memories of South Africa
a year ago, dec. 16th, 2003……………………….

Hey all,

Traveling is picking up now.  I’m in a rural villiage in Coffee Bay.  People here live in clay huts, with thatched rooves, there’s cows, goats, and sheep, roaming the one road that runs through here.  The largest industry is this hostel called Coffee Shack that employs locals as cooks and guides.

Today’s guide took a group of us to check out come amazing cliffs by the ocean, which we later jumped off of into the waves, about 30ft. jumps, completely scary, completely amazing.  There is one guy who took off his artificial leg and made the jump too, wow.  We also visited some caves that used to hide weopons of the freedom fighters during apartheid.  Now it just reaks of guano, or bat shit.  Our guide reminded us not to look up, “they’ll shit in your mouth and eyes, they don’t care.”  This is my second night here, last night i was up till 2a.m. sitting around a camp fire meeting people from S.A., England, all over.  This villiage is in an area of S. Africa called the Transkei, and the people are Khoisa (pronounced Koy-sa) which is also there language.  On fri. i will be meeting w/ the head chief, how sweet is that?

Tonight is a P party, you dress up as something p, i’m going as a player, and wearing a soccer jersey.  Others are going as pirates, plants, phantom, you name it, and there should be drinking and talking all night. 

Been writing every day, thoughts about travel, writing, myself, S. Africa, people, hostels, life, education, you name it.  A bunch of people have come up to me, and started talking because they thought i’d make it in my book.  Pretty cool.

Well…unfortunately internet is expensive.  If any of my immediately family is reading this, I NEED $100 IN MY BANK ACCOUNT.  There’s no banks here,and they don’t take credit card, so i need to draw money from my ATM no fri. 

topic: public vs. private

First of all…the debate between public and private is not a winner-takes all debate.  It’s not always so clear what the two mean on any given issue.  As most of you know, my interest is primarily education.  While many are arguing for private schools, their aim to discredit and destroy public schooling complicates the debate.

There are several reasons why people support private vs. public schools.  One reason is, public schools fail children in many areas.  To this, many would agree.  But…is that a reason to destroy public schools, or a reason to improve them?

A second reason to support private schools, is that people don’t want the government to control how and what their children learn.  They want, “freedom,” or “choice,” which are buzzwords for privatization, or ownership, (which have become Republican words…although for the moment I’m trying not to look at this from a political party angle).  Most people who support public schools support the same values.  They want local ownership of schools, and in fact, they’re freaked out by how much government has seeped into public schools.

But…it does appear that this is really where the private vs. public debate heats up.  Those who support privatization of education, do so with philosophical beliefs in a market-place of ideas.  Where public schools fail, they believe private schooling will drive innovation to provide the types of school parents want for their kids.

I am noticing that most of the leading educators I have discovered, vigorously defend public schools.  They are educators who are not only involved in the private vs. public debate of education, but they are educators themselves, involved in the debate about best practices for student learning.  While this is not absolute, those who support privatization, tend to be those who will not only profit, but those who support educational practices, such as standardized testing, that most students, teachers, and parents are opposed to.

So…while most people will have concluded this from the start, that the debate is purely profit vs. what’s best for students, we still need to find evidence for this…

McGraw-Hill is one of the leading creators of standardized testing.  What sort of influence do they have?  Well…they own Business Week, which naturally leans towards free-markets and privatization.  In April 2000, Charlotte K. Frank joined the state of New York’s top education policy-making panel, the Board of Regents.  Ms. Frank is also the VP of McGraw-Hill. 

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/500pound.htm 

Here’s a question I have…what would a non-profit private school look like?  We’re assuming all private schools will be profit drive monstrosities, but what about benevolent aiming private schools?  And…does anyone know how charter schools work.  I know they’re public, but it sounds like they’re run independantly.  How is that?

Here’s an assessment w/ what can go wrong w/ privately run schools.

“In the final analysis, the problem with letting business interests shape our country’s educational agenda isn’t just their lack of knowledge about the nuances of pedagogy. The problem is with their ultimate objectives. Corporations in our economic system exist to provide a financial return to the people who own them:they are in business to make a profit. As individuals, those who work in (or even run) these companies might have other goals, too, when they turn their attention to public policy or education or anything else. But business qua business is concerned principally about its own bottom line.   Thus, when business thinks about schools, its agenda is driven by what will maximize its profitability, not necessarily by what is in the best interest of students. Any overlap between those two goals would be purely accidental – and, in practice, turns out to be minimal. What maximizes corporate profits often does not benefit children, and vice versa. Qualities such as a love of learning for its own sake, a penchant for asking challenging questions, or a commitment to democratic participation in decision making would be seen as nice but irrelevant – or perhaps even as impediments to the efficient realization of corporate goals.” 

