RWNorman's Beer, Food and Politics

Average Never Goes Away

Tom Friedman's article in today's NYTimes, Average is Over, 1/25/2011 is an effort to explain a concept which requires a whole lot of change to accept even with the proof all around us.

And this gap between the reality of the situation and our ability recognize the reality of the situation might well define just how long this latest economic downturn continues.

For you see, what Thomas is talking about refers to the idea that no one can any longer afford to be average, but the reality is that there is always average.  Even in a room full of gifted and brilliant people, there is an average of their brilliance, or their ability to work with others, or some (any) factor one wishes to choose.

So there are two problems here butting their heads together without any onlookers who actually understand the totality of it.

One of the problems is "who determines what average is" and will those who don't agree with other's assessments ever be brought around to a new way of thinking.

And herein lies the conflict.

We know that there are things to be done, of which the doing isn't based on some new technologies nor specially acquired knowledge.  Just good plain hard work.

In this case I'm talking about infrastructure, and in our immediate future with our infrastructure crumbling around our knees is the most important of all the items on the list.  And, I might say, one of the last things on that list that will allow for an average worker to do quality work.  None of the other things on our list allow for us to massively employ people with the right skill sets available today other than infrastructure.

I mean this in the sense that, even though there will always be average workers, now is the last time we could actually do a massive project such as infrastructure with the work force we still have left.  From here on we will need to employ an ever growing level of skill sets, for we cannot have the best health care nor the best educated workers in the world if we don't understand that today's skill sets are antiquated.

As pertains to Tom's article, I have watched Tom give his speech about Average is Over in terms of his book "That used to be us", and all of his points are right on target.  Obviously some of his points put the people in the audience into an uncomfortable position because they had never looked at just what was really happening.

However, Thomas is right.  Average is over, but only the average of today.  Tomorrow's average will be in a much higher level of knowledge and somewhat offering its own problems because we will be forcing everyone to excel.  Tomorrow's average will be somewhere in the stratosphere in comparison to today's requirements.

And these are some of the things I've been writing about for years included (at the time) studies conducted by groups of people with multi-disciplinary skills sets.  But even I was wrong.

In tomorrow's world, everyone will be required to have multi-disciplinary skill sets, which means our educational system will have to be extended, somewhat in the length of time studying these disciplines, and in the acceptance that college is no longer a reasonable average.

Average, in the world just around the corner, will be the college graduate.  You know, the ones that can't get jobs right now because they studied one discipline and found out the world doesn't need that skill set.

The new average will be an entirely new group of graduates with Ph.Ds, and not in just one discipline.

This presents its own problem, for we are not prepared to educate enough people to fill the new requirements in skill sets within a reasonable time frame.  Largely we are wasting millions of our young with an education that won't allow them to make the change over at just the time they need to have the education to do so.  And we can no longer waste an entire generation of people by supplying them with unacceptable levels of education.

But one must understand the scale of the situation to understand just how large the problem is.

If we do not support giving everyone in our country the best education they can consume, then we are creating a new "average".  Certainly higher on the educational scale than now, but we actually continue with the "success" of education as we have today.

Again, don't get me wrong.  There will always be an "average".  There is only the difference of where that average will lie, either by giving everyone the best education or we continue to pick and choose those who WILL receive that education, and those our system simply will allow to become the lost part of humanity.

I realize it is a tremendous requirement to give everyone the best education they can absorb, but the alternative, as I've said, is to waste a generation without them even having the option of choice.

Which brings us to the need we really have to fundamentally change our system of education.  When I think back to my youth and education, some of the things that stick out to me are little niggling points, but ones that have continued, over the years, point out the fundamental error of our ways.

One of these things has been our school administration failures to recognize bright students who may have many negative environmental factors which need to be overcome.

I mean, come on, as a student in the 50s and 60s, I've seen lots of smart young ladies who were sidetracked by "guidance counselors" into becoming a teacher if they were exceptionally bright, or into a secretarial position if they weren't the cream of the crop.

What, are there only two possible paths of employment for females, which equates to one half of our population?

Now I'm not saying that all guidance counselors are bad, but I'm saying that the full knowledge of the circumstances weren't taken into consideration, and as such, we effectively left 20 years of bright young minds behind by offering only lackluster careers down to even just popping out babies.

It wasn't until the 70s that we had the Jane Goodalls of my generation.  Today physics is evenly split by gender, but what happened to those young ladies of the 50s and 60s who were talked into giving up on higher education simply because they wouldn't need it.

So what I'm saying is that we have already developed an educational system flawed from the start through the outside force of the education administration, and it continued to get eaten up by creating an average that Thomas says we can't have any longer.

And Thomas is right.  We can no longer teach for average, and we can no longer allow politically motivated educational administrations to create a new average where potential is lost. 

We waste too many lives with vast potential by not educating everyone to their full potential, AND we lose when it comes to competition around the world.

What Iowa Missed

Boy was that depressing.  I just watched Michelle Bachmann ending her run for liar in chief as she only garnered 6% of the Iowa Republican Caucus vote.

I guess I can take solace in the fact that there are still four more candidates for liar in chief who remain standing, only one of whom doesn't even know he is in the running.

Newt Gingrich has deluded himself for so long that he actually believes his lies, whilst the other three, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, all understand that they are lying, but will never admit anything.

I'm sorry, but it was Newt that brought out the L word, and it is time to start applying it to each and every candidate, because they are all lying.

How far does the lying go?  Well, I could understand if, in fact, they believed they were telling the truth, but the fact is that they have canned all of their responses to any questions around the lies they weave, and my Mom would call them out if she could.

