too successful at instilling feelings of greed in the public. As you cut your state budgets, don’t say sacrifice. "There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together." Success is on our terms.
If Luntz were Screwtape he might have finished with a quote from “Letters:” “You begin to see the point? … Above all, do not attempt to use science … as a defence against [OWS]. … If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don't let him get away from that invaluable "real life." But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is "the results of modern investigation." Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!
Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE”
I wonder if Frank Luntz ever read “The Screwtape Letters?” If so, he might have missed the satire.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
New fault lines emerge between generations
previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 13 November 2011
TERRE HAUTE — Has another “generation gap” emerged between those under 30 and those older, similar to the one between the ’60s radicals (“don’t trust anyone over 30”) and the older generations? Is it reflected in the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements? Data from the Pew Research Center suggests so to me. It is a fascinating read for those who are interested (www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/?src=prc-headline)
Pew has divided the American population up into five distinct generations: the Greatest, born prior to 1927; the Silent, born 1928-1945; the Boomers, born 1946-1964; Generation X, born 1965-1980; and the Millennials, born 1981-1993. And there are significant differences in their views and politics. For instance, the Greatest Generation has voted reliably Democratic since 1994; so too have the Millennials since 2004 and Gen Xers since 2000. They bookend solidly Republican later Boomers, early Gen Xers, and the more mixed Silent and early Boomers.
We begin to see the fault lines even more so when we compare the Millennials with the Silent generation. In response to “is the U.S. the greatest country in the world,” two-thirds of Silents say yes, but only a third of Millennials do. Millennials are not as patriotic as other generations, with only 70 percent indicating they are “very patriotic” compared to nearly 90 percent for the other generations.
Significant differences show up on hot-button social issues. Fifty-nine percent of Millennials approve of legalizing gay marriage compared to just 33 percent of the Silent generation. Fifty-five percent of Millennials approve of legalizing marijuana but only 31 percent of the Silents do.
The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements reflect this divide, with Millennials favoring bigger government, more government spending to create jobs, and they support expanding Obamacare. The other generations are more likely to support smaller government, deficit reduction, and repealing Obamacare.
As a sociologist, policy differences reflect more often where one sits. Older folks relying on Social Security are more likely to support leaving it alone, while younger folks out of work favor job creation. What about values? Nationalistic and patriotic differences aside, there is significant agreement on the “factor’s behind America’s success.” More than 90 percent across all generations indicate “freedoms” are very important to America’s success, followed by more than 80 percent across all generations indicating “work ethic.” Nevertheless, there are “gaps” on religion with less than half of Millennials citing religion as very important as a factor in America’s success while more than two thirds of the other generations rate it very important. And perhaps most important is 79 percent of Millennials compared to just 45 percent of Silents view the invention of the Internet as making life better.
Television is often pointed to as the single factor most responsible for the gap between the ’60s radicals and the older generations. The Boomers were the first generation to have grown up on television. There is no question that television has profoundly affected American culture, politics, how issues are framed, and the power of images over words. But the Internet may be even more significant. Television watching is a passive activity, with “authorities” controlling the content. It is not interactive, it is largely take it or leave it.
The Internet is different. While it too can be just as passive as television, it has created more opportunity for individuals to interact. The old days of television where a single local person would awkwardly read a dissent to an editorial is now an avalanche of interaction. And just like television, if you don’t like it, you can find something else, but far more than one or two other channels. For many above 30, the Internet is still something of a foreign area, something to be wary of. For those under 30, it is the terrain they are familiar with and find comfort in.
As a Boomer, I don’t fit the Boomer profile very well, especially the later Boomers that I am part. I’m more Millennial. I do worry though that given the growing economic disparity between the young and the old, with Millennials possibly the first generation in American history to not exceed their parents socio-economic standing (absolute mobility), that the normal antagonisms between young and old may escalate given the growing economic inequality between them. That is not inevitable, but given our rancorous politics of dividing Americans among ourselves, the apparent gaps could be used to create a perfect storm of old against the young, rich against the poor, and white against non-white.
