When Oliver Twist dared to ask for more porridge, the parish workhouse master swiftly reprimanded the lad for not being satisfied with the sustenance provided him.
Times have changed since Charles Dickens wrote of the plight of poor boys forced to work long hours at the parish workhouse for not much more than room, board and a taste of the three Rs.
Today, colleges and universities are the parish workhouses for our youth, though a lad or lass need not be poor to enter the campus barracks, for he or she will assuredly be on the debtor rolls when the experience ends -- if not as an outright debtor, then as an eternal taxpayer.
With the increasingly popular practice of using undergraduates to solicit funds, institutions of higher education have turned Dickens' masterpiece of institutional budgeting ridicule on its ear. The main sources of college operating funds -- grants, student loans, scholarships, charity and government revenue -- continue to fall short in the annual quest to balance college budgets that year to year outpace the general inflation rate.
Thus, more and more schools are employing students to staff the call centers or make road trips to stage dog-and-pony extravaganzas at alumni gatherings. The waif's message nonetheless is still the same: "More."
Oliver Twist's plea for more gruel is not a perfect analogy of today's youth asking for more institutional funding, but the comparison is lacking only in the sense that your alma mater's foundation board knows that a student's plea for charity from the community will receive a more sympathetic ear than will a cold call from a foundation staffer.
And the skeptic in me must ask whether the practice of having students call donors during the evening supper hours is more by sublime design than professional fundraisers might want to admit.
When it comes to donating money to colleges, I am an easy mark. I have never made a large donation (for the obvious reason), but I feel that my continuing support for academics and athletics is a necessary act of kindness if I expect the next generation to lead society onward and upward.
The college experience remains, I believe, the greatest test tube ever invented precisely because we cannot predict the results of the multitude of experiments known more familiarly as students.
Fundraising should be an ethical endeavor. In this regard, I strongly believe that the employment of undergraduates, whether they are paid a stipend or not, falls outside the ethical boundaries of fundraising. In my view, the practice of using student solicitors strains even the pleasant etiquette of panhandling.
It is quite one thing for alumni to promote their alma maters. After all, they have had years to reflect on the value of their college experience. To the contrary, undergraduates cannot know the value of the college experience because the experience is incomplete.
Did we not warn these students when they were children about the consequences of counting chicks before the eggs hatch? Are we somehow allowed to simply withdraw that sage advice in the interest of fundraising?
Our public school system is inadequate in preparing young people for today's job market. The associate or bachelor degree, then, is considered almost a necessity even though college degrees do not guarantee success in any endeavor.
Whereas in the past an apprentice would work for several years to gain journeyman credentials, modern society looks to college to prepare journeymen (and women). And, of course, college is still viewed as finishing school for the upwardly mobile. But woe be to the college failure -- the dropout.
We can debate whether "dropout" is still the stab in the back that colleges coined it to be, but it is worth noting that the first footnote on Bill Gates' Wikipedia page refers not to his birth but to his status as a 1975 Harvard dropout.
Whether colleges deliver the goods or not, their parchments have become cultural indentures. Thus, I argue: It is unethical to employ indentured servants, in this case students, as beggars.
I will give credit to college and university foundations for employing only the brightest students to make cold calls. These kids are polished, polite and know how to close the deal. When it is my time to receive a student's cold call from foundation headquarters, I often throw the caller a curve or two just to see how he or she responds. Let me just say that they keep their eyes on the prize.
For this reason, and out of respect for their individual soliciting skills, I have come to call these students artful dodgers, and to them I offer this as a compliment with my right hand. And with my left, I offer said same to the Fagins who employ them so cheaply.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Dreaming Ahead, the Names Never Change
I had a very strange dream last night. I dreamed that I had awakened in 2048, exactly 40 years into the future.
My surroundings were fairly familiar, but cars and storefronts looked quite different -- definitely futuristic. Wal-Mart and McDonald's were pretty much the same, only bigger. McDonald's, for example, had a food section chock full of ready-to-eat meals. All the customers had to do was bring plates or trays and fill them with whatever entrees and sides they preferred.
In the future, there are no refrigerators. Irradiation and preservatives are so effective that food won't spoil for at least three months. One shopper told me that she preferred some dishes, like corned beef and cabbage, to get "tangy" before she served them. She was shopping for Easter (2049) dinner when I met her at Mickey D's.
Politics had changed a little, but there were still plenty of familiar names on the ballot. Ruprecht Gainer Jr., son of the esteemed Wirt County proctologist, was running unopposed for state auditor, thus making 80 consecutive years of somebody named Gainer holding that office.
West Virginia had lost population, so much so that we were down to one congressional district. In 2048, Shelley Capito-Underwood (granddaughter of Shelley Moore Capito) was unopposed. However, she would only serve until 2050, when Charles Mollohan (grandson of Alan Mollohan) would take over. And then in 2052, Glenn Bob Rahall (grandson of Nick Joe Rahall) would return to serve for a term.
The voters had approved the Ambassador Amendment in 2016 to protect the three political families who had so dominated House of Representatives races. In their off years, the Congressmen served as official ambassadors to Washington, were paid a generous stipend and allowed to maintain a district office.
It was no surprise then that "Rocky 7" (John D. Rockefeller VII) was the favorite to win the Senate seat previously held by Rockies 4 through 6.
Gus A. Douglass was still the incumbent agriculture commissioner, although he had threatened to retire a decade earlier saying the job was too much work for him. The voters responded by approving the Agricultural Stabilization Amendment, which reduced the duties of agricultural commissioner to maintaining the grassy areas around state office buildings.
