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.
No comments:
Post a Comment