TERRE HAUTE — Has another “generation gap” emerged between those under 30 and those older, similar to the one between the ’60s radicals (“don’t trust anyone over 30”) and the older generations? Is it reflected in the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements? Data from the Pew Research Center suggests so to me. It is a fascinating read for those who are interested (www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/?src=prc-headline)
Pew has divided the American population up into five distinct generations: the Greatest, born prior to 1927; the Silent, born 1928-1945; the Boomers, born 1946-1964; Generation X, born 1965-1980; and the Millennials, born 1981-1993. And there are significant differences in their views and politics. For instance, the Greatest Generation has voted reliably Democratic since 1994; so too have the Millennials since 2004 and Gen Xers since 2000. They bookend solidly Republican later Boomers, early Gen Xers, and the more mixed Silent and early Boomers.
We begin to see the fault lines even more so when we compare the Millennials with the Silent generation. In response to “is the U.S. the greatest country in the world,” two-thirds of Silents say yes, but only a third of Millennials do. Millennials are not as patriotic as other generations, with only 70 percent indicating they are “very patriotic” compared to nearly 90 percent for the other generations.
Significant differences show up on hot-button social issues. Fifty-nine percent of Millennials approve of legalizing gay marriage compared to just 33 percent of the Silent generation. Fifty-five percent of Millennials approve of legalizing marijuana but only 31 percent of the Silents do.
The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements reflect this divide, with Millennials favoring bigger government, more government spending to create jobs, and they support expanding Obamacare. The other generations are more likely to support smaller government, deficit reduction, and repealing Obamacare.
As a sociologist, policy differences reflect more often where one sits. Older folks relying on Social Security are more likely to support leaving it alone, while younger folks out of work favor job creation. What about values? Nationalistic and patriotic differences aside, there is significant agreement on the “factor’s behind America’s success.” More than 90 percent across all generations indicate “freedoms” are very important to America’s success, followed by more than 80 percent across all generations indicating “work ethic.” Nevertheless, there are “gaps” on religion with less than half of Millennials citing religion as very important as a factor in America’s success while more than two thirds of the other generations rate it very important. And perhaps most important is 79 percent of Millennials compared to just 45 percent of Silents view the invention of the Internet as making life better.
Television is often pointed to as the single factor most responsible for the gap between the ’60s radicals and the older generations. The Boomers were the first generation to have grown up on television. There is no question that television has profoundly affected American culture, politics, how issues are framed, and the power of images over words. But the Internet may be even more significant. Television watching is a passive activity, with “authorities” controlling the content. It is not interactive, it is largely take it or leave it.
The Internet is different. While it too can be just as passive as television, it has created more opportunity for individuals to interact. The old days of television where a single local person would awkwardly read a dissent to an editorial is now an avalanche of interaction. And just like television, if you don’t like it, you can find something else, but far more than one or two other channels. For many above 30, the Internet is still something of a foreign area, something to be wary of. For those under 30, it is the terrain they are familiar with and find comfort in.
As a Boomer, I don’t fit the Boomer profile very well, especially the later Boomers that I am part. I’m more Millennial. I do worry though that given the growing economic disparity between the young and the old, with Millennials possibly the first generation in American history to not exceed their parents socio-economic standing (absolute mobility), that the normal antagonisms between young and old may escalate given the growing economic inequality between them. That is not inevitable, but given our rancorous politics of dividing Americans among ourselves, the apparent gaps could be used to create a perfect storm of old against the young, rich against the poor, and white against non-white.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Impact of debt reduction raises moral dilemma
(previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 10/9/11
TERRE HAUTE — How will we solve the debt problem? As solutions become framed in simple ways, which seems about the only kind of solutions possible in an age of sound bytes, Twitter, and low-information voters, it comes down to cutting spending or increasing taxes. Generally public opinion seems to support cutting spending and increasing taxes to solve the problem. No wonder the politicians can’t agree.
Of course, public policy gets into more knotty questions than do media polls. Whose taxes to raise? There seems to be overwhelming support on raising the taxes on the rich (whoever they are) but I can’t find any credible polling that asks the question, “are you willing to pay higher taxes.”
What to cut? Americans report that half of government spending is waste. Yet, significant majorities reject cutting the biggest spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. If half of government spending is waste, why not cut half of those?
