Education measured by earnings potential alone?

The language of this article infuriates me: College Degree: Still worth it? It has been reprinted all over the country under various headlines. The article appears to originate at the Kansas City Star by Mará Rose Williams - call 816-234-4419 or send e-mail to mdwilliams@kcstar.com.

For example:

"With money scarce, many newly cost-conscious families are trying to work out the math."

There is similar language throughout the article, positioning a college education as measured solely by the amount of income it may produce. In fact, it even suggests that "success" itself is measured purely in salary terms, as though there are no other achievements in life.

There is a lot more to Humanity than that. Study of Nietzsche or Plato is not likely to appear on a job application, but this article suggests such study isn't worth anything. So why study any of the classics, or history, or even science and math, if it will have no directly traceable impact on our annual income? This is what dental school is about - not what a liberal arts education is about. Isn't there something to gain from the collective knowledge assembled over centuries in literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science that goes beyond their impact to our annual salary?

There's a brief mention of "intangibles" but even that quickly circles back to "success" measured by annual salary. How about developing one's rational thought and other intellectual capabilities?

In short, I think this article sends a, commonly held, but horribly misguided analysis of what college education is about. For those that desire such an education, the "cost" must be measured by more than the impact on salary. College is essentially a once in a lifetime opportunity - we will never be that age again. It's not for everyone and I'm not saying force it on everyone. But for those that want it, there has to be a better "return on investment" analysis than how it may or may not impact earnings.

It's hard to be rude to Christianity

I've often been involved in conversations at parties and what not, in which people begin poking fun at some fringe religion, sometimes far fringe like "cults" but other times, somewhat less fringe like Mormon or Scientology. They joke around about how absurd the stories and so on, similar to how people speak about ancient Roman or Greek Mythology. What I usually try to point out in these situations is that the stories of modern "accepted" religions, including the most accepted one, Christianity, are no less far-fetched and fantastic.

Daniel Dennett, in an interview by Jonathan Miller says it much better than I do, of course. Listen below.



Here's a few quotes:

If somebody's a member of a cult, as we say, we have no trouble being rude with them, with laughing at the Raliens, or those people that got interested in the comet, various doomsday prophesiers when the prophesies don't come true, we laugh at those people and the world laughs with us at them. So we have a line where we consider some religious belief to be just too kooky to take seriously, and we are rude with impunity when talking about those.

If Christianity were a small sect in the world, I think it wouldn't receive the respect, but look at all the churches that the Christians have built, look at all the great art, look at all the great music. It's hard to be rude to a religion which has created so much great culture.

The biggest point for me is that, if one is informed and is being intellectually honest, Christianity is in fact just as "kooky" as any other religion across all time. The only thing that makes it seem less "kooky" is that it is so widely accepted and practiced and that most people are only exposed to a "sanitized" version of its traditions, edited to be more G-rated, one more consistent with 21st century morals and norms. If Christianity were a small sect in the world, it would receive no more respect than any cult or mythology in the world.

Christmas-day Detroit flight bomb - more knee jerk reactions

My prediction: the TSA will do what it always does and enact some inane protocol that will change nothing in terms of making us more secure. Instead, whatever new rules they impose will simply waste money and add to passenger inconvenience and hassle, all in the name of "doing something".

Come on, a so-called "watch list" with a half a million names on it, but you can't detect a man who has made multiple trips to terrorist training camps and who is credibly alerted as a potential threat – by his own father, no less?

And now there will be new TSA rules that will very effectively inconvenience millions of travelers who pose no credible threat whatsoever while providing zero improvement in actual security and safety. Thank you knee jerk reaction.

With no public option, analysts raise health insurers price targets as "reform" moves through Congress

First we had the "wealth transfer" bills, over $1.5 trillion, in the wall street and other bailouts - and now we have another "take from the middle class and give to corporations" plan in the, now completely debilitated, "health care reform" legislation.

Health insurers surge after key vote - The Associated Press

Credit Suisse Ups Targets on 7 Health Insurance Stocks - StreetInsider.com

Yes, our health care system in the U.S. sucks - that's a fact - and our health insurance system is terrible - but unfortunately this legislation, as it has been watered down, will not help. Well, at least it won't help anyone except the insurance companies (and presumably the crooked politicians who push it through).

This is just another form of corporate bailout, and for an industry that isn't even in trouble this time - they're just extra greedy - health insurers.

It's not about "socialism" or "big government" - it's that this bill has been thrashed and warped by corporate influences and no longer has anything for the people in it. It must be squashed. It looks like the U.S. will not be able to do what the rest of the industrialized world has done.

Those evil, socialized countries manage to pro­vide universal health care to their populations with better ­quality outcomes than ours and at about half the cost! So what do all of these countries have in com­mon? They all prohibit health­ insurance companies from being for-profit.

It sounds impossible here in the U.S. But it's not - at least in theory. Switzerland was the last of the developed countries to make that transition, which it did about 25 years ago. Their example shows that it is possible to develop a transition system in which the investors of for-prof­it health insurance companies don't get screwed.

We make war too easy, distant, clinical

Bob Herbert, NYT A Fearful Price:

"If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat."

So true.

Dennis Kucinich To Congress

I don't always agree with Congressman Kucinich, but I agree with the following comments he made to Congress:

"America is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan - it's here. We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing is down. Our savings are down. Our trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up."

"The war is a threat to our National Security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers' lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here is the USA, 15 million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. Trillions in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war; when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?"

Mr. Obama, undo the Bush-era Constitutional wrongs

In 2007, the American Freedom Agenda Act (H.R. 3835) failed (never made it out of committee).

President Obama, will you commit to restoring the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses that we gave up under the Bush administration? Any future president can use them again, unless we correct these wrongs.

Specifically:

• Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
• Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
• Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.
• Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.
• Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
• Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.
• Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.
• Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
• Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.