The Nightly Build...
When Higher Education Is Not Right For All
Rod Dreher in The Dallas Morning News,
uses 707 words to tell us that higher education is not right for
all. Oh, and to tell us that he himself excelled in classes that
required verbal skill and found his vocation as a writer. I guess
professional writers sometimes phone it in.
Of course, higher education is not right for all. D'oh. I don't
know what planet Rod Dreher is on when he says we aren't allowed to
say openly that some people are flat-out more intelligent than others.
Double d'oh.
Dreher does ask one salient question: what happens to workers who
lack the cognitive abilities to do the higher-level "knowledge" work
the new economy requires of them? But he doesn't attempt to answer it.
In fact, the new economy doesn't require all of us to do
higher-level "knowledge" work. Some of that higher-level knowledge is
captured in the machinery involved in doing the work. More and more,
computers are embedded in even the lowliest appliances. The pace of
such change is increasing. Retraining is essential to remain
employable. Higher education is not.
For example, shade tree mechanics are out of a job, not because
auto maintenance is being shipped overseas, but because the
microprocessors in a modern automobile are not accessible without
expensive equipment. Shade tree mechanics are capable of learning to
use that equipment, given retraining opportunities.
Americans must become used to continuous education. Post-secondary
education doesn't necessarily mean university degrees. It does mean a
lifelong willingness to learn new skills. And a lifelong ability to
afford the time and expense to learn those new skills. Much more
extensive availability of free or subsidized post-secondary training
in the form of trade schools and technical schools will be necessary
for America to remain competitive. And for those who have trouble
keeping up, more generous minimum wage laws and social safety net
programs will be necessary.
Dreher recognizes the imperative "to provide an economic fair shake
for fellow citizens whose gifts are not brilliant minds, but strong
backs and stout hearts." He just seems reluctant to spell out what
that fair shake consists of, perhaps because it doesn't conform to
prevailing conservative political opposition to public education,
minimum wage laws and social safety net programs.
Texas Went Too Far
William Murchison, wingnut columnist for Dallas Blog,
can't quite bring himself to admit that the State of Texas went
too far in seizing over 400 children in a polygamist bust of the
Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch in west Texas. He relates an old episode
of All in the Family, in which Archie Bunker defends Richard
Nixon's Vietnam policy by saying "Nixon knows something I don't know."
The most Murchison can bring himself to write is the title of this
blog entry, but in question form: "Did Texas Go Too Far?" He never
quite brings himself to answer that question.
Murchison has a peculiar selective memory. Murchison claims "One
reason for the 'Nixon-knows' defense of Texas’ intevention at the
polygamist ranch is that Texas’ famously conservative government isn’t
famous for overreaching." Huh? Not famous for overreaching? How about
the case of Lawrence v Texas, which stemmed from police, reacting to a
false report about weapons, raiding a house and arresting two men for
engaging in private, consensual sex in their own home. The case went
to the Supreme Court, who threw out Texas' anti-sodomy law. Texas was
the laughingstock of the nation for its government overreach. But
conservatives like Murchison, like Archie Bunker, don't recognize
overreach when it is in the service of their own extremist political
viewpoint.
William Murchison. Archie Bunker. Now that he mentions it, the
similarities are eerie.
Clinton and RFK: Gaffe or Scandal?
Tara Ross, another wingnut columnist for Dallas Blog,
provides us with a classic example of condemnation by telling us
what others think, while denying that she thinks that way herself. The
case at hand is Hillary Clinton's recent gaffe, in which she mentions
RFK's assassination in her explanation why she remains in the race
long after she has any reasonable chance of getting the nomination.
Ross spills a lot of ink telling us what some Americans might think
(though not herself, of course):
"It may be completely unfair for any American to suspect Clinton of
aiding and abetting murder, simply to win the presidential nomination.
This author, for one, doesn’t think that Clinton has any intention of
promoting or participating in such a heinous crime. But unfortunately
for the Senator, most Americans don’t know exactly where she draws the
line between fair and foul play. And they worry that her tolerance
level for (very) dirty politics is too high. If Obama were to be
harmed, it’s quite predictable that Clinton would be viewed
suspiciously by some. Vince Foster’s name and the suspicious
circumstances surrounding his death would be brought up by someone,
somewhere."
Umm... Tara Ross herself just brought up Vince Foster's name. But
perhaps the country is making progress. The vast rightwing conspiracy
is still at work, but maybe it's no longer safe for them to make their
scurrilous slanders in the open. They have to hide behind the old
"some (other) people think..." dirty trick.
