Recently received this story. Thought I'd share it.
- - - - -
Bear Bryant - knew how to be nice! At a TD Club meeting many years before his death, Coach told the following story... typical of the way he operated.
"I had just been named the new head coach at Alabama and was off in my old car down in South Alabama recruiting a prospect who was supposed to have been a pretty good player and I was havin' trouble finding the place. Getting hungry I spied an old cinder block building with a small sign out front that simply said "Restaurant".
I pull up, go in and every head in the place turns to stare at me. Seems I'm the only white fella in the place. But the food smelled good so I skip a table and go up to a cement bar and sit. A big ole man in a tee shirt and cap comes over and says, "What do you need?" I told him I needed lunch and what did they have today? He says, "You probably won't like it here, today we're having chiltlin's, collard greens and black eyed peas with cornbread. I'll bet you don't even know what chitlin's are, do you?"
I looked him square in the eye and said, "I'm from Arkansas, I've probly eaten a mile of them. Sounds like I'm in the right place." They all smiled he left to serve me up a big plate. When he comes back he says, you ain't from around here then? And I explain I'm the new football coach up in Tuscaloosa at the University and I'm here to find what ever that boys name was, and he says, yeah I've heard of him, he's supposed to be pretty good. And he gives me directions to the school so I can meet him and his coach.
As I'm paying up to leave I remember my manners and leave a tip, not too big to be flashy, but a good one, and he told me lunch was on him, but I told him for a lunch that good, I felt I should pay. The big man asked me if I had a photograph of something he could hang up to show I'd been there. I was so new that I didn't have any yet. It really wasn't that big a thing back then to be asked for, but I took a napkin and wrote his name and address on it and told him I'd get him one. I met the kid I was lookin' for later that afternoon, and I don't remember his name, but do remember I didn't think much of him when I met him. I had wasted a day, or so I thought.
When I got back to Tuscaloosa late that night, I put that napkin from my shirt pocket and put it under my keys so I wouldn't forget it. Hell, back then I was excited that anybody would want a picture of me. And the next day we found a picture and I wrote on it, Thanks for the best lunch I've ever had, Paul Bear Bryant.
Now let's go a whole buncha years down the road. Now we have black players at Alabama and I'm back down in that part of the country scouting an offensive lineman we sure needed. Yall remember, (and I forget the name, but it's not important to the story), well anyway, he's got two friends going to Auburn and he tells me he's got his heart set on Auburn too, so I leave empty handed and go on see some others while I'm down there. Two days later, I'm in my office in Tuscaloosa and the phone rings and it's this kid who just turned me down, and he says, "Coach, do you still want me at Alabama?" And I said hell yes I sure do. And he says, OK, he'll come. And I say, well son, what changed your mind? And he said, "When my grandpa found out that I had a chance to play for you and said no he pitched a fit and told me I wasn't going nowhere but Alabama, and wasn't playing for nobody but you. He thinks a lot of you and has ever since yall met." Well I didn't know his grandad from Adam's housecat so I asked him who his grand daddy was and he said, "You probly don't remember him, but you ate in his restaurant your first year at Alabama and you sent him a picture that he's had hung in that place ever since. That picture's his pride and joy and he still tells everybody about the day that Bear Bryant came in and had chitlin's with him. My grandpa said that when you left there, he never expected you to remember him or to send him that picture, but you kept your word to him, and to Grandpa, that's everything. He said you could teach me more than football and I had to play for a man like you, so I guess I'm going to."
"I was floored", he said. "But I learned that the lessons my mama taught me were always right. It don't cost nuthin' to be nice. It don't cost nuthin' to do the right thing most of the time, and it costs a lot to lose your good name by breakin' your word to someone. When I went back to sign that boy, I looked up his Grandpa and he's still running that place, but it looks a lot better now, and he didn't have chitlin's that day, but he had some ribs that woulda made dreamland proud and I made sure I posed for a lot of pictures, and don't think I didn't leave some new ones for him too, along with a signed football. I made it clear to all my assistants to keep this story and these lessons in mind when they're out on the road. And if you remember anything else from me, remember this, It really doesn't cost anything to be nice, and the rewards can be unimaginable."
from www.redelephants.com/CoachBearBryant.html
also at www.coachjayjohn.com/jjohns/articledetail.aspx?ArticleId=865&Id=1
- - - - -
The true character of people is shown by how they treat those who can not affect them
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
US Economy
According to BBC News [newsvote.bbc.co.uk], 18 June 2008, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner proposed banking reforms, including
• A dedicated agency to protect consumer interests and regulate mortgages and credit cards.
• Consolidating some regulatory agencies and giving the Federal Reserve greater oversight powers
• A new oversight council uniting the heads of existing agencies to improve regulation
• Greater financial cooperation internationally.
- As to the first point, another Federal agency is historically not in the interest of US citizens and only serves to further grow, entrench, and secure the Federal government. The biggest improvement in consumer protection may be effected with a simple usury law.
At present there is no Federal usury law and lenders may legally charge in excess of 30% effective interest under State's laws. This rate was set in the early 1980’s when inflation was high and approaching the near 20% usury interest rate limits that had been in place at the time. New usury rates were, unfortunately, set at an absolute or fixed rate rather than a relative rate that may float with market conditions. Thus, we have been experiencing the results of lenders charging about 30% as their cost of money has fallen below 3%.
The usury rate should be set as a ratio of a market indicator, including a Federal Reserve rate, inflation rate, or prime rate. The experience of the early 80’s indicates that a usury rate of 3/2 the Prime rate would be fair. And, there is no reason other than greed that the usury rate should not include all fees and charges.