Topic: Alfie Kohn

Kohn is an educator I’m coming to respect, largely because of his staunch opposition to all things testing.  He is one of the loudest critics of NCLB, and its over-reliance on standardized testing.  Here’s an article of his about 9/11 and education:

Teaching about Sept. 11

Education…is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/story.asp?story_id=61293251 Sun Files Suit to Lift Ban on Journalists By Ehrlich
Greg Barrett and Stephanie Hanes The Baltimore SunDecember 04, 2004
The Baltimore Sun Co. sued Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. yesterday, asking a federal judge to lift the administration’s order banning state government employees from talking to two of the newspaper’s writers. The newspaper, along with State House Bureau Chief David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker, filed the lawsuit, which media experts say raises significant constitutional issues, including whether the First Amendment protects journalists and others from being retaliated against by government officials for what they write or say. The lawsuit says that the governor’s directive, issued in a Nov. 18 e-mail by Ehrlich press secretary Shareese DeLeaver, discourages “speech by any citizen of Maryland who disagrees with the Governor, and it will leave the door open for any public official to punish any individual who says something the government does not like.” Sun editor Timothy A. Franklin says in a letter to readers today: “The governor’s action sets a dangerous precedent for all citizens. No governor, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to pick and choose whom state employees speak to based on whether the governor approves of their views. “Left unchallenged, Gov. Ehrlich could prevent any citizen with whom he disagrees from gaining access to information from taxpayer-paid state government employees.” News media observers yesterday called Ehrlich’s order and The Sun’s response to it unprecedented. The suit comes at a time when the relationship between the Fourth Estate and its government leaders appears increasingly rancorous. Media experts noted that President Bush boasts of not reading newspapers and has held the fewest news conferences of any modern president; and Democratic Sen. John Kerry declined to speak with reporters from the Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group during this year’s presidential campaign. “From time to time, public officials become angry at the press and say they won’t talk to reporters, but soon they recognize that they have a responsibility to inform the public and doing so through the press is really the only effective way to do that,” said Robert H. Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Deputy Director of Communications and Press Secretary Gregory Massoni, named in the suit with Ehrlich and DeLeaver, declined yesterday to comment. Ehrlich has said publicly that his directive stems from reporting by Nitkin and Olesker that he considers biased and unfair. Although Ehrlich did not bar state government employees from speaking to all Sun reporters, the effect of his order handicaps the work of two of the newspaper’s top journalists. Nitkin, The Sun’s lead State House reporter, says regular sources who used to drop by to discuss public policy no longer do so, and government contacts have stopped returning his phone calls. `A chilling effect’ “The policy was intended to have and has had an impermissible chilling effect on The Sun’s right to free expression,” the five-page lawsuit concludes. Politicians have through the years tried to control media content, Giles said, as when President John F. Kennedy’s administration asked The New York Times to reassign correspondent David Halberstam after his critical coverage of the Vietnam War. But Giles couldn’t recall a case of a blanket embargo of specific reporters. “This is really highly unusual,” said Giles, former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. “The governor may be trying to change the people on the beat or [intimidate] the columnist. … It is not the responsibility of the governor to take matters into his hands and influence the selection of journalists covering stories.” Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, likened Ehrlich’s directive to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who stopped talking to local reporters who were critical of him and distributed media badges that labeled the political news media as “jackals.” “The people who suffer here isn’t the media, for God’s sake,” Dalglish said. “Yeah, their job gets a little tougher, but what happens is the public doesn’t get information.” Sinclair Broadcasting executive Mark Hyman, who writes and narrates editorials for his company’s 60 stations, said rifts between the news media and politicians are fair game. He did not think The Sun had any legal standing in its claims of First Amendment violations. “To my knowledge no one is prohibiting David Nitkin and Michael Olesker from writing anything – and that is what the First Amendment is all about,” he said. “We all know anecdotally of politicians favoring particular media outlets,” he said. “The elected officials just haven’t all been as frank about it as the [Maryland] governor.” The Sun’s lawsuit, filed in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court, was just the latest exchange in a running feud between the state’s largest newspaper and Ehrlich, elected