In a civil world of politics, we would take time to pat each other on the back when we make a point. I have thought it would be neat to recognize others for significant thoughts, or for taking significant stands. I don't know that I will follow up on this, by doing it again next month, but this month I honor Tucker Carlson of Fox News for his coverage of higher education the past month.
Young Americans are receiving worse educations than perhaps ever before. They are partying more than studying. And, while the level of education goes down, the grades are going up. Grade inflation, Carlson calls it. Carlson might not have used this term, but how about diploma mill? Are our colleges, to some degree, becoming diploma mills?
And, all while, costs are up --fueled by student loans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBqmmGEQTng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fh6LtBYmiI
Saturday, May 5, 2018
You don't need to Overcome Your Successes, only Your Failures
"You're either buried, or you're going to come back." Coach broke out into a smile. His team was down 70-40 at halftime. But, he was smiling -- still -- because he knew every moment was a coaching moment; Every day was a lesson to give.
"It might be we will be able to catch them, or it might be we can't. We're big enough for this. Play every play as if it is a mini game -- just seek to win that one play -- and who knows but what all the plays will fall together we'll come back. But, we can only give ourselves the opportunity if we play well in each possession, and in each defensive effort."
Coach paused. "You don't learn how to win until you learn how to lose. You're going to get beat, and you better learn how to handle it. If you let Chris Paul's burning you on a three-pointer convince you you can't stop him, you won't. Did you see the look of resolve in James Harden's face the other day? Champions aren't champions just because of their talent; They're champions because of their hearts. They resolve to do better. They look for openings to do better. They don't let their failures stamp them as failures, but they overcome their failures. You're only a failure if you accept failure. You beat these guys once, and you can do it again."
As I saw the coach turn and walk out the tunnel, I thought how every day is a coaching moment
and every day there's a lesson to give. If you are going to coach, you've got to teach how to deal with every situation, including being down by 30 points.
And, I thought how important it is to preach belief -- And, how this is the best moment of all to teach it. If a person doesn't believe in themselves, they won't overcome their problems. The most important moment for teaching belief is when there's the least reason to believe. This is the moment the players could crack. Your players don't need to overcome their successes, only their failures. So, this is the moment you must teach them. It is in the darkest moments that the coach must coach the most.
Even so it is with us and life. If we would lift each other, we must learn to lift each other at the darkest moments. And, we must believe in each other in the darkest moments. If we don't believe, how can we convey belief? How can we persuade the other person to believe?
Just as a coach must do his best coaching when his team is losing, so we must muster our best effort to help others when it seems they are beyond help.
The greatest friend is the one who lifts another from his greatest fall.
"It might be we will be able to catch them, or it might be we can't. We're big enough for this. Play every play as if it is a mini game -- just seek to win that one play -- and who knows but what all the plays will fall together we'll come back. But, we can only give ourselves the opportunity if we play well in each possession, and in each defensive effort."
Coach paused. "You don't learn how to win until you learn how to lose. You're going to get beat, and you better learn how to handle it. If you let Chris Paul's burning you on a three-pointer convince you you can't stop him, you won't. Did you see the look of resolve in James Harden's face the other day? Champions aren't champions just because of their talent; They're champions because of their hearts. They resolve to do better. They look for openings to do better. They don't let their failures stamp them as failures, but they overcome their failures. You're only a failure if you accept failure. You beat these guys once, and you can do it again."
As I saw the coach turn and walk out the tunnel, I thought how every day is a coaching moment
and every day there's a lesson to give. If you are going to coach, you've got to teach how to deal with every situation, including being down by 30 points.
And, I thought how important it is to preach belief -- And, how this is the best moment of all to teach it. If a person doesn't believe in themselves, they won't overcome their problems. The most important moment for teaching belief is when there's the least reason to believe. This is the moment the players could crack. Your players don't need to overcome their successes, only their failures. So, this is the moment you must teach them. It is in the darkest moments that the coach must coach the most.
Even so it is with us and life. If we would lift each other, we must learn to lift each other at the darkest moments. And, we must believe in each other in the darkest moments. If we don't believe, how can we convey belief? How can we persuade the other person to believe?
Just as a coach must do his best coaching when his team is losing, so we must muster our best effort to help others when it seems they are beyond help.