An effective Federal usury law may look like:
No lender shall impose an effective fixed interest rate, including actual fixed interest rate and all fees and charges, greater than 3/2 the Prime Rate at the time the fixed interest rate is fixed. In the alternative, no lender shall impose an effective adjustable interest rate, including actual adjustable interest rate and all fees and charges, greater than 3/2 the Prime Rate at the time the adjustable interest rate is adjusted.
Further, simple bolstering of financial institutions may be effected by legislative establishment of a high ratio of secured to unsecured investments, say 70:30. An effective investment limit law may look like:
No bank, no credit union, no insurer, and no other financial institution that generally provides either savings account or insurance services shall invest more than 30% of new receipts in any non-secured investment, shall in any way convert secured investment funds to any non-secured investment, and shall in any way invest proceeds of a secured investment in any non-secured investment. This provision shall expressly not apply to investment of funds of each of an individual, a closely held private entity, and a publicly traded entity having invested assets not greater than one billion dollars, which invested asset valuation shall be in dollars adjusted to year 2000 dollar value.
- As to the second and third points of regulation, we have not had unregulated capitalism since before anyone living may remember. Unknowledgeable Congresses and Presidents have meddled with the US economy for decades, if not generations. Most notably, loose credit policies have been pressed since at least as early as the 1970’s. The forming of Fannie Mae and of Freddie Mac by Congress was a feeble attempt to provide safety nets under loose credit policy. That has not worked.
Specifically as to the Federal Reserve, the “Fed” is a non-US financial company (actually a British company, perhaps) that has been around since the early 1900’s without effecting the financial stability for which it was established. We could have had an equally unsettled financial experience without the “Fed.” A better plan may be to diminish and ultimately eliminate the “Fed.”
As before, another Federal council is historically not in the interest of US citizens and only serves to further grow, entrench, and secure the Federal government. The biggest improvement in regulation may be effected with consolidating and diminishing Federal agencies and councils. Too much of US resources [the economy] is expended on government itself, which does not produce anything and is aptly identified as a parasite on the US economy.
A community with a great number of doctors is a sick community. Likewise, a country with a large government is a sick country, not free and robust.
• A dedicated agency to protect consumer interests and regulate mortgages and credit cards.
• Consolidating some regulatory agencies and giving the Federal Reserve greater oversight powers
• A new oversight council uniting the heads of existing agencies to improve regulation
• Greater financial cooperation internationally.
- As to the first point, another Federal agency is historically not in the interest of US citizens and only serves to further grow, entrench, and secure the Federal government. The biggest improvement in consumer protection may be effected with a simple usury law.
At present there is no Federal usury law and lenders may legally charge in excess of 30% effective interest under State's laws. This rate was set in the early 1980’s when inflation was high and approaching the near 20% usury interest rate limits that had been in place at the time. New usury rates were, unfortunately, set at an absolute or fixed rate rather than a relative rate that may float with market conditions. Thus, we have been experiencing the results of lenders charging about 30% as their cost of money has fallen below 3%.
The usury rate should be set as a ratio of a market indicator, including a Federal Reserve rate, inflation rate, or prime rate. The experience of the early 80’s indicates that a usury rate of 3/2 the Prime rate would be fair. And, there is no reason other than greed that the usury rate should not include all fees and charges.
An effective Federal usury law may look like:
No lender shall impose an effective fixed interest rate, including actual fixed interest rate and all fees and charges, greater than 3/2 the Prime Rate at the time the fixed interest rate is fixed. In the alternative, no lender shall impose an effective adjustable interest rate, including actual adjustable interest rate and all fees and charges, greater than 3/2 the Prime Rate at the time the adjustable interest rate is adjusted.
Further, simple bolstering of financial institutions may be effected by legislative establishment of a high ratio of secured to unsecured investments, say 70:30. An effective investment limit law may look like:
No bank, no credit union, no insurer, and no other financial institution that generally provides either savings account or insurance services shall invest more than 30% of new receipts in any non-secured investment, shall in any way convert secured investment funds to any non-secured investment, and shall in any way invest proceeds of a secured investment in any non-secured investment. This provision shall expressly not apply to investment of funds of each of an individual, a closely held private entity, and a publicly traded entity having invested assets not greater than one billion dollars, which invested asset valuation shall be in dollars adjusted to year 2000 dollar value.
- As to the second and third points of regulation, we have not had unregulated capitalism since before anyone living may remember. Unknowledgeable Congresses and Presidents have meddled with the US economy for decades, if not generations. Most notably, loose credit policies have been pressed since at least as early as the 1970’s. The forming of Fannie Mae and of Freddie Mac by Congress was a feeble attempt to provide safety nets under loose credit policy. That has not worked.
Specifically as to the Federal Reserve, the “Fed” is a non-US financial company (actually a British company, perhaps) that has been around since the early 1900’s without effecting the financial stability for which it was established. We could have had an equally unsettled financial experience without the “Fed.” A better plan may be to diminish and ultimately eliminate the “Fed.”
As before, another Federal council is historically not in the interest of US citizens and only serves to further grow, entrench, and secure the Federal government. The biggest improvement in regulation may be effected with consolidating and diminishing Federal agencies and councils. Too much of US resources [the economy] is expended on government itself, which does not produce anything and is aptly identified as a parasite on the US economy.
A community with a great number of doctors is a sick community. Likewise, a country with a large government is a sick country, not free and robust.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The High Price Of Cheaper, Faster
A portion from Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox Rabbi, in his book “America's Real War,” 1999 Rabbi Daniel Lapin, p 24-26:
I recall once visiting a boatyard in the south of England that was still building the prettiest little sailing sloops out of fine English oak-and doing so entirely by hand. I had made a point of visiting this yard during the mid 1960s when fiberglass had just started becoming the material of choice for the leisure boat industry; I had a sense that time was rapidly passing should I want to personally see boats being built, much as they used to be built, by skilled craftsmen.