in 2002 as Maryland’s first Republican governor in 36 years. Ehrlich has shunned the newspaper since a 2002 Sun editorial endorsed Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and said Ehrlich’s running mate, then state GOP chairman Michael S. Steele, who is black, was chosen because of “the color of his skin.” The latest standoff This latest standoff began in October after The Sun published the first of several stories by Nitkin about the state’s plan to sell 836 acres of St. Mary’s County preserved forestland to Willard J. Hackerman, a politically connected construction company owner. Several days after an Oct. 20 story described the governor’s role in moving the proposed deal forward, Ehrlich pulled Nitkin aside at a news conference and complained that he viewed Nitkin’s reports as a personal attack, the lawsuit alleges. Ehrlich’s staff has also complained about a front-page map accompanying one of Nitkin’s stories published to highlight properties across the state that were “being considered” by the administration for sale. The map – which Nitkin had no part in creating – incorrectly highlighted all 450,000 acres of state-owned preservation land. A correction ran in the next day’s newspaper. Of Olesker’s columns, the governor’s staff complained about a Nov. 16 column in which Olesker wrote about a hearing that questioned the ethics of Ehrlich’s office using taxpayer money for state tourism commercials featuring the governor. Although Olesker wasn’t present at the hearing, he wrote that Ehrlich’s communications director, Paul E. Schurick, was “struggling mightily to keep a straight face” when he said political gain was “not a consideration” in making the commercials. Olesker later apologized and said the reference was intended metaphorically, not literally. Ehrlich and his administration also accused Olesker of making up quotes in one of his columns, but backtracked from that charge after Steele said he remembered having a conversation with Olesker. In Nitkin’s case, the governor said on WBAL radio that his problem is “not just one fact or one story, but a series of noncontextual innuendo.” He said that as a public official, the only arrow in his quiver is access. “It’s meant to have a chilling effect on them,” Ehrlich said of barring Nitkin and Olesker. Franklin has sought a meeting with Ehrlich to resolve the conflict. The first disagreement in 2002 predates Franklin’s arrival in Baltimore last winter, but the governor has declined. Franklin said yesterday that the newspaper would still like to sit down with Ehrlich to work through the problem. Press secretary Massoni said last week that it is unlikely Ehrlich will meet with Franklin until the newspaper apologizes for the 2002 editorial that claimed that Ehrlich’s selection of Steele was based on race. To our readers Yesterday The Sun filed a complaint in federal court challenging Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s ban prohibiting state officials from talking to two Sun journalists, reporter David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker. We have tried hard to avoid taking this to the courts. For two weeks, The Sun has attempted unsuccessfully to meet with the governor so we could listen to his specific complaints about the newspaper’s coverage and so we could appeal to him to lift his gag order. The governor’s action sets a dangerous precedent for all citizens. No governor, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to pick and choose whom state employees speak to based on whether the governor approves of their views. Left unchallenged, Governor Ehrlich could prevent any citizen with whom he disagrees from gaining access to information from taxpayer-paid state government employees. The gag could conceivably extend from The Sun to other organizations and individuals the governor dislikes. That is a prospect that should be unacceptable to any Marylander. In recent days, Governor Ehrlich and his aides have accused The Sun of less-than-truthful coverage. We take these allegations seriously, because it damages the credibility of the newspaper, demeans the character of the journalists involved and confuses our readers. We are confident in our reporting and think that after a fair examination of all the facts, the governor and our readers would conclude that we strive for accuracy. And, on the occasions when we’re not completely accurate, we are quick to correct the record. We want to make one point emphatically: We will oppose any public officeholder who attempts to stem the flow of information about local government to the readers we serve. Indeed, we did it earlier this year when The Sun successfully sued Mayor Martin O’Malley for access to public records regarding the police department. An open, transparent government is the very foundation of our democracy, and it is what every citizen deserves. Sincerely, Timothy A. Franklin Editor

Topic: Ruminations

Yesturday I re-discovered Aaron Karo (www.aaronkaro.com).  He began writing ruminations in college, that got e-mailed all over the place.  Now, he does stand-up, and has 2 books out.  He’s definately funny and smart as hell…but how did he make it where he is?  Maybe it was his consistancy, or charisma?  I wonder if I lack the traits to get my book published, or if more persistance will eventually get me where I hope to be.  I also suck at public speaking, and I wonder if that will doom me, or if that will go away.