I am concerned that as we reduce everything to the simple (simplistic at times) mechanics of a spreadsheet, that we forget about the impact of these decisions on people. To be really simple about it, raising taxes means taking from those who have it. Our current tax code, apparently, creates a situation in which half of households pay no federal income tax (this is debatable, but this seems to be the “truthiness” fact de jure). Assuming no tax system would actually tax a household into poverty, we can assume any tax increases are going to come from households that can “afford it.”
How about the cuts? Let’s leave aside military spending for a moment and focus on the big “entitlements” — Social Security and Medicare. Does anyone really think that Social Security is lavish? The problems with Social Security are not wastefulness or lavishness, they are largely demographic. When the Baby Boom generation has passed (in 2054 the youngest will turn 90), a good deal of the crisis will be over.
While increased taxes will fall on the “haves” the big cuts will fall onto the “have-nots.” Despite TV commercials that depict today’s seniors as affluent, the facts paint a picture of a more vulnerable population. Consider this statistical portrait from the 2008 Current Population Survey (note, these data are from before the onset of the Great Recession). The median household income for seniors (aged 65-plus) was $18,208; 9.7 percent of seniors fell below the poverty line. Social Security is the most common retirement benefit; 89 percent of senior households receive it. For 68.9 percent, Social Security accounts for half or more of their retirement income. For 26 percent, it is their only income. Average benefits for an elderly couple: $1,877 a month.
But what about pensions and annuities? What about those early retirees with fat stock portfolios? The trend toward early retirement ended in 1985, the trend has since reversed. Only 34.2 percent of seniors receive income from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. And the number of employers offering such plans are decreasing. What about assets? Fifty two percent of seniors derive income from assets. The median income from those assets was $1,054 per year.
What makes up the biggest expenditures for seniors? Not surprisingly, health care, and that is the target of the other big cuts. So, cuts to entitlements would hit a vulnerable population twice. And seniors feel this vulnerability. According to a study published by Demos.org in July 2011, economic insecurity among seniors is on the rise.
For those who say leave the current seniors alone and change these social safety net program for today’s 50 year olds (and younger), I quote from the same study:
In addition to rising costs of essential needs, especially health care and housing, today’s 50-year-olds are much less likely than current seniors to have a defined benefit pension that would provide a life-long secure income. Many of today’s workers are not offered a retirement account of any kind, and for those who do have an employer-sponsored 401(k) or other defined contribution plan, most are woefully underfunded. Social Security remains the primary source of income for most retirees and is the only secure resource guaranteed to provide income throughout retirement for many households (iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/From
BadtoWorse.pdf).
Tax increases and spending cuts may be equivalent on the spreadsheet but they are not equivalent on their impact on people. Proponents present them as moral imperatives to rescue our republic. While it may be a moral imperative to reduce the national debt, taxing the “haves” or cutting benefits to the “have-nots” are not moral equivalents.
TERRE HAUTE — How will we solve the debt problem? As solutions become framed in simple ways, which seems about the only kind of solutions possible in an age of sound bytes, Twitter, and low-information voters, it comes down to cutting spending or increasing taxes. Generally public opinion seems to support cutting spending and increasing taxes to solve the problem. No wonder the politicians can’t agree.
Of course, public policy gets into more knotty questions than do media polls. Whose taxes to raise? There seems to be overwhelming support on raising the taxes on the rich (whoever they are) but I can’t find any credible polling that asks the question, “are you willing to pay higher taxes.”
What to cut? Americans report that half of government spending is waste. Yet, significant majorities reject cutting the biggest spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. If half of government spending is waste, why not cut half of those?
I am concerned that as we reduce everything to the simple (simplistic at times) mechanics of a spreadsheet, that we forget about the impact of these decisions on people. To be really simple about it, raising taxes means taking from those who have it. Our current tax code, apparently, creates a situation in which half of households pay no federal income tax (this is debatable, but this seems to be the “truthiness” fact de jure). Assuming no tax system would actually tax a household into poverty, we can assume any tax increases are going to come from households that can “afford it.”
How about the cuts? Let’s leave aside military spending for a moment and focus on the big “entitlements” — Social Security and Medicare. Does anyone really think that Social Security is lavish? The problems with Social Security are not wastefulness or lavishness, they are largely demographic. When the Baby Boom generation has passed (in 2054 the youngest will turn 90), a good deal of the crisis will be over.