Now fiberglass is a very technologically-advanced material. It combines two substances - resin and glass strands - in order to produce a new kind of hybrid that possesses the outstanding characteristics of each substance. Its chief advantage is that it can be applied to the inside of a mold by relatively unskilled labor and then popped out as soon as it has hardened and cured. Boat hulls can be turned out rapidly and inexpensively because little skill is required.
By contrast, the craftsmen at the Hilyard boatworks in south England had spent a lifetime building wooden boats by hand. Many of these men were the sons of those who had also spent their lives building exquisite yachts out of ancient oak forests I recall watching one elderly boatbuilder planking what I remember to be about a thirty-foot boat. He had planked the side all the way down from the sheer, or deck line, and all the way up from the keel until all that remained was space for the last plank to be laid up against the frames. The gap was about thirty feet long from stem to stem. Its width varied between about six or seven inches in the middle to about one or two inches at each end. This was because the cross section of a sailing boat varies from narrow at bow and stem to a wine-glass appearance amidships. Since the same number of planks are used from deck to keel, and since the distance is obviously so much greater at the middle of the vessel than it is at either end, each plank must be far wider toward its middle than at either of its ends. I describe this process in some detail not because I think you will ever need to know, but because I want you to comprehend the enormity of the feat I am about to relate.
While I stood and watched the slightly stooped figure of the older craftsman, he stepped back and, with some obvious satisfaction at being so close to finishing his project, gazed adoringly at the lovely ship. Eyeing the last remaining gap to be planked, he ambled over to the pile of fresh lumber and picked out a long slender plank that must have been about thirty-five feet long and about ten inches wide. After placing it in several vises set into a long workbench, he began planing its edge down to reduce its width. I waited to see him take some measurements off the hull; he never did. Every now and again he would glance over his shoulder and narrow his eyes as he stared at the gap in the planking, as if it offended him personally. It finally dawned on me that he was visually measuring his work against the gap into which it would have to fit perfectly. Not only was there the length and constantly varying width for him to contend with, but there was also a bevel that needed to be set into both the upper and lower edges of the new plank to later accept the caulking.
Swinging backward and forward, he planed away so much that his big old work boots were almost concealed by fresh, fragrant shavings. (I can smell them to this day) The shavings fell from his hissing plane until he finally released the plank from the vise, lifted it to his shoulders, and carried it over to the boat where he offered it up to the gap. He clamped it into position, stepped back again and strolled the length of the boat without taking his eyes off his new plank. Then he took the plank back to the workbench, where he toiled at it for another thirty or forty minutes before returning it to the boat. It fit perfectly. He glued and screwed it into place, quite oblivious to the fact that he had casually carried off a feat of sheer magic. I was incredibly moved as I realized that the world would soon cease to see anything like this again.
There was very little technology to see that afternoon at the Hilyard boat yard in south England. But no more than about sixty miles away, in a spanking-new factory belonging to Russell Marine, twenty new fiberglass boats had been built in molds in less time than it took the Hilyard works to build just one wooden boat. They were going to be considerably less expensive and much easier to own and maintain.
Which was the superior achievement? Using advanced technology, Russell Marine was churning out large numbers of identical plastic boats that sold for reasonable sums of money and, for the first time ever, brought leisure boating to England's ordinary citizens. Russell Marine was also on its way to becoming a successful company that earned outstanding returns for its shareholders by using every latest advance in manufacturing technology The Hilyard yard represented a dying industry Wooden boat building of that kind no longer exists. They were producing works of art for connoisseurs. Their boats were expensive and difficult to maintain, but they were beautiful, hand-crafted creations. Which was superior?
I do not think there is much doubt that in spite of our nostalgia for Hilyard, the shiny new factory was doing the better job. The proof was that they remained in business whereas the Hilyard enterprise finally closed. Yet, in spite of all this, we must constantly remain aware that the plastic factory never did and never will produce outstanding craftsmen. Their technology allows them to succeed in spite of the fact that their best employee has none of the skills, quality, or character strength of Hilyard's youngest apprentice.
Though marvelous, technology has the capacity to conceal a decline in the human qualities of people. One dull child with a twelve-dollar calculator can outshine a brilliant nineteenth-century accountant doing mental arithmetic. The juvenile's accuracy and speed will eclipse that of the man who held the finances of large corporations in his head just one hundred years ago. Let us not fall into the trap of considering the adolescent superior to last generation's accountant. Given the choice we might even have to hire the stripling with the calculator over the skilled number expert of yesterday. But we must remain aware that we will be hiring technical skill without virtue, loyalty, or strength of character, let alone comprehension of what the numbers mean. For those qualities, we might do far better to hire the elderly accountant with the green eyeshade. Technology is very useful indeed, but it doesn't automatically produce greatness in people; sometimes it only conceals weakness. Not only that, but on occasion technological advance provides the illusion that we are moving forward when in reality we are sliding backward.
I recall once visiting a boatyard in the south of England that was still building the prettiest little sailing sloops out of fine English oak-and doing so entirely by hand. I had made a point of visiting this yard during the mid 1960s when fiberglass had just started becoming the material of choice for the leisure boat industry; I had a sense that time was rapidly passing should I want to personally see boats being built, much as they used to be built, by skilled craftsmen.