Commissioner Douglass was running unopposed in the general election. He had survived a challenge in the primary election from Devil Anse "Jesco" McGraw, an itinerant leaf-blower from Mingo County.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd had unexpectedly retired in 2047, which left the state's Democratic Party in a quandary. Because the name "Byrd" was so synonymous with the Senate seat, the party chairman, Ralston P. Caperton, insisted on appointing someone named Byrd to it. After an exhaustive search of coalfield Democratic voter rolls, no Byrds turned up. The closest match was Kermit Bird from Glen Jean, and he received the appointment to fill Robert Byrd's seat until the next election.
Now this race was interesting because Piper Palin, the youngest daughter of former president Sarah Palin, had moved to West Virginia in 2025 and was running well ahead of Sen. Bird. Piper Palin was best-known around the state as a champion ATV racer. She lived in a tent on Spruce Knob.
During the summer, Piper Palin had scored points by running a negative ad that featured background music from the movie "Dumb and Dumber." Voters apparently took a liking to Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels singing "Mockingbird" because most of them referred to Kermit Bird simply as "Ing."
Joe Manchin Il was certain to win the governors race. He defeated Joe Manchin V (grandson of former Gov. Joe Manchin III) in the primary election.
It came as a shock to me when the lady I was talking with at Mickey D's explained that Joe Manchin Il was actually Kim Sam Il, a Korean immigrant who changed his name. Voters had mistaken "Il" as "II" and assumed that they were voting for the elder Manchin.
I asked the lady if Kim Sam Il was from North Korea, and she replied: "No. It's even worse. He's a successful businessman from South Korea!"
In 2048, West Virginia is not ranked 50th on the economic indicator lists. Unfortunately, West Virginia drops to 56th behind the new states of Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Grenada.
I am now awake, and I know it's 2008. I am writing this column from Mickey D's in Clarksburg. My Egg McMuffin tastes a little tangy, but I am not sure if it's the food or my imagination.
My surroundings were fairly familiar, but cars and storefronts looked quite different -- definitely futuristic. Wal-Mart and McDonald's were pretty much the same, only bigger. McDonald's, for example, had a food section chock full of ready-to-eat meals. All the customers had to do was bring plates or trays and fill them with whatever entrees and sides they preferred.
In the future, there are no refrigerators. Irradiation and preservatives are so effective that food won't spoil for at least three months. One shopper told me that she preferred some dishes, like corned beef and cabbage, to get "tangy" before she served them. She was shopping for Easter (2049) dinner when I met her at Mickey D's.
Politics had changed a little, but there were still plenty of familiar names on the ballot. Ruprecht Gainer Jr., son of the esteemed Wirt County proctologist, was running unopposed for state auditor, thus making 80 consecutive years of somebody named Gainer holding that office.
West Virginia had lost population, so much so that we were down to one congressional district. In 2048, Shelley Capito-Underwood (granddaughter of Shelley Moore Capito) was unopposed. However, she would only serve until 2050, when Charles Mollohan (grandson of Alan Mollohan) would take over. And then in 2052, Glenn Bob Rahall (grandson of Nick Joe Rahall) would return to serve for a term.
The voters had approved the Ambassador Amendment in 2016 to protect the three political families who had so dominated House of Representatives races. In their off years, the Congressmen served as official ambassadors to Washington, were paid a generous stipend and allowed to maintain a district office.
It was no surprise then that "Rocky 7" (John D. Rockefeller VII) was the favorite to win the Senate seat previously held by Rockies 4 through 6.
Gus A. Douglass was still the incumbent agriculture commissioner, although he had threatened to retire a decade earlier saying the job was too much work for him. The voters responded by approving the Agricultural Stabilization Amendment, which reduced the duties of agricultural commissioner to maintaining the grassy areas around state office buildings.
Commissioner Douglass was running unopposed in the general election. He had survived a challenge in the primary election from Devil Anse "Jesco" McGraw, an itinerant leaf-blower from Mingo County.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd had unexpectedly retired in 2047, which left the state's Democratic Party in a quandary. Because the name "Byrd" was so synonymous with the Senate seat, the party chairman, Ralston P. Caperton, insisted on appointing someone named Byrd to it. After an exhaustive search of coalfield Democratic voter rolls, no Byrds turned up. The closest match was Kermit Bird from Glen Jean, and he received the appointment to fill Robert Byrd's seat until the next election.
Now this race was interesting because Piper Palin, the youngest daughter of former president Sarah Palin, had moved to West Virginia in 2025 and was running well ahead of Sen. Bird. Piper Palin was best-known around the state as a champion ATV racer. She lived in a tent on Spruce Knob.
During the summer, Piper Palin had scored points by running a negative ad that featured background music from the movie "Dumb and Dumber." Voters apparently took a liking to Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels singing "Mockingbird" because most of them referred to Kermit Bird simply as "Ing."
Joe Manchin Il was certain to win the governors race. He defeated Joe Manchin V (grandson of former Gov. Joe Manchin III) in the primary election.
It came as a shock to me when the lady I was talking with at Mickey D's explained that Joe Manchin Il was actually Kim Sam Il, a Korean immigrant who changed his name. Voters had mistaken "Il" as "II" and assumed that they were voting for the elder Manchin.
I asked the lady if Kim Sam Il was from North Korea, and she replied: "No. It's even worse. He's a successful businessman from South Korea!"
In 2048, West Virginia is not ranked 50th on the economic indicator lists. Unfortunately, West Virginia drops to 56th behind the new states of Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Grenada.
I am now awake, and I know it's 2008. I am writing this column from Mickey D's in Clarksburg. My Egg McMuffin tastes a little tangy, but I am not sure if it's the food or my imagination.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Re-Examining the Bread Standard for 2008
Comparison of Bread 1957-2008
.