While increased taxes will fall on the “haves” the big cuts will fall onto the “have-nots.” Despite TV commercials that depict today’s seniors as affluent, the facts paint a picture of a more vulnerable population. Consider this statistical portrait from the 2008 Current Population Survey (note, these data are from before the onset of the Great Recession). The median household income for seniors (aged 65-plus) was $18,208; 9.7 percent of seniors fell below the poverty line. Social Security is the most common retirement benefit; 89 percent of senior households receive it. For 68.9 percent, Social Security accounts for half or more of their retirement income. For 26 percent, it is their only income. Average benefits for an elderly couple: $1,877 a month.
But what about pensions and annuities? What about those early retirees with fat stock portfolios? The trend toward early retirement ended in 1985, the trend has since reversed. Only 34.2 percent of seniors receive income from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. And the number of employers offering such plans are decreasing. What about assets? Fifty two percent of seniors derive income from assets. The median income from those assets was $1,054 per year.
What makes up the biggest expenditures for seniors? Not surprisingly, health care, and that is the target of the other big cuts. So, cuts to entitlements would hit a vulnerable population twice. And seniors feel this vulnerability. According to a study published by Demos.org in July 2011, economic insecurity among seniors is on the rise.
For those who say leave the current seniors alone and change these social safety net program for today’s 50 year olds (and younger), I quote from the same study:
In addition to rising costs of essential needs, especially health care and housing, today’s 50-year-olds are much less likely than current seniors to have a defined benefit pension that would provide a life-long secure income. Many of today’s workers are not offered a retirement account of any kind, and for those who do have an employer-sponsored 401(k) or other defined contribution plan, most are woefully underfunded. Social Security remains the primary source of income for most retirees and is the only secure resource guaranteed to provide income throughout retirement for many households (iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/From
BadtoWorse.pdf).
Tax increases and spending cuts may be equivalent on the spreadsheet but they are not equivalent on their impact on people. Proponents present them as moral imperatives to rescue our republic. While it may be a moral imperative to reduce the national debt, taxing the “haves” or cutting benefits to the “have-nots” are not moral equivalents.
Monday, September 12, 2011
A 9/11 essay for the paper that got lost in the ether......
What impact has 9/11 had on the current generation of college students, who were in elementary and middle school 10 years ago? On 9/16/2001 and then two weeks later, another Indiana newspaper published two essays I wrote about 9/11. The first one was somber but hopeful. The press (and I) jumped to name the generation who would be defined by 9/11. The headline for that essay was “In the future, we must become more willing citizens of the world.” I predicted that the 9/11 generation would be dubbed the world citizen generation. I wrote:
If we are to vanquish terrorism as President Bush promised [… ] or to solve this most heinous of crimes as promised by FBI Director Mueller, it will require us to develop ourselves as world citizens. The ways of other people will have to be understood beyond how to sell them products and to exploit their cheap labor. A foreign policy based on human rights or American interests must evolve into a third option … a policy of “world citizenship building” beginning at home and expanding abroad.
I hoped for a more bottom-up movement beginning with young people who would see a third path outside the partisan barricades built by their parents and grand-parents. I envisioned young people intensely and keenly interested in the rest of the world. A generation that would not fail to correctly place Canada, Somalia, Israel, or Tibet on a map and be able to name the political leaders of those countries as well. Don’t go test the first 20-something you find, you’ll be disappointed. When I reread that essay, I shake my head at the gauzy idealism.
Two weeks later another essay was published headlined, “2004: A War on US.” It was a dark, fictional piece, set three years in the future. I wrote it as a warning of what the terrorists were trying to accomplish . As I reread it, unfortunately, some of it rings true today.
I wrote about a new growth in government, the Department of Homeland Security (nailed the name), about incredibly intrusive security (Homeland Security forces checking IDs in church narthexes), a significant economic downturn (surely our enemies weren’t working with Enron), how our dilapidated infrastructure was giving us problems, and that democratic movements had begun in the Arab middle east, although anti-American in sentiment (protesting the presence of over 2 million American troops).