Now fiberglass is a very technologically-advanced material. It combines two substances - resin and glass strands - in order to produce a new kind of hybrid that possesses the outstanding characteristics of each substance. Its chief advantage is that it can be applied to the inside of a mold by relatively unskilled labor and then popped out as soon as it has hardened and cured. Boat hulls can be turned out rapidly and inexpensively because little skill is required.
By contrast, the craftsmen at the Hilyard boatworks in south England had spent a lifetime building wooden boats by hand. Many of these men were the sons of those who had also spent their lives building exquisite yachts out of ancient oak forests I recall watching one elderly boatbuilder planking what I remember to be about a thirty-foot boat. He had planked the side all the way down from the sheer, or deck line, and all the way up from the keel until all that remained was space for the last plank to be laid up against the frames. The gap was about thirty feet long from stem to stem. Its width varied between about six or seven inches in the middle to about one or two inches at each end. This was because the cross section of a sailing boat varies from narrow at bow and stem to a wine-glass appearance amidships. Since the same number of planks are used from deck to keel, and since the distance is obviously so much greater at the middle of the vessel than it is at either end, each plank must be far wider toward its middle than at either of its ends. I describe this process in some detail not because I think you will ever need to know, but because I want you to comprehend the enormity of the feat I am about to relate.
While I stood and watched the slightly stooped figure of the older craftsman, he stepped back and, with some obvious satisfaction at being so close to finishing his project, gazed adoringly at the lovely ship. Eyeing the last remaining gap to be planked, he ambled over to the pile of fresh lumber and picked out a long slender plank that must have been about thirty-five feet long and about ten inches wide. After placing it in several vises set into a long workbench, he began planing its edge down to reduce its width. I waited to see him take some measurements off the hull; he never did. Every now and again he would glance over his shoulder and narrow his eyes as he stared at the gap in the planking, as if it offended him personally. It finally dawned on me that he was visually measuring his work against the gap into which it would have to fit perfectly. Not only was there the length and constantly varying width for him to contend with, but there was also a bevel that needed to be set into both the upper and lower edges of the new plank to later accept the caulking.
Swinging backward and forward, he planed away so much that his big old work boots were almost concealed by fresh, fragrant shavings. (I can smell them to this day) The shavings fell from his hissing plane until he finally released the plank from the vise, lifted it to his shoulders, and carried it over to the boat where he offered it up to the gap. He clamped it into position, stepped back again and strolled the length of the boat without taking his eyes off his new plank. Then he took the plank back to the workbench, where he toiled at it for another thirty or forty minutes before returning it to the boat. It fit perfectly. He glued and screwed it into place, quite oblivious to the fact that he had casually carried off a feat of sheer magic. I was incredibly moved as I realized that the world would soon cease to see anything like this again.
There was very little technology to see that afternoon at the Hilyard boat yard in south England. But no more than about sixty miles away, in a spanking-new factory belonging to Russell Marine, twenty new fiberglass boats had been built in molds in less time than it took the Hilyard works to build just one wooden boat. They were going to be considerably less expensive and much easier to own and maintain.
Which was the superior achievement? Using advanced technology, Russell Marine was churning out large numbers of identical plastic boats that sold for reasonable sums of money and, for the first time ever, brought leisure boating to England's ordinary citizens. Russell Marine was also on its way to becoming a successful company that earned outstanding returns for its shareholders by using every latest advance in manufacturing technology The Hilyard yard represented a dying industry Wooden boat building of that kind no longer exists. They were producing works of art for connoisseurs. Their boats were expensive and difficult to maintain, but they were beautiful, hand-crafted creations. Which was superior?
I do not think there is much doubt that in spite of our nostalgia for Hilyard, the shiny new factory was doing the better job. The proof was that they remained in business whereas the Hilyard enterprise finally closed. Yet, in spite of all this, we must constantly remain aware that the plastic factory never did and never will produce outstanding craftsmen. Their technology allows them to succeed in spite of the fact that their best employee has none of the skills, quality, or character strength of Hilyard's youngest apprentice.
Though marvelous, technology has the capacity to conceal a decline in the human qualities of people. One dull child with a twelve-dollar calculator can outshine a brilliant nineteenth-century accountant doing mental arithmetic. The juvenile's accuracy and speed will eclipse that of the man who held the finances of large corporations in his head just one hundred years ago. Let us not fall into the trap of considering the adolescent superior to last generation's accountant. Given the choice we might even have to hire the stripling with the calculator over the skilled number expert of yesterday. But we must remain aware that we will be hiring technical skill without virtue, loyalty, or strength of character, let alone comprehension of what the numbers mean. For those qualities, we might do far better to hire the elderly accountant with the green eyeshade. Technology is very useful indeed, but it doesn't automatically produce greatness in people; sometimes it only conceals weakness. Not only that, but on occasion technological advance provides the illusion that we are moving forward when in reality we are sliding backward.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Public Education, so called
The task of effecting education in the U.S. is not an assignment well delegated to Government. This is demonstrated by the present, post-industrial condition of public education in the U.S. Rather, the proper role of Government may be limited to assuring that every citizen, not mere resident, has equal access and opportunity to education to the limit of one’s intellectual ability. This assurance may best be effected with productive funding, stated performance standards (not curricula), or, most preferably, open competition among schools.
"Back in the day," a teacher was expected to present competent instruction and a student was expected to assimilate the instruction presented. When a student did not understand the instruction, questioning and further or alternative instruction were had. Students who did assimilate the instruction may be called upon to assist students who did not. Substantially, the teacher’s initial presentation may have been considered about eighty to ninety percent effective with the slack being taken up with the questioning and the fellow student assistance.