Sunbeam Bread '57 Fresh (3) '57 Day Old 2003 (4) 2008 (4)
Price per loaf 0.16 0.08 1.59 (5) 2.09 (5)
Sales tax (1) .01 .00 .10 .07
Mileage (2) .00 .00 .73 1.17
Totals 0.17 0.08 2.42 3.33
Footnotes to table:
1. 1957 rate equals 3¢ per $1.00, beginning at 14¢. 2003 rate equals 6¢ per $1.00. 2008 rate equals 3¢ per $1.00
2. IRS Mileage allowance of $0.365 per mile (2003); $0.585 per mile (2008)
3. Sunbeam bread baked in Clarksburg
4. Sunbeam bread baked by Flowers Baking Co., North Carolina
5. Kroger, Clarksburg. Sept. 2, 2003; Aug. 14, 2008 _________________________________________
In 1957, Sunbeam bread was baked daily in Clarksburg and delivered to the neighborhood grocery stores. There were two grocery stores within a short walk of my house. Grocers discounted day-old bread by half, because most homemakers would only buy fresh bread.
In making a like comparison, we must use the discounted price of day-old bread because Sunbeam bread is now day-old bread when it arrives at the grocery store.
If we needed bread, I was allowed to walk or ride my bike to the neighborhood grocery but not to the nearest supermarket, which was one mile distant on a heavily-traveled thoroughfare. Thus, the comparison chart includes the cost of a two-mile automobile trip for 2003 and 2008.
In determining the purchasing power of one dollar, most economists opt to compare commodity prices such as oil or gold. Throughout history, however, the daily ration of bread has been the most consistent measure of nutrition for all people, whether they lived in the ancient Nile valley or now live in Kansas.
While not every civilization ate wheat bread, most of the world’s farmers could grow a cereal grain of some kind. Our daily bread, whether made from wheat or corn, has its nutritional equivalent in rice, other grains, or non-grains such as potatoes (E.g.: the Incas).
Human civilization managed for a long time without need of oil or gold but never a day without bread.
In 1957-58, only the wealthy drove Cadillacs; the behemoths retailed for about $7,000.00. Or put another way, if you could afford a new Cadillac, you could also afford 87,500 loaves of day-old bread.
Today, a Cadillac retails for about $50,000.00 and is considered nice middle-class car. And why shouldn’t it be? Its worth is only 15,000 loaves of day-old bread.
To match the social status of a 1958 Cadillac owner, you would have to spend $290,000.00 for your automobile and a whole lot more for the house, swimming pool, gardens, driveway and garage to go along with it. And don’t forget to add in the associated property taxes and insurance policies.
Along the way, we have seen depreciation in more than just the dollar. The old neighborhood groceries provided free delivery service, and credit-worthy customers could run a tab and pay every two to four weeks. A housewife could also call her grocery order in if she didn’t have time to shop.
Fifty years ago, grocery shoppers demanded quality. This was due to the fact that even city folks were not far removed from growing their own food, and they knew what fresh food looked and tasted like. June Cleaver would absolutely scream if she had to fry a “fresh” egg from today’s supermarket.
Fifty years ago, people knew what fresh-baked bread tasted like because they were probably raised on home-baked bread. Homemakers in the 1950s would try to do without something else on the grocery list before they would stoop to buy day-old bread.
In terms of food, the dollar has become worth a lot less for two main reasons. The first is that government deficit spending for food stamps and agricultural subsidies have skewed the marketplace with inflationary pressures. Import tariffs have done likewise. And the ethanol-for-fuel mandate (ethanol is alcohol made from grain) is piling even more inflation on top of that.
Secondly, Americans have lowered their food quality standards. Shoppers will pay a grocer for a dozen eggs that are a month or more old but will balk at buying truly fresh eggs from the local farmer because those eggs aren’t USDA-inspected. This is but one example of how food-ignorant Americans are.
Ignorant people make ignorant spending decisions—distilling corn for Cadillacs being just one.
.
Sunbeam Bread '57 Fresh (3) '57 Day Old 2003 (4) 2008 (4)
Price per loaf 0.16 0.08 1.59 (5) 2.09 (5)
Sales tax (1) .01 .00 .10 .07
Mileage (2) .00 .00 .73 1.17
Totals 0.17 0.08 2.42 3.33
Footnotes to table:
1. 1957 rate equals 3¢ per $1.00, beginning at 14¢. 2003 rate equals 6¢ per $1.00. 2008 rate equals 3¢ per $1.00
2. IRS Mileage allowance of $0.365 per mile (2003); $0.585 per mile (2008)
3. Sunbeam bread baked in Clarksburg
4. Sunbeam bread baked by Flowers Baking Co., North Carolina
5. Kroger, Clarksburg. Sept. 2, 2003; Aug. 14, 2008 _________________________________________
In 1957, Sunbeam bread was baked daily in Clarksburg and delivered to the neighborhood grocery stores. There were two grocery stores within a short walk of my house. Grocers discounted day-old bread by half, because most homemakers would only buy fresh bread.
In making a like comparison, we must use the discounted price of day-old bread because Sunbeam bread is now day-old bread when it arrives at the grocery store.
If we needed bread, I was allowed to walk or ride my bike to the neighborhood grocery but not to the nearest supermarket, which was one mile distant on a heavily-traveled thoroughfare. Thus, the comparison chart includes the cost of a two-mile automobile trip for 2003 and 2008.
In determining the purchasing power of one dollar, most economists opt to compare commodity prices such as oil or gold. Throughout history, however, the daily ration of bread has been the most consistent measure of nutrition for all people, whether they lived in the ancient Nile valley or now live in Kansas.
While not every civilization ate wheat bread, most of the world’s farmers could grow a cereal grain of some kind. Our daily bread, whether made from wheat or corn, has its nutritional equivalent in rice, other grains, or non-grains such as potatoes (E.g.: the Incas).
Human civilization managed for a long time without need of oil or gold but never a day without bread.
In 1957-58, only the wealthy drove Cadillacs; the behemoths retailed for about $7,000.00. Or put another way, if you could afford a new Cadillac, you could also afford 87,500 loaves of day-old bread.