For instance, on the Senate floor Rick Santorum said that being gay led to bestiality.  Now I don't know for a fact, but I believe there are a lot of lonely farmers out there who have enjoyed a specific relationship with a beloved sheep more than any gay person would have.

OK, so I don't know this to be the case, but did my writing it make it true, or was it a straight out lie that I am fully aware of making?

So let's get rid of some of the lies.  Michelle Bachmann specifically said that we should rally around anyone who garners the nomination and my question becomes, well, how come you didn't rally around the man that actually won the last election with 370 electoral votes and 57% of the popular vote?

If you're going to rally around a President, then why not the one that is already elected?  This is a part of the lie.  By suggesting that only the next Republican to be elected deserves rallying behind, they negate the entirety of the last election cycle.  Supposedly Barack Obama somehow sits in the President's chair, flies on the plane, signs acts into law, and yet he really isn't the President.

A lot of Democrats tried this tact on President Bush after a Supreme Court election, but I have to admit, I accepted him as the President because he took the oath and sat in the chair.

This doesn't mean that I liked him, but even after 9/11 I thought that he, at least, had the right people in place to do the job necessary.

But there were tons of failures there, and I fail to see just how failure and Barack Obama can be in the same sentence if one takes a real honest look at the accomplishments for the people his Presidency represents.

There are plenty of things I can disagree with in this Obama administration, but I can't fault this President for his efforts to actually fulfill his campaign promises.

Health care reform was at the top of his promises, and he fulfilled that promise.  It is law, and it is not ObamaCare.  The House and the Senate created that law, and all the Republicans walked away from the process.  The Republicans put in over 700 amendments, got 167 of them approved, and day by day there were less and less Republicans in the room.

The Republicans have said, time and time again, that they were excluded from the process, which may not be a lie, but it is when you understand that they excluded themselves from the process.

They also have said, time and time again, that the Democrats had all the power they needed to enact any laws they wanted, but Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed, and others of the "Blue Dog" bent went with their Republican buddies.

Any attempt to misinform the people is a lie, hence the Republicans are liars.

There is a strict construct of the differences between Democrats and Republicans, which is that Democrats actually look forward to rational debate on subjects before Congress, whereas Republicans simply do not recognize that there are any Democrats in the room.

There's nothing wrong with the Affordable Health Care law, at least fundamentally, but like any new law involved with an evolving society, it needs to be tweaked over time to offer the best service to all.  It is not socialism, but rather a moment in time when we have recognized that all people cannot be productive citizens if they are ridden with disease or chronic problems which won't get resolved without health care.

Even the most remote and ancient of tribal communities had health care.  It is called shamanism, where a learned person devotes their lives towards the health and well being of their tribe.  This is historical fact, not BS.

If our most ancient of tribal units understood the benefits of health care for their people, then what is so hard about us making this fundamental leap towards universal health care?  Does anyone suppose that healthy people aren't a better member of society, a better worker in the fields, a greater hunter in the forest?

If a man were mauled by a beast on a hunt and yet lived, do we suppose that there were Republicans within the tribe that suggested just leaving them behind to fend for themselves?  Were we to judge based on current information, I believe that the answer would be yes.

In a lot of cases, in fact more than I really wish to examine, today's society would prefer to push the sick and wounded down a grinder rather than thank them for their sacrifice for the greater good of the people.

But we see it happen all too often.  Every time we have a war and then end up with a Republican in power, the care of our Veterans is cut, and this has happened time and time again.  But bombs, well now, they need to be replenished.  Besides, there are always more troops available.

And our people, at least some of them, are willing to go out with their M-16s, AR-15s, Glock 9mm and Colt 1911As to protest a Presidential speech at a town hall meeting.  I remember this happening time and again at Barack Obama town halls, but I don't believe anyone would have done so during the Bush43 regime.

In fact, I remember that protesters were placed in cages miles away from the events they were protesting.  How important is your right to free speech if you are placed into something that looks like a jail cell?  Is this just a ploy to remind you that you COULD be in jail if you continue to protest?

But I also remember a man, sitting on the ground at one of these Tea Party gatherings, who was sick and out of work and got accosted by at least 10 men who should have known better and had a greater capacity for understanding.  Obviously they didn't as they berated this man with slurs and threw dollars at him.  His protest was far more prescient than theirs.

Or the applause at a Republican debate just held recently as the audience cheered the number of Texas executions, or booed and berated a combat veteran who admitted to being gay as he tried to ask the Republican candidates a question via a video connection.

There is nothing reasonable about any of these things, and yet, because the Republicans don't make an effort to curtail such actions, they are liars when they describe the clear blues skies of yet another Republican administration.

Honestly, how can I believe them?  How can I accept their statements as fact when the facts I see are that they are not truthful, which again my Mom taught me, if you aren't telling the truth in full then you aren't being truthful.

I assume Frank Lutz would have a different spin, but I believe I trust my Mom more than Frank Lutz.

And you know, I believe the last 10 years of this country have just about stretched everybody thin, to the point of breaking.  We have established a low brow estimation on all of our known problems and hope that nothing happens until we become smart enough to tackle them.

We tally up science as if it is a consensus rather than facts vs. fiction, and we talk about jobs when we react with political efforts that promote the wealthy without producing any jobs.

We constantly act against our own best interests when people, of some supposed stature, get up in front of us and tell us what THEY think are our best bets.

I don't need someone to lead me through life, but I want someone to lead the country reliably, knowledgeably and with a true understanding of history. 

And I don't need half of the country listening to the lies and yet not recognize the liars.

An as such, I would recommend Jon Huntsman as the next Republican candidate because that would mean we would actually have a choice.
Otherwise we'll watch the crowd of so called "achievers" get whittled down to one inept and unacceptable candidate that couldn't get elected as dog catcher in your own town.