Evidence for the more hopeful future is scanty. College students don’t study abroad as much as they could, but, how much of that has to do with the economy? When the costs are right, they go, and go eagerly. Students talk about joining the Peace Corps after graduation, but I am skeptical whether that has to do with the poor economy, too. After a surge in military recruiting following 9/11, aren’t things pretty much back to normal--exchanging military service for an education? Students volunteering and engaging their communities is increasing, but would it happen if colleges weren’t making volunteering a graduation requirement? Does it matter?
The darker vision, unfortunately, is in more evidence: revelations of torture; secret spying on American communications; plans to data mine Americans’ library and video habits; Abu Ghraib; Guantanomo. Perhaps some of these “un-American” ways also fuel the Tea Party’s wrath? We’ve adjusted with little resistance to increased and invasive searches before flying, to increasing levels of electronic surveillance, to increasing instances where we must prove who we are to more authorities, and while we reviled at Abu Ghraib, we shrug at Guantanomo.
In the end, I think, the effects of 9/11 on the current generation of children who witnessed 9/11 is mixed. I think they may be more curious about the world (beyond tourism) than their parents, but they have accepted as normal a more skewed balance of security over freedom.
If we are to vanquish terrorism as President Bush promised [… ] or to solve this most heinous of crimes as promised by FBI Director Mueller, it will require us to develop ourselves as world citizens. The ways of other people will have to be understood beyond how to sell them products and to exploit their cheap labor. A foreign policy based on human rights or American interests must evolve into a third option … a policy of “world citizenship building” beginning at home and expanding abroad.
I hoped for a more bottom-up movement beginning with young people who would see a third path outside the partisan barricades built by their parents and grand-parents. I envisioned young people intensely and keenly interested in the rest of the world. A generation that would not fail to correctly place Canada, Somalia, Israel, or Tibet on a map and be able to name the political leaders of those countries as well. Don’t go test the first 20-something you find, you’ll be disappointed. When I reread that essay, I shake my head at the gauzy idealism.
Two weeks later another essay was published headlined, “2004: A War on US.” It was a dark, fictional piece, set three years in the future. I wrote it as a warning of what the terrorists were trying to accomplish . As I reread it, unfortunately, some of it rings true today.
I wrote about a new growth in government, the Department of Homeland Security (nailed the name), about incredibly intrusive security (Homeland Security forces checking IDs in church narthexes), a significant economic downturn (surely our enemies weren’t working with Enron), how our dilapidated infrastructure was giving us problems, and that democratic movements had begun in the Arab middle east, although anti-American in sentiment (protesting the presence of over 2 million American troops).
Evidence for the more hopeful future is scanty. College students don’t study abroad as much as they could, but, how much of that has to do with the economy? When the costs are right, they go, and go eagerly. Students talk about joining the Peace Corps after graduation, but I am skeptical whether that has to do with the poor economy, too. After a surge in military recruiting following 9/11, aren’t things pretty much back to normal--exchanging military service for an education? Students volunteering and engaging their communities is increasing, but would it happen if colleges weren’t making volunteering a graduation requirement? Does it matter?
The darker vision, unfortunately, is in more evidence: revelations of torture; secret spying on American communications; plans to data mine Americans’ library and video habits; Abu Ghraib; Guantanomo. Perhaps some of these “un-American” ways also fuel the Tea Party’s wrath? We’ve adjusted with little resistance to increased and invasive searches before flying, to increasing levels of electronic surveillance, to increasing instances where we must prove who we are to more authorities, and while we reviled at Abu Ghraib, we shrug at Guantanomo.
In the end, I think, the effects of 9/11 on the current generation of children who witnessed 9/11 is mixed. I think they may be more curious about the world (beyond tourism) than their parents, but they have accepted as normal a more skewed balance of security over freedom.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Experiencing the cultural concept of time
previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 14 August 2011
I spent most of July in Thailand as part of a unique study abroad program. Several ISU faculty and students joined faculty and students from two Chinese universities on a study abroad program focused on sustainable development, experiential learning, and community engagement. Our program moved across Thailand using four different universities as classrooms.