Today, a Cadillac retails for about $50,000.00 and is considered nice middle-class car. And why shouldn’t it be? Its worth is only 15,000 loaves of day-old bread.
To match the social status of a 1958 Cadillac owner, you would have to spend $290,000.00 for your automobile and a whole lot more for the house, swimming pool, gardens, driveway and garage to go along with it. And don’t forget to add in the associated property taxes and insurance policies.
Along the way, we have seen depreciation in more than just the dollar. The old neighborhood groceries provided free delivery service, and credit-worthy customers could run a tab and pay every two to four weeks. A housewife could also call her grocery order in if she didn’t have time to shop.
Fifty years ago, grocery shoppers demanded quality. This was due to the fact that even city folks were not far removed from growing their own food, and they knew what fresh food looked and tasted like. June Cleaver would absolutely scream if she had to fry a “fresh” egg from today’s supermarket.
Fifty years ago, people knew what fresh-baked bread tasted like because they were probably raised on home-baked bread. Homemakers in the 1950s would try to do without something else on the grocery list before they would stoop to buy day-old bread.
In terms of food, the dollar has become worth a lot less for two main reasons. The first is that government deficit spending for food stamps and agricultural subsidies have skewed the marketplace with inflationary pressures. Import tariffs have done likewise. And the ethanol-for-fuel mandate (ethanol is alcohol made from grain) is piling even more inflation on top of that.
Secondly, Americans have lowered their food quality standards. Shoppers will pay a grocer for a dozen eggs that are a month or more old but will balk at buying truly fresh eggs from the local farmer because those eggs aren’t USDA-inspected. This is but one example of how food-ignorant Americans are.
Ignorant people make ignorant spending decisions—distilling corn for Cadillacs being just one.
Friday, August 15, 2008
American Voters Face Familiar Choice
For those of you who are younger than 50, you have a unique opportunity to learn American history. The election of 1976 is being restaged with Barack Obama as Jimmy Carter and John McCain as Gerald Ford. This is not a virtual election; this is for real, and your vote counts.
It's important to remember 1976 for another reason -- the economy. If you are younger than 50, then you haven't lived through a real economic recession. Today's economy is taking its licks from the sub-prime mortgage spree. But 30 years ago, U.S. Treasury notes carried interest rates as high as 14 percent. Try borrowing mortgage money at 15 percent or 20 percent and see what your house payments are. Then watch gasoline double in price as it did in 1979. It was heck.
You can fret all you want about today's high gasoline prices, but the economy is healthy when compared to 1976, and this is why you should be concerned about the upcoming revival of Ford vs. Carter. You are going to vote for the man who loses control of the economy.
Gerald Ford was a good man, but he couldn't inspire an angel to do a good deed. He neither had a command of economics nor did he have the best of economic advisers. Ford's solution to the economic woes of his day was to ask people to wear "WIN" buttons--WIN stood for Whip Inflation Now.
Compare this lame message to Margaret Thatcher's during that era. When she visited Lech Walesa during Poland's uprising, she gave him a copy of F.A. Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom." That small gift inspired a trade unionist to lead his nation out from under the yoke of Soviet communism.
I can still hear Maggie Thatcher saying, "WIN buttons, indeed."
Gerald Ford also was viewed as a continuation of the Nixon White House, although nothing could be further from the truth. Ford tried to do the best thing for the nation by pardoning Richard M. Nixon, and however noble were his intentions, he lost the election primarily for this one act. People hated Nixon. George W. Bush is merely disliked by comparison.
John McCain is viewed as nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration although nothing could be further from the truth. John McCain is Gerald Ford.
Enter Jimmy Carter, the candidate for change. Do you recall the motion picture "Being There" in which Peter Sellers plays Chance, the mentally disabled gardener, and through a series of misunderstandings, he becomes a national guru? This describes Jimmy Carter -- the boy who ran away from a traveling idiot circus and then demonstrated a knack for growing peanuts, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Jimmy Carter edged out better-known candidates for the 1976 Democratic nomination. The field was very crowded that year; his opponents only had regional appeal. Carter used his born-again, come-to-Jesus message to give him an advantage in every state. Though he was personally unable to explain the demands of the Good Book to his own family (Do you remember his brother, Billy?), Jimmy Carter was charismatic. Jimmy Carter was as charismatic by his humility as Barack Obama is charismatic by his arrogance.
Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter, right down to having a mean, vindictive wife.
Like Ford and Carter, McCain and Obama share a complete lack of aptitude for economics. And worse, we don't know who their primary economic advisers will be. Remember for the moment that Bill Clinton started his first term by appointing Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury secretary. When that proved a Texas-sized joke, Clinton made amends by appointing Robert Rubin. Bill Clinton's economic success was due solely to the confidence that the financial markets had in Secretary Rubin.
If there is an exception when comparing Ford vs. Carter to McCain vs. Obama, then it would be that the major parties have nominated two senators who serve in a Congress that has an overall approval rating of just 14 percent. How pathetic is that?
Offsetting this minor difference is the fact that the Republicans and Democrats once again are telling voters they have a clear choice when it comes to selecting the next president. If we do have a clear choice this time, then it will be defined by degrees of failure.
I don't know about you, but I will not let the major parties railroad me into choosing between Ford and Carter again. On Nov. 4, I am writing in "Ricky Bobby" for president, and I will do so, knowing in my heart, that if he ain't first, he'll be last.
It's important to remember 1976 for another reason -- the economy. If you are younger than 50, then you haven't lived through a real economic recession. Today's economy is taking its licks from the sub-prime mortgage spree. But 30 years ago, U.S. Treasury notes carried interest rates as high as 14 percent. Try borrowing mortgage money at 15 percent or 20 percent and see what your house payments are. Then watch gasoline double in price as it did in 1979. It was heck.