Inherent in the process was an understanding and accommodation of individual learning preferences. Those considered good teachers held a class in which all students were addressed, while those considered bad teachers substantially presented instruction in their own way, take it or leave it. A good teacher would also take note of response to instruction presented and account for that response in future presentation.
Public education was founded at a local or grass roots level. Community involvement was inherent. Industrialization was applied to public education with consideration of the efficiencies of mass production. The rigid, assembly line public school system was birthed generations ago and continues to fester. While the autonomous, community public school of days gone by may rightfully be compared to a craftsman’s shop, today’s public school is just so compared with impassive mass production, including, its accouterments.
The prior day community school was an integral part of the character of the community, affecting the growth, the attitude, and the reputation of the community. The present day public school bureaucracy has smeared the distinctions among communities to one common and low threshold. Public education is no longer a prominent factor in defining a good character of a community. Worse, however, is the diminishing value of public education, though budgets continually increase.
It is, or should be, common knowledge that a principle task of post secondary educators (college) regarding entering Freshmen, is to bring the entering students up to a twelfth grade functional level. An entire industry of tutoring services has grown in the past thirty years or so, and is established on the failure of public education. It is common knowledge in business that when one presents to a general adult audience and one wants eighty percent of the audience to understand the message presented, then the presentation is best targeted to a fifth grade level. Only a few years ago the target was seventh grade.
Public education should return to local control and autonomy. Whether the definition of local is city / township, metropolitan area, or county is not clear. Be that as it may, funding may be provided at a larger geographic level; perhaps regionally in an intrastate context, with state and federal supplemental funding as may be equitable; perhaps statewide with federal supplemental funding as may be equitable. The sole purpose of state supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the state, while the sole purpose of federal supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the nation. Supplemental funding may be structured to account for economic factors that vary geographically. However structured, the objective would be to assure that the same level of educational resource is available to each student.
- - - - -
An open forum discussion was held the other week regarding public schools and their propensity to kill creativity. The gathering opened with recorded comment by Sir Ken Robinson, which should be found at TED.com. Sir Robinson’s comment was directed to a notion that schools kill creativity.
Various participants shared their personal experiences relative to a child or sibling and regarding failure of the public education system to edify. Rather, the anecdotes demonstrated public education as damaging. “Public education” seems to be generally presented in its "public relations" as focusing its efforts to uplift students. One likely typically considers that public education is neutral at worst and typically does not consider it actually damaging, though it may damage.
I presumed the forum would identify constructive steps forward to improve public education and proposed an analogy of public education having come to be a mass production bureaucracy or institution that is based on an “one size fits all” premise and that treats students as fungible raw materials, and further proposed that public education should start with a premise that each student is unique and is uniquely inherently a valuable resource. One forum participant arose in argument against the proposition, stating that public education is rigid and does not recognize the differences of each student.
Sad, is it not, when one chooses to not listen such that they may not hear. Sad, is it not, when one’s educational experience manifests its failure.
Undaunted, I continued to propose that to the extent that a “one size fits all” mandate to efficiencies may be imposed, then perhaps consideration may be had to focusing or limiting that mandate on the traditional three R’s, namely, reading, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmatic. That is to say, focus on students being competent to survive in society with communication and transaction skills such that one not be relegated to being a ward of the state. This limitation may, then, allow accommodation of individuality. One forum participant arose in argument against, making claim that communication and transaction skills are unimportant; himself not being able to balance his checkbook and it works for him.
Dumbfounding, that anyone may propose that an ability to read a menu, for example, and that an ability to purchase goods or services are not essential skills. Have you yet noticed how clerks have predominately lost the ability to simply make change?
Another forum participant interjected that the discussion had been judgmental and punitive. This participant continued that broader understanding of alternative cultures, beliefs, or lifestyles should be undertaken, including an immersion experience of Islam in a public school.
Judgmental involves judgment, which is a process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing. Again, I presume. The conceptual purpose of a forum is to discern a present condition, to form opinion thereof, to judge desirability thereby, to identify deficiencies therein, and to make recommendation. As to punitive, on the other hand, this is inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment. No participant was punished, however. As to public education of Islam, this ignores the court rule of "separation of church and state." That the participant intended to overturn the court rule of "separation of church and state" is doubtful. That the participant has read the Koran is also doubtful.
Quite frankly, the experience was, in itself, educational. I came away impressed. If the body of this forum fairly represents the community at large, then I am impressed by the myopia that was given voice.
Ponder then, the cause-effect relationship; generations of degrading public education and a myopic community. Ponder also, who elects who.
And, so goes the plutocracy - - -
"Back in the day," a teacher was expected to present competent instruction and a student was expected to assimilate the instruction presented. When a student did not understand the instruction, questioning and further or alternative instruction were had. Students who did assimilate the instruction may be called upon to assist students who did not. Substantially, the teacher’s initial presentation may have been considered about eighty to ninety percent effective with the slack being taken up with the questioning and the fellow student assistance.
Inherent in the process was an understanding and accommodation of individual learning preferences. Those considered good teachers held a class in which all students were addressed, while those considered bad teachers substantially presented instruction in their own way, take it or leave it. A good teacher would also take note of response to instruction presented and account for that response in future presentation.
Public education was founded at a local or grass roots level. Community involvement was inherent. Industrialization was applied to public education with consideration of the efficiencies of mass production. The rigid, assembly line public school system was birthed generations ago and continues to fester. While the autonomous, community public school of days gone by may rightfully be compared to a craftsman’s shop, today’s public school is just so compared with impassive mass production, including, its accouterments.
The prior day community school was an integral part of the character of the community, affecting the growth, the attitude, and the reputation of the community. The present day public school bureaucracy has smeared the distinctions among communities to one common and low threshold. Public education is no longer a prominent factor in defining a good character of a community. Worse, however, is the diminishing value of public education, though budgets continually increase.