The administrators, faculty and staff from Suan Sunandha Rajabaht University, Chiang Mai Rajabaht University, Pibulsongkram Rajabaht University, and Rajabaht Maha Sarakam University were gracious and most helpful in making our program a success.
Do you experience time as an external force pushing you and others along like a river or the wind? Do you anticipate events, plan, and daydream about doing other things? Do you “chase the clock?” Or do you live in the moment, ignore the clock and focus on the experience? Do you eat when it is time or when you are hungry?
Psychologists tell us that different individuals experience time in different ways, but after nearly three weeks in Thailand, there is a significant cultural effect on how individuals experience time. Psychologists also tell us that daydreaming, reminiscing, and planning instead of “living in the moment” makes us unhappy. Perhaps this explains the seeming happiness and general contentment of the Thai people I met.
For instance, how often do you do one thing while daydreaming of doing another? Countless times this summer as I sat working, I thought, “this is a beautiful day, why am I not outside doing x, y, or z?” How many anticipate the weekend as we trudge through the week?
I asked many of our Thai hosts, as they took us to see Royal agricultural projects or grand historical and cultural sites, “if you weren’t doing this today with us, what would you be doing?” It is not that the words were not understood, but the concept seemed foreign. Each person I asked this answered similarly: “I am here doing this with you.” I don’t think this was Thai niceness, rather, I don’t think Thais comparatively evaluate the passing of time the way we do. “Today I am going with these Americans and Chinese to the Golden Teak Palace.” Whereas, an American might think, “I wonder how Jimmie Johnson is doing in the big race today, which I can’t watch because I am taking these visitors to the local museum.”
Thais are aware that they treat and experience time differently than we time-obsessed Americans. “Thai time” was on plain display when an interpreter asked the convener of the conference we were attending what time things would begin the next morning. The answer was typically Thai: “Definitely 8:30, maybe 9.” The conference began the next day at 8:45. The clock didn’t determine when things began, the conference began when the convener was ready and the speaker was in place, not a moment before or after that. The clock was mostly irrelevant. Schedules were only approximate and changes were not uncommon.
The needs of the moment dictate action. While crossing the country from west to east, the air conditioner in our van broke down. It was hot, and with a van full of people, it was very uncomfortable. Our driver, along with two other vans, all headed into a town to get our AC repaired.
If this were in the U.S., the others would have gone ahead, but we all stuck together. After a refrigerant recharge, we headed off. Thirty minutes later the AC failed again, indicating a need for a more extensive repair. Despite the unlikelihood of getting the AC repaired that day, the driver kept trying. We suggested just continuing on with the windows down, but the need of the moment was to fix the van. The driver kept seeking a repair until both our driver and host sensed the Americans were getting upset, changing the needs of the moment; now the guests were getting restless.
It is important to note, it was the Americans who were getting restless, not the Chinese.
For a few hours today I lived in the moment. I went for an early morning paddle on the Wabash. I didn’t think about the work I “should” be doing or the workplace crisis of the moment. Just what was in front of me, a heron or an eagle, the smooth glide of my kayak as it cut through the murky Wabash waters, and I deliberately forgot my watch.
Time was marked by putting the kayak in and taking it out of the water
I spent most of July in Thailand as part of a unique study abroad program. Several ISU faculty and students joined faculty and students from two Chinese universities on a study abroad program focused on sustainable development, experiential learning, and community engagement. Our program moved across Thailand using four different universities as classrooms.
The administrators, faculty and staff from Suan Sunandha Rajabaht University, Chiang Mai Rajabaht University, Pibulsongkram Rajabaht University, and Rajabaht Maha Sarakam University were gracious and most helpful in making our program a success.
Do you experience time as an external force pushing you and others along like a river or the wind? Do you anticipate events, plan, and daydream about doing other things? Do you “chase the clock?” Or do you live in the moment, ignore the clock and focus on the experience? Do you eat when it is time or when you are hungry?
Psychologists tell us that different individuals experience time in different ways, but after nearly three weeks in Thailand, there is a significant cultural effect on how individuals experience time. Psychologists also tell us that daydreaming, reminiscing, and planning instead of “living in the moment” makes us unhappy. Perhaps this explains the seeming happiness and general contentment of the Thai people I met.