You can fret all you want about today's high gasoline prices, but the economy is healthy when compared to 1976, and this is why you should be concerned about the upcoming revival of Ford vs. Carter. You are going to vote for the man who loses control of the economy.
Gerald Ford was a good man, but he couldn't inspire an angel to do a good deed. He neither had a command of economics nor did he have the best of economic advisers. Ford's solution to the economic woes of his day was to ask people to wear "WIN" buttons--WIN stood for Whip Inflation Now.
Compare this lame message to Margaret Thatcher's during that era. When she visited Lech Walesa during Poland's uprising, she gave him a copy of F.A. Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom." That small gift inspired a trade unionist to lead his nation out from under the yoke of Soviet communism.
I can still hear Maggie Thatcher saying, "WIN buttons, indeed."
Gerald Ford also was viewed as a continuation of the Nixon White House, although nothing could be further from the truth. Ford tried to do the best thing for the nation by pardoning Richard M. Nixon, and however noble were his intentions, he lost the election primarily for this one act. People hated Nixon. George W. Bush is merely disliked by comparison.
John McCain is viewed as nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration although nothing could be further from the truth. John McCain is Gerald Ford.
Enter Jimmy Carter, the candidate for change. Do you recall the motion picture "Being There" in which Peter Sellers plays Chance, the mentally disabled gardener, and through a series of misunderstandings, he becomes a national guru? This describes Jimmy Carter -- the boy who ran away from a traveling idiot circus and then demonstrated a knack for growing peanuts, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Jimmy Carter edged out better-known candidates for the 1976 Democratic nomination. The field was very crowded that year; his opponents only had regional appeal. Carter used his born-again, come-to-Jesus message to give him an advantage in every state. Though he was personally unable to explain the demands of the Good Book to his own family (Do you remember his brother, Billy?), Jimmy Carter was charismatic. Jimmy Carter was as charismatic by his humility as Barack Obama is charismatic by his arrogance.
Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter, right down to having a mean, vindictive wife.
Like Ford and Carter, McCain and Obama share a complete lack of aptitude for economics. And worse, we don't know who their primary economic advisers will be. Remember for the moment that Bill Clinton started his first term by appointing Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury secretary. When that proved a Texas-sized joke, Clinton made amends by appointing Robert Rubin. Bill Clinton's economic success was due solely to the confidence that the financial markets had in Secretary Rubin.
If there is an exception when comparing Ford vs. Carter to McCain vs. Obama, then it would be that the major parties have nominated two senators who serve in a Congress that has an overall approval rating of just 14 percent. How pathetic is that?
Offsetting this minor difference is the fact that the Republicans and Democrats once again are telling voters they have a clear choice when it comes to selecting the next president. If we do have a clear choice this time, then it will be defined by degrees of failure.
I don't know about you, but I will not let the major parties railroad me into choosing between Ford and Carter again. On Nov. 4, I am writing in "Ricky Bobby" for president, and I will do so, knowing in my heart, that if he ain't first, he'll be last.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Earmarked Funds Often Miss the Mark
Charles L. Miller stepped down as highway commissioner in 1984, and Fred VanKirk was appointed acting commissioner. At the changing-of-the-guard ceremony, Mr. VanKirk accepted the position by saying, "Everyone else in West Virginia acts like he's the highway commissioner, so I might as well act like it, too."
West Virginia enjoyed a long run of qualified highway commissioners beginning in 1969 with Bill Ritchie and continuing with Charlie Miller and Fred VanKirk. The number one priority of each man was completion of the Interstate system, and they should be remembered for finishing the job.
Today, motorists take the Interstate system for granted. And that is a shame. For example, before I-79 was built, the trip from Charleston to Morgantown took six hours, and every mile had its share of grueling curves and blind passing zones. The drive now takes a little over two hours and can hardly be called challenging.
In the 1960s, Interstate construction was spotty. The main reason for this was the sad fact that highway commissioner Burl Sawyers (1961-1968) and his deputy, Vincent Johnkoski, were extortionists, crimes for which they were later convicted.
West Virginia is a tough place to build high-speed highways. Our terrain is notoriously unforgiving; our weather limits the construction season. The cost of building a mile of Interstate in West Virginia was comparatively one of the highest in the United States because of the quantity of earth that had to be moved and the numerous stream and river crossings.
I always have felt that our Interstate highways are a remarkable engineering achievement that have been overlooked and underappreciated. That's especially so because the three aforementioned highway commissioners protected the highway budget and stayed with the plan to finish every mile of Interstate in timely fashion.
We are now living in a different era -- the earmark era. Every politician in the land tries to earmark funds for a pet project. The drawback to this hodgepodge of earmarks is that there is no plan for the public good -- there are just scattered pet projects, such as Alaska's proposed bridge to nowhere.
Were it just Alaskans earmarking Alaskan funds, we wouldn't care. But earmarks are now the preferred passion of every legislator and executive. Twenty-four years ago, Fred VanKirk could joke about everyone acting like a highway commissioner. Now it's not a laughing matter.
My congressional district has a very visible earmark project -- the Gateway Connector highway at Fairmont. The project connects I-79 to the High Level Bridge and will assuredly save downtown Fairmont from further deterioration after it opens in 2010 or 2011.
The highway is only 1.5 miles long, but it carries an estimated price tag of $155 million. The roadway also features two traffic circles. Many people refer to these circles as "roundabouts," but I prefer "circles" lest I infer the road is a roundabout way to get to downtown Fairmont.
I think the traffic circles were engineered to provide holding patterns for westbound traffic waiting for a green light to cross the bridge. And further, I guess that stoplight is the "gateway" in "Gateway Connector."
I am taking this potshot to make a point. The $155 million could have easily finished Morgantown's 705 to I-68 connector -- a road that has been desperately needed for two decades. The Gateway money could have provided seed capital for 100 machine shops. The money could have built more than 700,000 square feet of new office space in Software Valley.