The greatest friend is the one who lifts another from his greatest fall.
Friday, May 4, 2018
The Higher Cost of Higher Education is Due to the Lending Industry
The higher cost of higher education: If you wonder why our education costs have increased from what they were so many years ago, look no further than government and student loans.
You can afford to pay more when you are playing not just with money currently jangling in your pocket, but with money you will earn years down the road. There's a bigger pot of money available. And, if this is so, then it is also true the education industry can charge more if they have this bigger pile of money to collect from.
Money you've not yet earned makes them richer. If they could charge no more than what a person could pay at the moment, they would not be able to charge so much. But, with the advent of student loans, more money was spread on the table.
I have said, If you place more money on the table, somebody will sweep it up. It's one of the basic principles of economics. We've placed more money on the table, and they've swept it up.
If we would reduce the price of higher education, we would take government out. No more student loans. Educators would then be forced to keep their fees within the parameters of what the students and their parents can afford.
And, we would ban third-party loans and third-party collecting. If a school wants to extend loans, let it, but it must serve as its own collection agency. If we were to pull loans out of education all at once -- banning them, period -- it would drive the price of education down too fast. we need to correct our problem incrementally. So, allowing the schools to continue to collect while not involving third-party collecting will curb the lending practice while not subjecting the system to going cold turkey.
It might even be wise to do these two things in succession, instead of at the same time, this in order to space out the impact. First, cut government loans, and, later, ban third-party collecting. Maybe even reduce government loans, at first, and then ban them altogether.
You can afford to pay more when you are playing not just with money currently jangling in your pocket, but with money you will earn years down the road. There's a bigger pot of money available. And, if this is so, then it is also true the education industry can charge more if they have this bigger pile of money to collect from.
Money you've not yet earned makes them richer. If they could charge no more than what a person could pay at the moment, they would not be able to charge so much. But, with the advent of student loans, more money was spread on the table.
I have said, If you place more money on the table, somebody will sweep it up. It's one of the basic principles of economics. We've placed more money on the table, and they've swept it up.
If we would reduce the price of higher education, we would take government out. No more student loans. Educators would then be forced to keep their fees within the parameters of what the students and their parents can afford.
And, we would ban third-party loans and third-party collecting. If a school wants to extend loans, let it, but it must serve as its own collection agency. If we were to pull loans out of education all at once -- banning them, period -- it would drive the price of education down too fast. we need to correct our problem incrementally. So, allowing the schools to continue to collect while not involving third-party collecting will curb the lending practice while not subjecting the system to going cold turkey.
It might even be wise to do these two things in succession, instead of at the same time, this in order to space out the impact. First, cut government loans, and, later, ban third-party collecting. Maybe even reduce government loans, at first, and then ban them altogether.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
With Immigration, the Person Who Walks is the Person Who's Free
You stick a person on a boat or a plane or a train, and he is going to be an illegal immigrant. But, if he walks across the border, or crawls across a fence, he might just be legal.
Yes, the person who doesn't accept a ride across the border might just happen to be the person you can't stop. As in: you can't do anything about him. You can't deport him, and you can't kick him out.
I'm probably wrong about this. I'm hardly a lawyer, and my search on the Internet has not yet yielded as much information as I'd like.
But, yes, I'm wondering if the immigrant who walks is the immigrant who's legal. He's the one who doesn't need to ask for permission. He can say, "What do you mean I'm not legal? I didn't come in a boat or a plane or a train, did I? I didn't even come on the back of a truck -- I know a lot of us immigrants come on the backs of trucks, and I can see how you say that is illegal.
"Me? I just walked. So, how am I illegal?"
You see, when immigration law in the United States was first being established, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was used to argue that government has the power to regulate that immigration.
It breaks down this way: If something is transported, it becomes commerce. If a person comes on a boat or a plane or a train, he is being transported -- and, is commerce. Same with all those migrants stuffed on the back of trucks.
All those immigrants are just part of our nation's commerce. And, the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
But, if a person walks, he is not being transported. He is not commerce.
So, you remember those eleven (or however many) migrants from the caravan who crawled across the fence a few days ago in San Diego and were arrested?
I'm just wondering if they were falsely arrested.
Yes, the person who doesn't accept a ride across the border might just happen to be the person you can't stop. As in: you can't do anything about him. You can't deport him, and you can't kick him out.