For instance, how often do you do one thing while daydreaming of doing another? Countless times this summer as I sat working, I thought, “this is a beautiful day, why am I not outside doing x, y, or z?” How many anticipate the weekend as we trudge through the week?
I asked many of our Thai hosts, as they took us to see Royal agricultural projects or grand historical and cultural sites, “if you weren’t doing this today with us, what would you be doing?” It is not that the words were not understood, but the concept seemed foreign. Each person I asked this answered similarly: “I am here doing this with you.” I don’t think this was Thai niceness, rather, I don’t think Thais comparatively evaluate the passing of time the way we do. “Today I am going with these Americans and Chinese to the Golden Teak Palace.” Whereas, an American might think, “I wonder how Jimmie Johnson is doing in the big race today, which I can’t watch because I am taking these visitors to the local museum.”
Thais are aware that they treat and experience time differently than we time-obsessed Americans. “Thai time” was on plain display when an interpreter asked the convener of the conference we were attending what time things would begin the next morning. The answer was typically Thai: “Definitely 8:30, maybe 9.” The conference began the next day at 8:45. The clock didn’t determine when things began, the conference began when the convener was ready and the speaker was in place, not a moment before or after that. The clock was mostly irrelevant. Schedules were only approximate and changes were not uncommon.
The needs of the moment dictate action. While crossing the country from west to east, the air conditioner in our van broke down. It was hot, and with a van full of people, it was very uncomfortable. Our driver, along with two other vans, all headed into a town to get our AC repaired.
If this were in the U.S., the others would have gone ahead, but we all stuck together. After a refrigerant recharge, we headed off. Thirty minutes later the AC failed again, indicating a need for a more extensive repair. Despite the unlikelihood of getting the AC repaired that day, the driver kept trying. We suggested just continuing on with the windows down, but the need of the moment was to fix the van. The driver kept seeking a repair until both our driver and host sensed the Americans were getting upset, changing the needs of the moment; now the guests were getting restless.
It is important to note, it was the Americans who were getting restless, not the Chinese.
For a few hours today I lived in the moment. I went for an early morning paddle on the Wabash. I didn’t think about the work I “should” be doing or the workplace crisis of the moment. Just what was in front of me, a heron or an eagle, the smooth glide of my kayak as it cut through the murky Wabash waters, and I deliberately forgot my watch.
Time was marked by putting the kayak in and taking it out of the water
Sunday, July 10, 2011
What is the ‘business’ of our government?
Previously published in the terre Haute Tribune Star
Does the federal government need to be run like a business or by businessmen? According to a CBS News Poll (May 20-23, 2011) 75 percent of respondents said “large corporations” have too much influence on American life and politics today. “Business” is the most common occupation of members of Congress followed by lawyer (corporate lawyers?). Today, former occupation seems less meaningful than party label in working together and finding common ground.
This isn’t the first time that the business model has been held out as the solution to our frustration with the political process. The debate over running government more like a business or by business owners/managers usually centers on the differences in what government does and what businesses do. One thing seems clear, when it comes to debt, government, business, and families, are piling it on and on and on. The national debt might be over $14 trillion, but total individual, corporate and government debt is hovering around $57 trillion (Grand
father_economic_
report.com).
Our love affair with debt began in the early 1980s.
Nevertheless, serious people running for president hold up the business model as the solution to our various political, economic and social problems.
What is the goal or mission of the U.S. government? The preamble to the Constitution is the mission statement: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Compare that to Ford Motor Co.’s: “We are a global family with a proud heritage passionately committed to providing personal mobility for people around the world.” Lest we forget what the bottom line of business is, I appreciate Dean Food’s no-nonsense mission statement: “The Company’s primary objective is to maximize long-term stockholder value, while adhering to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates and at all times observing the highest ethical standards.”
Manufacturing and selling cars at a profit is a more focused and arguably an easier goal to accomplish than perfecting the Union, establishing justice, insuring tranquility, providing for the common defense … you get the point.
The CEO of Ford can fire employees who don’t contribute to achieving the company’s mission. The U.S. president can’t fire Congress or the Supreme Court. We can argue whether the services government provides could be better provided by private enterprise, but an alternative to the current government requires a revolution.