But no matter how earmark money is spent, it generally is wasted because it neither furthers the completion of an overall plan nor does it contribute to a coordinated, meaningful infrastructure.
The native sons of Marion County, whose ranks include our governor and First District congressman, undoubtedly will feel that I am picking on them personally. But I am not. I am criticizing the whole notion of earmark spending as being irresponsible.
When the Interstate highway system was laid out, it was planned from coast to coast with a purpose for each and every mile. Had Congress designed the Interstate system using the earmark method, then every congressional district would have a few miles of four-lane highway, and none of it would be interconnected.
If you don't hear from me for a while, please don't worry as I will be writing my next column from the tropics. A Fairmont travel agency is planning my vacation stay at a Guantanamo Bay resort hotel, where I will be learning a new sport called waterboarding.
West Virginia enjoyed a long run of qualified highway commissioners beginning in 1969 with Bill Ritchie and continuing with Charlie Miller and Fred VanKirk. The number one priority of each man was completion of the Interstate system, and they should be remembered for finishing the job.
Today, motorists take the Interstate system for granted. And that is a shame. For example, before I-79 was built, the trip from Charleston to Morgantown took six hours, and every mile had its share of grueling curves and blind passing zones. The drive now takes a little over two hours and can hardly be called challenging.
In the 1960s, Interstate construction was spotty. The main reason for this was the sad fact that highway commissioner Burl Sawyers (1961-1968) and his deputy, Vincent Johnkoski, were extortionists, crimes for which they were later convicted.
West Virginia is a tough place to build high-speed highways. Our terrain is notoriously unforgiving; our weather limits the construction season. The cost of building a mile of Interstate in West Virginia was comparatively one of the highest in the United States because of the quantity of earth that had to be moved and the numerous stream and river crossings.
I always have felt that our Interstate highways are a remarkable engineering achievement that have been overlooked and underappreciated. That's especially so because the three aforementioned highway commissioners protected the highway budget and stayed with the plan to finish every mile of Interstate in timely fashion.
We are now living in a different era -- the earmark era. Every politician in the land tries to earmark funds for a pet project. The drawback to this hodgepodge of earmarks is that there is no plan for the public good -- there are just scattered pet projects, such as Alaska's proposed bridge to nowhere.
Were it just Alaskans earmarking Alaskan funds, we wouldn't care. But earmarks are now the preferred passion of every legislator and executive. Twenty-four years ago, Fred VanKirk could joke about everyone acting like a highway commissioner. Now it's not a laughing matter.
My congressional district has a very visible earmark project -- the Gateway Connector highway at Fairmont. The project connects I-79 to the High Level Bridge and will assuredly save downtown Fairmont from further deterioration after it opens in 2010 or 2011.
The highway is only 1.5 miles long, but it carries an estimated price tag of $155 million. The roadway also features two traffic circles. Many people refer to these circles as "roundabouts," but I prefer "circles" lest I infer the road is a roundabout way to get to downtown Fairmont.
I think the traffic circles were engineered to provide holding patterns for westbound traffic waiting for a green light to cross the bridge. And further, I guess that stoplight is the "gateway" in "Gateway Connector."
I am taking this potshot to make a point. The $155 million could have easily finished Morgantown's 705 to I-68 connector -- a road that has been desperately needed for two decades. The Gateway money could have provided seed capital for 100 machine shops. The money could have built more than 700,000 square feet of new office space in Software Valley.
But no matter how earmark money is spent, it generally is wasted because it neither furthers the completion of an overall plan nor does it contribute to a coordinated, meaningful infrastructure.
The native sons of Marion County, whose ranks include our governor and First District congressman, undoubtedly will feel that I am picking on them personally. But I am not. I am criticizing the whole notion of earmark spending as being irresponsible.
When the Interstate highway system was laid out, it was planned from coast to coast with a purpose for each and every mile. Had Congress designed the Interstate system using the earmark method, then every congressional district would have a few miles of four-lane highway, and none of it would be interconnected.
If you don't hear from me for a while, please don't worry as I will be writing my next column from the tropics. A Fairmont travel agency is planning my vacation stay at a Guantanamo Bay resort hotel, where I will be learning a new sport called waterboarding.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Boards Must Have Balance, Integrity
Because of the ongoing turmoil at West Virginia University, the subject of appointing directors to the university's governing board has been a much-discussed topic. Let's take a moment to consider the right people for the job.
When selecting a board member-- and this applies to every organization -- the candidate must have a common interest or commonality of purpose with regard to the institution. If not, why bother?
While this requirement seems simple enough, it never fails that two undesirable types of people pass the commonality test--the proverbial "yes" man and the parasite. Even the most diligent screening process cannot always weed out these people.
Sitting on a board can have an intoxicating influence on even the most well-intentioned people. Directors find that the title of board member does afford them status in their communities, and at some point they might become "yes" men or women so as not to jeopardize losing their directorships. No director that I am aware of was ever fired for toadying.
Other well-intentioned people have compromised their fiduciary duty by doing business with the very institution they are appointed to oversee. Most often, these business arrangements begin as symbiotic relationships with all parties benefiting. When greed sets in, the relationship turns parasitic.
The faculty has expressed that the governing board should have more faculty representatives. This sounds wonderful in theory. But the reality of the campus is that professors rarely know what goes on outside of the buildings they teach in.
Professors also specialize in their field of learning. So who do you pick? The botanist who studies aphid damage? The physicist who looks for dark matter? The historian who debates the cause of the Civil War? Or do we consider the education professor who knows everything about running a classroom but precious little about running a school? Would a professor of proctology even stand a chance?
For the faculty's sake, they should speak collectively through their elected senate rather than through one or more board members. And the faculty senate should have stronger powers, especially so with regard to the presidential selection process. If a presidential candidate can't win the hearts of the faculty senate during his or her interview, then the candidate has no business applying for the job.