I’ve been thinking a lot about ganryu from xangaland…who is smarter than pretty much most people I’ve met in my life.  And he said something interesting recently, that he’s learned not because of school, but “despite school.”  So…what makes someone smart?  Apparently, skipping class but reading a lot seems to be a good recipe for success.

Reading Zinn made me smart.  I consider myself to be a critical thinker, but in many cases, I simply lack the knowledge to be smart.  I try to read the Times, but I realize that I’m lacking so much background to really understand what I’m reading, to place it in a bigger context, and draw my own conclusions.  I’ve recently learned a bit about social security.  I’ve just finished a book on No Child Left Behind.  If you were to put my knowledge of the world on a grade level, I’d put it on a high school level.  Grasping history, politics, and economics, at least the basics, these are things that can be achieved by the age of 17, and they’re things that I’m now striving to grasp.

The American Democracy Project I’m working on has me focussing on, “what are civic skills and actions.”  I’m thinking it’s the knowledge that matters above all.  W’re more comfortable saying, “leadership is important,” and “voting is important,” but put less to no value on things like, “knowing the histoyr of US military action is important” or “knowing the history of workers, blacks, women, native americans, and other less powerful groups is important.”

People are not civically engaged primarily because they lack the knowledge of why they should be engaged.  For example, we’ve watered down voting to, “Vote because it’s important,” or “It’s your responsibility to vote.”  That’s not very compelling to me or most youth.  If we focussed on knowledge, people would vote.  Why don’t young people vote?  Because we’re largely ignorant of issues worth voting for.  Suddenly, we get older, health care and jobs become relevant issues, and we vote.  Give young people the knowledge and experiences and they’ll vote alright.  But, since the 2 major parties rarely satisfy most voters, we may see voting numbers going to green party, libertarian, or socialist candidates.

Take an eligable voter who doesn’t vote because, “politics doesn’t effect me…my vote doesn’t count anyways.”  Then give that voter knowledge about poverty and foreign policy, and see if they vote.  Not out of duty or responsibility, but because they believe in a cause.  People vote because they have a cause to vote for.  A cause is an effort to address injustice, truth, or an idea.  In order to believe in a cause, a voter must have the knowledge of injustice, of lies, or of an idea.

A civically engaged society (however we define that) is first and foremost an informed society.

Does apathy, or non-involvement, correlate to ignorance?  If someone doesn’t care, is it likely they simply don’t know?

Why was the 2004 election the most important in our lifetime?  Why did so many people care about voting?  Because they knew more about politics than ever before?  And why was this?  Two reasons I can think of is Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11 and Dude, Where’s My Country) and Jon Stewart (The Daily Show).  By showing us the news we don’t always see, and making it entertaining, these two people enlightened our nation.

People act, in many instance, becaue they believe something to be wrong, or in order to support something they believe to be right.  Those who bemoan (I’ve never used that word before, bemoan, I kind of like it) Thos who bemoan a lack of civic engagement believe a strong democracy requires an engaged citizenry.  The research I’ve seen divideds the pre-requisites of civic engagement into skills, knowledge, and motivation.  Most of the focus I’ve noticed so far is on skills, which tend to be very vague (leadership, the ability to write a letter, critical thinking, etc.) or the focus is on the act of engagement itself.  ex) voting is good.  service is good.  But…they tend to ignore controversy, such as protest is also good.

I believe it is the most important pre-requistie to civic engagement that is the weakest.  KNOWLEDGE
An ignorant society, versus one that is well-versed in history, politcs, and social issues, is a society that will be engaged.  All things being equal, I would assume more people vote in war time because people become somewhat informed about the working of politics.  In 2008, I would anticipate numbers to drop as the one thing people became informed about, terrorism, the war in Iraq, WMD, suddenly vanish, and the issues on the table, social security, the economy, education, are the issues that people know little about, and don’t have cause to vote for.

It’s a work in progress…please give any first impressions about the direction of this essay

GAP YEARS TO A BETTER DEMOCRACY

“I regard it as the foremost task of education to insure the survival of these qualities: an enterprising curiosity, an undefeatable spirit, tenacity in pursuit, readiness for sensible self denial, and above all, compassion.” –Kurt Hahn

            The role of higher education in developing students to be active citizens in a democracy, is not a new role.  What is new, is the growing movement to address the reality that institutions of higher education have not been addressing or fulfilling that role.  The lack of moral and civic education on college campuses has been readily documented.  The decrease of civic and political engagement, especially among youth, has been noted as well.  While the movement to address these crises has grown, the barriers to institutional change have continued to grow, and their acceleration challenges the values of a liberal education.  The task is further daunted by important topics left out of the mainstream conversation.  Largely missing, is a visual understanding of the student experience, and therefore, discussion about how to engage today’s students, not theoretical or historical students.  As we come to see many of today’s college student as anti-students, politically ignorant Americans, and personally lost high school graduates, we may allow ourselves to think outside the box, and discuss more creative solutions to developing college graduates who possess the values of a liberal education.