It is, or should be, common knowledge that a principle task of post secondary educators (college) regarding entering Freshmen, is to bring the entering students up to a twelfth grade functional level. An entire industry of tutoring services has grown in the past thirty years or so, and is established on the failure of public education. It is common knowledge in business that when one presents to a general adult audience and one wants eighty percent of the audience to understand the message presented, then the presentation is best targeted to a fifth grade level. Only a few years ago the target was seventh grade.
Public education should return to local control and autonomy. Whether the definition of local is city / township, metropolitan area, or county is not clear. Be that as it may, funding may be provided at a larger geographic level; perhaps regionally in an intrastate context, with state and federal supplemental funding as may be equitable; perhaps statewide with federal supplemental funding as may be equitable. The sole purpose of state supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the state, while the sole purpose of federal supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the nation. Supplemental funding may be structured to account for economic factors that vary geographically. However structured, the objective would be to assure that the same level of educational resource is available to each student.
- - - - -
An open forum discussion was held the other week regarding public schools and their propensity to kill creativity. The gathering opened with recorded comment by Sir Ken Robinson, which should be found at TED.com. Sir Robinson’s comment was directed to a notion that schools kill creativity.
Various participants shared their personal experiences relative to a child or sibling and regarding failure of the public education system to edify. Rather, the anecdotes demonstrated public education as damaging. “Public education” seems to be generally presented in its "public relations" as focusing its efforts to uplift students. One likely typically considers that public education is neutral at worst and typically does not consider it actually damaging, though it may damage.
I presumed the forum would identify constructive steps forward to improve public education and proposed an analogy of public education having come to be a mass production bureaucracy or institution that is based on an “one size fits all” premise and that treats students as fungible raw materials, and further proposed that public education should start with a premise that each student is unique and is uniquely inherently a valuable resource. One forum participant arose in argument against the proposition, stating that public education is rigid and does not recognize the differences of each student.
Sad, is it not, when one chooses to not listen such that they may not hear. Sad, is it not, when one’s educational experience manifests its failure.
Undaunted, I continued to propose that to the extent that a “one size fits all” mandate to efficiencies may be imposed, then perhaps consideration may be had to focusing or limiting that mandate on the traditional three R’s, namely, reading, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmatic. That is to say, focus on students being competent to survive in society with communication and transaction skills such that one not be relegated to being a ward of the state. This limitation may, then, allow accommodation of individuality. One forum participant arose in argument against, making claim that communication and transaction skills are unimportant; himself not being able to balance his checkbook and it works for him.
Dumbfounding, that anyone may propose that an ability to read a menu, for example, and that an ability to purchase goods or services are not essential skills. Have you yet noticed how clerks have predominately lost the ability to simply make change?
Another forum participant interjected that the discussion had been judgmental and punitive. This participant continued that broader understanding of alternative cultures, beliefs, or lifestyles should be undertaken, including an immersion experience of Islam in a public school.
Judgmental involves judgment, which is a process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing. Again, I presume. The conceptual purpose of a forum is to discern a present condition, to form opinion thereof, to judge desirability thereby, to identify deficiencies therein, and to make recommendation. As to punitive, on the other hand, this is inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment. No participant was punished, however. As to public education of Islam, this ignores the court rule of "separation of church and state." That the participant intended to overturn the court rule of "separation of church and state" is doubtful. That the participant has read the Koran is also doubtful.
Quite frankly, the experience was, in itself, educational. I came away impressed. If the body of this forum fairly represents the community at large, then I am impressed by the myopia that was given voice.
Ponder then, the cause-effect relationship; generations of degrading public education and a myopic community. Ponder also, who elects who.
And, so goes the plutocracy - - -
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Finance 101
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was promoted by the Carter administration and required lending institutions to offer credit and home ownership opportunities to "underserved populations," those who would not qualify under market standard risk levels. Naturally, this led to a large number of no-money-down or poor-credit-rating mortgages and increased risk in the mortgage section of the U.S. financial market.
I noticed in 1980 that credit was relatively loose and questioned when the economy would adjust enough such that the hammer would fall on the credit market. Anyone with minimal financial knowledge should understand the fundamentals of “leverage,” the use of credit to enhance one's speculative capacity. On the one hand, when times are good, leverage multiplies return on investment. Which is to say, “I can grow my business beyond my available investment resources,” or, “I can get more house than I can afford.” On the other hand, when times go bad, leverage also multiplies the pressure or demand on one’s ability to pay. Clearly, increasing risk in the financial markets multiplies the consequences of a turn from good times to bad times. It’s Finance 101!
In 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was liberalized under the Clinton administration to generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities.
In 1999, U.S. Senate bill S900 was introduced to place controls in the financial markets and temper the Community Reinvestment Act. Senator Carl Levin (D) and others opposed the provisions of this bill that may weaken the CRA, saying the CRA was intended to modernize the financial sector of the U.S. economy.
Also in 1999, the New York Times reported on 30 September, an easing of credit by Fannie Mae to facilitate mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers. This appeared to be in response to pressure from the Clinton administration. More risk in the financial market.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed regulatory changes regarding the financial market, including reducing the power of the administration. This proposal was reported in the New York Times. Senator Barney Frank (D) and others opposed the proposal, saying it was unnecessary. The proposal did not progress.
In 2005, U.S. Senate bill S190 was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and co-sponsored by Senators Dole (R), Sununu (R), and McCain (R) to place some controls in the financial market. This bill was, however, killed out of committee.