There are probably 100 million people on this planet who know who Pat White and Kevin Pittsnogle are. Ten times that many know who Jerry West is. In terms of dollars and cents, WVU's athletic program is not a huge budget item. But in terms of publicity, athletics brings WVU its most attention.
Candidates for the Board of Governors need to be serious about athletics -- and just as serious about demanding a scandal-free athletic program. The football stadium may be named in honor of Milan Puskar, but it will always be remembered as the house that Don Nehlen built. Coach Nehlen was a winner, but let us not forget that he was respected for his integrity from coast to coast.
The Health Science Center is an important part of WVU, and the board needs a few members who are up to speed on modern medicine. While drug company representatives don't get much respect, I will tell you for a fact that they know everything that goes on in the medical community.
I am not recommending a drug pusher for the board. So don't choke.
I point this out, however, because WVU needs to consider people in the medical field who get around and also are knowledgeable of the financial side of the medical business. This is definitely the area where WVU has to think outside the box for recruiting board members.
When Netscape developed JavaScript in 1995, I remarked that java scripts had been around for years. When questioned about my observation, I quipped that boards of directors were in the habit of using the chairman's report as coffee cup coasters to protect their mahogany conference tables.
Bad jokes aside, a board member must be involved and not consider the board meeting a coffee klatch.
A board member's responsibility can be compared somewhat to that of a juror's. When the door is closed, people trust them to make the right decision. Sometimes, those decisions are incredibly unpopular, while at other times they are routine. But all individual decisions made on behalf of a community test a person's resolve, conscience and ethics.
From personal experience, I have seen the damage that self-serving directors can do. I have also seen the good work that responsible directors can do. The final test for selecting a board member is this simple: Picking from the former guarantees a train wreck, while picking from the latter guarantees success.
When selecting a board member-- and this applies to every organization -- the candidate must have a common interest or commonality of purpose with regard to the institution. If not, why bother?
While this requirement seems simple enough, it never fails that two undesirable types of people pass the commonality test--the proverbial "yes" man and the parasite. Even the most diligent screening process cannot always weed out these people.
Sitting on a board can have an intoxicating influence on even the most well-intentioned people. Directors find that the title of board member does afford them status in their communities, and at some point they might become "yes" men or women so as not to jeopardize losing their directorships. No director that I am aware of was ever fired for toadying.
Other well-intentioned people have compromised their fiduciary duty by doing business with the very institution they are appointed to oversee. Most often, these business arrangements begin as symbiotic relationships with all parties benefiting. When greed sets in, the relationship turns parasitic.
The faculty has expressed that the governing board should have more faculty representatives. This sounds wonderful in theory. But the reality of the campus is that professors rarely know what goes on outside of the buildings they teach in.
Professors also specialize in their field of learning. So who do you pick? The botanist who studies aphid damage? The physicist who looks for dark matter? The historian who debates the cause of the Civil War? Or do we consider the education professor who knows everything about running a classroom but precious little about running a school? Would a professor of proctology even stand a chance?
For the faculty's sake, they should speak collectively through their elected senate rather than through one or more board members. And the faculty senate should have stronger powers, especially so with regard to the presidential selection process. If a presidential candidate can't win the hearts of the faculty senate during his or her interview, then the candidate has no business applying for the job.
There are probably 100 million people on this planet who know who Pat White and Kevin Pittsnogle are. Ten times that many know who Jerry West is. In terms of dollars and cents, WVU's athletic program is not a huge budget item. But in terms of publicity, athletics brings WVU its most attention.
Candidates for the Board of Governors need to be serious about athletics -- and just as serious about demanding a scandal-free athletic program. The football stadium may be named in honor of Milan Puskar, but it will always be remembered as the house that Don Nehlen built. Coach Nehlen was a winner, but let us not forget that he was respected for his integrity from coast to coast.
The Health Science Center is an important part of WVU, and the board needs a few members who are up to speed on modern medicine. While drug company representatives don't get much respect, I will tell you for a fact that they know everything that goes on in the medical community.
I am not recommending a drug pusher for the board. So don't choke.
I point this out, however, because WVU needs to consider people in the medical field who get around and also are knowledgeable of the financial side of the medical business. This is definitely the area where WVU has to think outside the box for recruiting board members.
When Netscape developed JavaScript in 1995, I remarked that java scripts had been around for years. When questioned about my observation, I quipped that boards of directors were in the habit of using the chairman's report as coffee cup coasters to protect their mahogany conference tables.
Bad jokes aside, a board member must be involved and not consider the board meeting a coffee klatch.
A board member's responsibility can be compared somewhat to that of a juror's. When the door is closed, people trust them to make the right decision. Sometimes, those decisions are incredibly unpopular, while at other times they are routine. But all individual decisions made on behalf of a community test a person's resolve, conscience and ethics.
From personal experience, I have seen the damage that self-serving directors can do. I have also seen the good work that responsible directors can do. The final test for selecting a board member is this simple: Picking from the former guarantees a train wreck, while picking from the latter guarantees success.
Friday, May 30, 2008
It Was A Dark And Stormy EMBA Degree
I read the Report of the Special Investigative Panel For Review Of Executive MBA Program Records (at West Virginia University) issued on April 21, 2008. At the outset, I did not believe that five college professors could write with such clarity and brevity. And yet, these five academics did an admirable job in explaining their findings in crystal-clear fashion using as few words as possible.
Therefore, I have been at a loss to understand how there could be any debate about what transpired in awarding Ms. Heather Bresch an Executive MBA degree. The panel concluded that the academic and financial records of West Virginia University were reasonably accurate, that Ms. Bresch received special treatment not afforded any other degree candidate and that her degree was manufactured in the shabbiest way possible -- by overt fraud committed at the highest levels of the university.