            To understand the crisis of higher education, we must first and foremost understand today’s students.  Many students, by the time they’re 17 years old and finished with high school, have been turned off to learning, and have not been turned on to the idea of the larger role they play as citizens in a democracy.  As long as the number one adjective used by students to describe school is, “boring,” we know this problem exists.  Students have become numb through a system of traditional education that demands rote memorization of facts and theories, promotes grading as a measure of success versus real learning, has sacrificed personal and civic development in favor of test-taking, teaches history that is often ethnocentric, inaccurate, and incomplete, and that has framed education as a means to a job, rather than as an end in itself.  It should come as no surprise that student apathy is often a major topic on just about any college campus.

To be certain, not all college students experienced K-12 schooling as I’ve just described it.  Many high school graduates come across one or more teachers who shape their lives in positive ways.  Many have been developed into strong thinkers, motivated learners and active citizens.  For many of these students, a quality K-12 education, coupled with parental support and values leads to a successful college experience.  In addition, a growing number of students benefit from a campus culture intentionally designed to foster academic and civic engagement among its students, whether through the offering of service-learning, learning communities, strong advising, or specially designed freshman-year experiences. 

While there are many successes to note of both K-12 and higher education, we still find that many college students are products of the type of K-12 education that I described earlier.  Students who go directly from high school into college, often go with fresh learning scars.  For many of these students, the dread of a high school education,  the cries of “boring,”  becomes the dread of college.  Others discover that their positive experiences from high school (small classes, learning communities, teachers who knew their names), are lacking on their college campus.  We find that many campuses lack intentionality in their campus culture, curriculum, and pedagogies to foster student engagement.  In order to fulfill the dream of providing an engaging education that develops moral and civically engaged college graduates, requires acknowledging and discussing the reality of those students who have been allowed to slip through the cracks.

So, as a recent graduate, who myself was largely unengaged both academically and civically while at an “elite,” and expensive university, what do I suggest?  While I would love to see many fundamental changes in education, (doing away with the US News and World Report College Rankings, more schools giving students written evaluations instead of grades, more experiential learning to compliment academic learning, better and more personal advising, admitting students based on potential development rather than SAT scores), I believe one of the most effective ideas is the one that would require the least effort and change; We should encourage gap years for high school seniors. 

As demonstrated in many foreign countries such as Australia, England, and South Africa, gap years can exist as a popular and powerful form of experiential and cultural education, personal growth, and social awareness.  Whether finding a job or traveling the globe, students are liberated to learn and experience life without the responsibilities and restrictions of traditional schooling.  Students can find powerful experiences from partaking on an Outward Bound course, to volunteering, to an infinite amount of cultural immersion opportunities.  In addition, students who attend college after taking a gap year are more likely to be mature and motivated in their studies.  Surely, this is a solution to developing civically and intellectually engaged students that can be achieved and intertwined with the principles of a liberal education.

I recognize that this is a small and limited solution, however, with the support of educators, parents, schools, and students, we can turn an unmotivated student who lacks direction, into an inspired life-long learner, and an active citizen.  In the process, we can ensure students make the most of their years.  As we start to accept the many absurdities with which the average college student brings to college (stifling K-12 education, the circus of the SAT and college admissions, paying for a diploma and a college’s name more-so than the education provided, the many students who squander their time pursuing a degree with little interest in what they’re learning), we realize that innovative and inspiring solutions are needed.  

I knew it was bad…now I’m learning how bad.  I’ll give a more in depth summary soon, but this book is one of the leading efforts to combat the recent gov’t policy, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which has been praised by some for its bipartisan support, but, like many government policies, the people it effects most, students, teachers, school districts, are united in their opposition to this policy, which focuses on high-stakes standardized testing not only as a measure of success, but as a means to discipline those schools who do not meet their definition of success.  The unintended consequences of this policy are dire for many schools, especially low-income and minority schools, for diverse schools, or schools with learning disabled students.  Drop-out rates are increasing, those schools that most need funding, good teachers, and support, are quickly being labeled “in need of improvement,” and then “failing,” resulting in cuts of federal funding, a loss of other funds to pay for additional private tutoring, or to pay for students to go to other schools, as well as a loss of qualified teachers who prefer the sanity and higher pay that comes from working in wealthier white neighborhoods. 