It’s 2008. Did the hammer fall? Seems that the economy adjusts every generation, about forty years, give or take about five years. There may be a pattern here: Congress meddles with the market, the economy; eventually enough pressure builds; and the economy adjusts in response. Congress has not yet, unfortunately, demonstrated that it has learned to stop meddling.
I noticed in 1980 that credit was relatively loose and questioned when the economy would adjust enough such that the hammer would fall on the credit market. Anyone with minimal financial knowledge should understand the fundamentals of “leverage,” the use of credit to enhance one's speculative capacity. On the one hand, when times are good, leverage multiplies return on investment. Which is to say, “I can grow my business beyond my available investment resources,” or, “I can get more house than I can afford.” On the other hand, when times go bad, leverage also multiplies the pressure or demand on one’s ability to pay. Clearly, increasing risk in the financial markets multiplies the consequences of a turn from good times to bad times. It’s Finance 101!
In 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was liberalized under the Clinton administration to generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities.
In 1999, U.S. Senate bill S900 was introduced to place controls in the financial markets and temper the Community Reinvestment Act. Senator Carl Levin (D) and others opposed the provisions of this bill that may weaken the CRA, saying the CRA was intended to modernize the financial sector of the U.S. economy.
Also in 1999, the New York Times reported on 30 September, an easing of credit by Fannie Mae to facilitate mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers. This appeared to be in response to pressure from the Clinton administration. More risk in the financial market.
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed regulatory changes regarding the financial market, including reducing the power of the administration. This proposal was reported in the New York Times. Senator Barney Frank (D) and others opposed the proposal, saying it was unnecessary. The proposal did not progress.
In 2005, U.S. Senate bill S190 was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and co-sponsored by Senators Dole (R), Sununu (R), and McCain (R) to place some controls in the financial market. This bill was, however, killed out of committee.
It’s 2008. Did the hammer fall? Seems that the economy adjusts every generation, about forty years, give or take about five years. There may be a pattern here: Congress meddles with the market, the economy; eventually enough pressure builds; and the economy adjusts in response. Congress has not yet, unfortunately, demonstrated that it has learned to stop meddling.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Agility <=> Culture
Hopefully, food for thinking - - -
I attended the other night, an "e2e" (entrepreneur to entrepreneur) event hosted by Lakeshore Advantage (www.lakeshoreadvantage.com) in Zeeland. I am an advisor in their "Business Garden."
The speaker on this occasion was Dick DeVos. Dick presented some thoughts regarding five issues for Michigan, that he considers a priority in these days. One issue had to do with energy and prompted a fellow audience member to ask regarding automotive electric propulsion and why the “Big Three” are not further along toward effective mass implementation.
Curiously, this precipitated for me a consideration of the character of a company or entity through its life cycle, and more specifically of its agility.
Growth of an entity, specifically physical, may be anticipated as inherent to most successful entities. With physical growth, comes a variety of “overheads” to monitor and otherwise keep a handle on the status of the entity at various levels. Impersonality has demonstrated itself to typically accompany growth and may establish itself as an entity transitions to incorporate organizational bureaucracy. Some level of organizational bureaucracy may be conceded inherent in an entity of significant size, though a culture of bureaucracy may not be inevitable.
Given this presumptive framework, one may postulate an agility spectrum metering a correlation between entity “ownership” and entity agility. Privately held entities tend toward agility while publicly held entities tend toward lethargy. The arch-type publicly held entity may be supposed a government agency. There is varying scope of Ownership, both literal and cultural. Culture may be understood as manifestation of community attitude. Also, stagnant close ownership is conceded not agile.
Structurally, closely held entities tend to have owners engaged with the activities and results of the entity at a relatively heightened level. Engaged decision-making may also include a market awareness such that opportunities may be identified and captured. Close, engaged ownership may dominate an entity even when the entity acquires great size and inherent organizational bureaucracy. Further, beyond mere structural ownership and beyond mere financial investment ownership motivation, close ownership includes an attitude of ownership. Thus, a propensity toward agility.
Conversely, widely held entities tend to have generally disengaged ownership; the broader the ownership, the greater the disengagement. Disengaged owners rely upon the integrity and performance of those in position to oversee and effect operation or, as appears more common, upon an established process or system, the entity bureaucracy. This structural segregation of ownership and of financial investment from operation fosters individual attitudes of bureaucracy and thus an entity culture of bureaucracy; institutionalization! Thus, a propensity toward continuing invariably, the opposite of agility.
A culture of engagement, of ownership, may be establish even in a widely held entity, however. The level of effort and likelihood for success may be indefinable. On the one hand, in a context of present prominent U.S. social culture, one may look at a government entity, a major manufacturer, or a financial institution, for example, and project the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement as immense and miniscule, respectively, unobtainable. On the other hand, in a context of an entity with personnel who are willing to shun the “me first” attitude that demonstrates itself in the likes of Enron and in reported compensation packages for executives of failing and failed business, the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement may be seen as miniscule and immense, respectively, easy as pie.
An aside: The prominent “me first” attitude is, interestingly, predominantly demonstrated in the seed of “the Sixties.” The alleged love and share culture of the Sixties has grown and manifest immature selfishness, greed. Younger generations are, to their credit, not showing the same culture of greed.
Of course, these are broad statements, generalizations, and specific situations are unique to their own circumstance.
I attended the other night, an "e2e" (entrepreneur to entrepreneur) event hosted by Lakeshore Advantage (www.lakeshoreadvantage.com) in Zeeland. I am an advisor in their "Business Garden."
The speaker on this occasion was Dick DeVos. Dick presented some thoughts regarding five issues for Michigan, that he considers a priority in these days. One issue had to do with energy and prompted a fellow audience member to ask regarding automotive electric propulsion and why the “Big Three” are not further along toward effective mass implementation.