The panel could not have made these charges clearer. However, in West Virginia, not all people are fluent in translating the English language into our local dialect.
"The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White is (and has been for decades) the most popular writing primer. The authors are famous for their advocacy of using the active voice when writing. They further recommend that writers avoid using the passive voice.
Unlike Mssrs. Strunk and White, West Virginians tend to speak and write in the passive voice, which derives from their fondness for passivity. The term "miner's mentality" describes the passive attitude of most West Virginians. For my purposes, let's skip the reference to miners and call this behavior the passivity-passive voice complex.
Innumerable people have either said or written, "Mistakes were made" when describing the manner in which university officials manufactured Ms. Bresch's degree. I wondered how they could have read the panel's report and then resort to the passive voice to describe people pulling grades out of thin air.
So I went back to the report and re-read it. On page 12, the panel states, "But again, the grade (--) that was entered in that course (--) was simply pulled from thin air." Well, there you have it -- the passive voice.
In matters relating to science and scholarship, it is customary to use the passive voice in certain situations. For example, it is better to write, "Experiments were conducted" than to write a lengthy preface explaining who conducted the experiments. If it is necessary to name each scientist conducting the experiment, then that information is consigned to a footnote.
The investigative panel's charge did not require the panel to return an indictment against the person or persons who altered Ms. Bresch's transcript. Thus, when the panel wrote, "But again, the grade ... that was entered ... was simply pulled from thin air" they purposely used the passive voice to avoid naming names and going beyond their charge.
Though the circumstance demanded that the panel speak to the alteration of grades in the passive voice, that does not mean that certain people weren't actively doing the pulling. If we allow ourselves to slough this dreadful affair off with words like "Mistakes were made" then we should just assume that the university's computer system is a deus ex machina over which there is no control. And that assumption would be consistent with the passivity-passive voice complex.
West Virginians need to realize that the rest of the world speaks with the active voice and, further, that the rest of the world does not translate the passive voice as necessitating passivity. The rest of the world is dumbstruck that a university would manufacture a degree. But West Virginians have allowed their special interpretation of a few words to cloud their own judgment.
The investigative panel members should be commended for their report. Had the provost appointed five typical West Virginians to the panel, then be assured that their report would consist of three tried-and-true words that you'll hear spoken only in the Mountain State: "You'll have that."
The university's faculty has every right to be incensed about the manufacture of a degree. That said, every single faculty member should have demanded a forum to cast his or her vote in the matters addressed on May 14. As it turned out, less than half bothered to vote.
No amount of protest can ever restore the faculty's virginity. But in this case, Shakespeare might say, "Methinks the Lady doth not protest enough!"
WVU would quickly expel a student caught cheating. The same punishment must apply to everyone involved in this pathetic scandal.
Therefore, I have been at a loss to understand how there could be any debate about what transpired in awarding Ms. Heather Bresch an Executive MBA degree. The panel concluded that the academic and financial records of West Virginia University were reasonably accurate, that Ms. Bresch received special treatment not afforded any other degree candidate and that her degree was manufactured in the shabbiest way possible -- by overt fraud committed at the highest levels of the university.
The panel could not have made these charges clearer. However, in West Virginia, not all people are fluent in translating the English language into our local dialect.
"The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White is (and has been for decades) the most popular writing primer. The authors are famous for their advocacy of using the active voice when writing. They further recommend that writers avoid using the passive voice.
Unlike Mssrs. Strunk and White, West Virginians tend to speak and write in the passive voice, which derives from their fondness for passivity. The term "miner's mentality" describes the passive attitude of most West Virginians. For my purposes, let's skip the reference to miners and call this behavior the passivity-passive voice complex.
Innumerable people have either said or written, "Mistakes were made" when describing the manner in which university officials manufactured Ms. Bresch's degree. I wondered how they could have read the panel's report and then resort to the passive voice to describe people pulling grades out of thin air.
So I went back to the report and re-read it. On page 12, the panel states, "But again, the grade (--) that was entered in that course (--) was simply pulled from thin air." Well, there you have it -- the passive voice.
In matters relating to science and scholarship, it is customary to use the passive voice in certain situations. For example, it is better to write, "Experiments were conducted" than to write a lengthy preface explaining who conducted the experiments. If it is necessary to name each scientist conducting the experiment, then that information is consigned to a footnote.
The investigative panel's charge did not require the panel to return an indictment against the person or persons who altered Ms. Bresch's transcript. Thus, when the panel wrote, "But again, the grade ... that was entered ... was simply pulled from thin air" they purposely used the passive voice to avoid naming names and going beyond their charge.
Though the circumstance demanded that the panel speak to the alteration of grades in the passive voice, that does not mean that certain people weren't actively doing the pulling. If we allow ourselves to slough this dreadful affair off with words like "Mistakes were made" then we should just assume that the university's computer system is a deus ex machina over which there is no control. And that assumption would be consistent with the passivity-passive voice complex.
West Virginians need to realize that the rest of the world speaks with the active voice and, further, that the rest of the world does not translate the passive voice as necessitating passivity. The rest of the world is dumbstruck that a university would manufacture a degree. But West Virginians have allowed their special interpretation of a few words to cloud their own judgment.
The investigative panel members should be commended for their report. Had the provost appointed five typical West Virginians to the panel, then be assured that their report would consist of three tried-and-true words that you'll hear spoken only in the Mountain State: "You'll have that."
The university's faculty has every right to be incensed about the manufacture of a degree. That said, every single faculty member should have demanded a forum to cast his or her vote in the matters addressed on May 14. As it turned out, less than half bothered to vote.
No amount of protest can ever restore the faculty's virginity. But in this case, Shakespeare might say, "Methinks the Lady doth not protest enough!"
WVU would quickly expel a student caught cheating. The same punishment must apply to everyone involved in this pathetic scandal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)