I'm probably wrong about this. I'm hardly a lawyer, and my search on the Internet has not yet yielded as much information as I'd like.
But, yes, I'm wondering if the immigrant who walks is the immigrant who's legal. He's the one who doesn't need to ask for permission. He can say, "What do you mean I'm not legal? I didn't come in a boat or a plane or a train, did I? I didn't even come on the back of a truck -- I know a lot of us immigrants come on the backs of trucks, and I can see how you say that is illegal.
"Me? I just walked. So, how am I illegal?"
You see, when immigration law in the United States was first being established, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was used to argue that government has the power to regulate that immigration.
It breaks down this way: If something is transported, it becomes commerce. If a person comes on a boat or a plane or a train, he is being transported -- and, is commerce. Same with all those migrants stuffed on the back of trucks.
All those immigrants are just part of our nation's commerce. And, the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
But, if a person walks, he is not being transported. He is not commerce.
So, you remember those eleven (or however many) migrants from the caravan who crawled across the fence a few days ago in San Diego and were arrested?
I'm just wondering if they were falsely arrested.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
If the Immigrant wants an Open Hearing, Let Him have it
The paper tells me the that now the caravan migrants are here, "the next steps in their journey will unfold mostly out of public view."
Guess why.
"The courts often conduct business behind closed doors," says the Associated Press story. "Files are not public, and unlike criminal or civil courts, access for journalists and others is limited."
If I were one of the immigrants, I would demand my case be open to the public. I'd read them from the Sixth Amendment. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
Yes, I would say, I know this isn't a criminal prosecution. It's an immigration hearing, which is different. Still, if you would, I would like my case to be open to the public. With the interest there has been in our caravan, and with the right the public has to know what is going on, it just seems the right thing to do to keep this hearing open. This is a public matter and it should be open to the public.
Now, there might be some of the cases where the immigrants do not want their cases to be open. Their lives might be in jeopardy back in their home countries, and details of who is after them and who might kill them might only add to the danger they are in.
Let the immigrant, then, make the choice on whether the hearing is open.
Guess why.
"The courts often conduct business behind closed doors," says the Associated Press story. "Files are not public, and unlike criminal or civil courts, access for journalists and others is limited."
If I were one of the immigrants, I would demand my case be open to the public. I'd read them from the Sixth Amendment. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
Yes, I would say, I know this isn't a criminal prosecution. It's an immigration hearing, which is different. Still, if you would, I would like my case to be open to the public. With the interest there has been in our caravan, and with the right the public has to know what is going on, it just seems the right thing to do to keep this hearing open. This is a public matter and it should be open to the public.
Now, there might be some of the cases where the immigrants do not want their cases to be open. Their lives might be in jeopardy back in their home countries, and details of who is after them and who might kill them might only add to the danger they are in.
Let the immigrant, then, make the choice on whether the hearing is open.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
They Can't Win -- You are Going to Attack Them Either Way
I caught just a few snippets from Fox News' coverage of the immigrant caravan that has reached the border. Fox's spin was that the immigrants are being coached and are gaming the system.
I wonder on that. It seems to me that if they are being told what they need to gain entrance legally, that is what you want. You have said for years that you aren't against immigration, you just want them to do it legally. So, along comes someone who tells them how to do it legally, and they strive to do it legally, and now you decide they are gaming the system.
They can't win. You are going to attack them either way.
We once heard more of the angle that our laws were just, and that instead of trying to break in illegally, the immigrants should go back and come in the right way. Right now, we aren't hearing so much of that -- that our laws are just -- but rather that they are weak. It's a little change of attack, as anti-immigration forces shift and adapt to stop a sudden surge in immigration.
I wonder on that. It seems to me that if they are being told what they need to gain entrance legally, that is what you want. You have said for years that you aren't against immigration, you just want them to do it legally. So, along comes someone who tells them how to do it legally, and they strive to do it legally, and now you decide they are gaming the system.
They can't win. You are going to attack them either way.
We once heard more of the angle that our laws were just, and that instead of trying to break in illegally, the immigrants should go back and come in the right way. Right now, we aren't hearing so much of that -- that our laws are just -- but rather that they are weak. It's a little change of attack, as anti-immigration forces shift and adapt to stop a sudden surge in immigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)