Curiously, this precipitated for me a consideration of the character of a company or entity through its life cycle, and more specifically of its agility.
Growth of an entity, specifically physical, may be anticipated as inherent to most successful entities. With physical growth, comes a variety of “overheads” to monitor and otherwise keep a handle on the status of the entity at various levels. Impersonality has demonstrated itself to typically accompany growth and may establish itself as an entity transitions to incorporate organizational bureaucracy. Some level of organizational bureaucracy may be conceded inherent in an entity of significant size, though a culture of bureaucracy may not be inevitable.
Given this presumptive framework, one may postulate an agility spectrum metering a correlation between entity “ownership” and entity agility. Privately held entities tend toward agility while publicly held entities tend toward lethargy. The arch-type publicly held entity may be supposed a government agency. There is varying scope of Ownership, both literal and cultural. Culture may be understood as manifestation of community attitude. Also, stagnant close ownership is conceded not agile.
Structurally, closely held entities tend to have owners engaged with the activities and results of the entity at a relatively heightened level. Engaged decision-making may also include a market awareness such that opportunities may be identified and captured. Close, engaged ownership may dominate an entity even when the entity acquires great size and inherent organizational bureaucracy. Further, beyond mere structural ownership and beyond mere financial investment ownership motivation, close ownership includes an attitude of ownership. Thus, a propensity toward agility.
Conversely, widely held entities tend to have generally disengaged ownership; the broader the ownership, the greater the disengagement. Disengaged owners rely upon the integrity and performance of those in position to oversee and effect operation or, as appears more common, upon an established process or system, the entity bureaucracy. This structural segregation of ownership and of financial investment from operation fosters individual attitudes of bureaucracy and thus an entity culture of bureaucracy; institutionalization! Thus, a propensity toward continuing invariably, the opposite of agility.
A culture of engagement, of ownership, may be establish even in a widely held entity, however. The level of effort and likelihood for success may be indefinable. On the one hand, in a context of present prominent U.S. social culture, one may look at a government entity, a major manufacturer, or a financial institution, for example, and project the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement as immense and miniscule, respectively, unobtainable. On the other hand, in a context of an entity with personnel who are willing to shun the “me first” attitude that demonstrates itself in the likes of Enron and in reported compensation packages for executives of failing and failed business, the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement may be seen as miniscule and immense, respectively, easy as pie.
An aside: The prominent “me first” attitude is, interestingly, predominantly demonstrated in the seed of “the Sixties.” The alleged love and share culture of the Sixties has grown and manifest immature selfishness, greed. Younger generations are, to their credit, not showing the same culture of greed.
Of course, these are broad statements, generalizations, and specific situations are unique to their own circumstance.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Simple and True
According to the writing of our forefathers, namely, the U.S. Constitution, government holds three primary tasks of administration, legislation, and adjudication.
The President is the administrator, the chief executive officer (CEO), to oversee and administer the day-to-day operational matters of the nation. The Congress is the legislator, the board of directors, to set the direction (medium and long term vision) and to set the boundaries in which the CEO may proceed with administration. Congress sets the rules and provides or withholds the resources with which the CEO is tasked to administer the nation. The Court is the adjudicator, the referee, to see that the Congress and the President “play nice,” resolving differences and misunderstandings by interpreting the laws of the Congress. AND, We, the People, rule over the nation by appointing our elected representatives.
Unfortunately, a popular impression has developed in which: the Court is understood to be the law maker; the President is understood to be the elected ruler of the nation; the Congress is understood to be a nanny of the people to train up the people because the people do not know what is good for them and to advocate for the people against the President, keeping the President in check; and the People are ruled by government.
Now look around at the mayhem this popular impression, this deception, has developed.
We, the People, are the rulers of the nation to keep each of the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication in check. The People have, however, demonstrated a greatly diminishing level of maturity, have abdicated the position of ruler, and have let the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication run unchecked to their own lusts of fame, fortune, and power.
We, the People, have exactly what we have allowed. One may not be deceived, the trend toward mayhem shall continue unabated until we, the People, grow up, realize our appointed position as ruler, and assume our God given right and responsibility to vote responsibly. We, the People, are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Let us exert our rights!
The President is the administrator, the chief executive officer (CEO), to oversee and administer the day-to-day operational matters of the nation. The Congress is the legislator, the board of directors, to set the direction (medium and long term vision) and to set the boundaries in which the CEO may proceed with administration. Congress sets the rules and provides or withholds the resources with which the CEO is tasked to administer the nation. The Court is the adjudicator, the referee, to see that the Congress and the President “play nice,” resolving differences and misunderstandings by interpreting the laws of the Congress. AND, We, the People, rule over the nation by appointing our elected representatives.
Unfortunately, a popular impression has developed in which: the Court is understood to be the law maker; the President is understood to be the elected ruler of the nation; the Congress is understood to be a nanny of the people to train up the people because the people do not know what is good for them and to advocate for the people against the President, keeping the President in check; and the People are ruled by government.
Now look around at the mayhem this popular impression, this deception, has developed.
We, the People, are the rulers of the nation to keep each of the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication in check. The People have, however, demonstrated a greatly diminishing level of maturity, have abdicated the position of ruler, and have let the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication run unchecked to their own lusts of fame, fortune, and power.
We, the People, have exactly what we have allowed. One may not be deceived, the trend toward mayhem shall continue unabated until we, the People, grow up, realize our appointed position as ruler, and assume our God given right and responsibility to vote responsibly. We, the People, are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Let us exert our rights!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)