A business owner can borrow money to expand or to invest in new technology to raise productivity. If the investment fails, the owner might be out of business. The U.S. president can borrow, too, but government can’t really go out of business although the president may be voted out of office. A business can try to change its customers by changing the mix of product or services. The president serves all citizens (or is supposed to). And while some in government seem to treat “the people” like employees, no matter how much a president might want to, citizens can’t be fired. CEO’s usually don’t tolerate employees working against them. U.S. presidents have no choice.
In many ways, clergy might have a better occupational skill set for being president than business executives, lawyers, physicians or school teachers (all former occupations of current members of Congress). Clergy head up voluntary associations with a broad and diverse mission similar to government. Managing and negotiating change in the church is challenging and dealing with factions a common occurrence. Experience organizing people for the “greater good” is an ongoing activity for religious leaders, not unlike what a president is expected to do.
President George W. Bush, the first president with an MBA, was an oil executive and owner of the Texas Rangers. His vice president also was a former CEO and at least six of his cabinet members were former CEOs. How soon we forget.
One interest group every Washington politician “owes” is their political party. Seems the primary goal of the political parties is to gain power and thwart the other side. Too many politicians focus on securing their party’s interests over those of the state, over the people, and over any sense of the common good.
Does the federal government need to be run like a business or by businessmen? According to a CBS News Poll (May 20-23, 2011) 75 percent of respondents said “large corporations” have too much influence on American life and politics today. “Business” is the most common occupation of members of Congress followed by lawyer (corporate lawyers?). Today, former occupation seems less meaningful than party label in working together and finding common ground.
This isn’t the first time that the business model has been held out as the solution to our frustration with the political process. The debate over running government more like a business or by business owners/managers usually centers on the differences in what government does and what businesses do. One thing seems clear, when it comes to debt, government, business, and families, are piling it on and on and on. The national debt might be over $14 trillion, but total individual, corporate and government debt is hovering around $57 trillion (Grand
father_economic_
report.com).
Our love affair with debt began in the early 1980s.
Nevertheless, serious people running for president hold up the business model as the solution to our various political, economic and social problems.
What is the goal or mission of the U.S. government? The preamble to the Constitution is the mission statement: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Compare that to Ford Motor Co.’s: “We are a global family with a proud heritage passionately committed to providing personal mobility for people around the world.” Lest we forget what the bottom line of business is, I appreciate Dean Food’s no-nonsense mission statement: “The Company’s primary objective is to maximize long-term stockholder value, while adhering to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates and at all times observing the highest ethical standards.”
Manufacturing and selling cars at a profit is a more focused and arguably an easier goal to accomplish than perfecting the Union, establishing justice, insuring tranquility, providing for the common defense … you get the point.
The CEO of Ford can fire employees who don’t contribute to achieving the company’s mission. The U.S. president can’t fire Congress or the Supreme Court. We can argue whether the services government provides could be better provided by private enterprise, but an alternative to the current government requires a revolution.
A business owner can borrow money to expand or to invest in new technology to raise productivity. If the investment fails, the owner might be out of business. The U.S. president can borrow, too, but government can’t really go out of business although the president may be voted out of office. A business can try to change its customers by changing the mix of product or services. The president serves all citizens (or is supposed to). And while some in government seem to treat “the people” like employees, no matter how much a president might want to, citizens can’t be fired. CEO’s usually don’t tolerate employees working against them. U.S. presidents have no choice.
In many ways, clergy might have a better occupational skill set for being president than business executives, lawyers, physicians or school teachers (all former occupations of current members of Congress). Clergy head up voluntary associations with a broad and diverse mission similar to government. Managing and negotiating change in the church is challenging and dealing with factions a common occurrence. Experience organizing people for the “greater good” is an ongoing activity for religious leaders, not unlike what a president is expected to do.
President George W. Bush, the first president with an MBA, was an oil executive and owner of the Texas Rangers. His vice president also was a former CEO and at least six of his cabinet members were former CEOs. How soon we forget.
One interest group every Washington politician “owes” is their political party. Seems the primary goal of the political parties is to gain power and thwart the other side. Too many politicians focus on securing their party’s interests over those of the state, over the people, and over any sense of the common good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Facebook Share
.jpg)
Posts