Interestingly enough…while public schools will increasingly be labeled as “failing,” this failing will be a direct result of federal policy.  By changing the defintion of failing, or, by implementing a different policy that actually helped develop successful schools, we wouldn’t see so many schools “fail.”  But…that is the image that is being created, and, like other aspects of our society, people are being led to believe a federal program is in a crisis, and to develop a sense of fear that something must be done.  From the war in Iraq, to privatizing social security, to privatizing education, we are starting to see how changes in our society are less a result of well-thought out and transparent policies, and instead policies built around mis-information, building up fear, a lack of media coverage, and political rhetoric that is short on logic and facts.

Another interesting thing to note…I met the authors of this book in San Francisco back in November at an education forum.  I also met one of the people they cite, Kris Van Wald, President of the Association of Experiential Education, out in Boulder.  She discussed how high-stakes testing is resulting in a decrease in experiential learning activies such as field-trips and other out of class experiences.  The book also quotes a Time Magazine article that I similarly quoted in my self-published book, that discusses some of the ill-effects of high-stakes testing, including the marginalization of a civic education, which requires in depth learning that is traded for learning 1000 years of history in one-year.  All of this was “positive affirmation,” for me for my future writing career.  What I’m lacking in getting my book published isn’t content or a market audience, it’s just taking the necessary steps of getting connected with a publisher.

Will post an essay I’m working on tomorrow for the New York Times college website, and will be looking forward to your comments.

-dan

Topic: history of the Iraq war

Well…it is my firm belief that xanga, and any other non-traditional learning community, must continue its efforts to share ideas, resources, to ask questions, and provide our best answers.

In that light…here’s an analysis I’ve discoverd from the cato institute. http://www.cato.org/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa502.pdf

My initial observations are that this is a non-partisan institute.  Their values are stated as “individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”  I like organizations such as this that cross over between the two political worlds (i haven’t looked into them enough to say I outright support their views).  This article gives a stern criticism of Bush’s Iraq war, while another part of the institute supports his agenda to privatize social security.  The article uses little rhetoric, and instead, focusses on documentation of research, knowledge of opposing viewpoints, and an attempt to apply clear logic to reasoning.  Most of what is written is not new, but I find it to be the clearest and most coherent argument against Bush’s war in Iraq.

Oh…and I just had my first coaching session.  Here’s the site:
http://www.next-step-coach.com/default.asp

Coaching is not therapy or consulting…it’s something successful people use to improve themselves, and to become more efficient.  The 45min. session I had focussed on my goals…but what was powerful, was really narrowing and honing my goals.  We all have goals, but they’re so often out of focus.  The most important goal I realized I want to work towards to in the next 3-6 months, is to have my writing published in an educational magazine or journal.  What was good about this coaching session, was that it was unnatural.  It got me to talk about myself, my goals, my life.  She had me talk about how it would feel to achieve my goal, and this had a real impact of elevating the importance of that goal to me.  What was most effective was having my coach simply re-state the things I said, and then asked if it sounded accurate?  Having a real person re-affirm my goals, was important to me.  Most support for my goals has been sporadic and fluffy at best, here it was clear and articulate.    

I feel like there’s no stigma attached to coaching.  You’re just having someone help you become more successful.  Attach all the stigmas you want, if it helps me get more out of life.  In addition, it’s not just fluff.  Simply by partaking in a coaching session, I found myself to be taking such fluffy things as goal setting, a lot more seriously.  And…while I believe a good friend or parent can do what a coach does, the reality is, this doesn’t always happen.  For 45min. I got to have someone focus entirely on me, and not feel selfish about that because that’s her job. 

So…the one thing  I am left with after my first coaching session (it was complimentary, if i get a part-time job, i may do the previously unthinkable and pay for this kind of service) is that I am committed to writing a 750 word essay about education.  This committment is certainly strenghthened because of my coaching session, otherwise, I’d have good reason to put it off.  This essay will possibly be posted online on the New York Times college section, as I spoke to the woman yesturday who runs that, and she’s expecting me to write.  Next…i need to get my essay out to publications, and I can sense already I’ll need some help focussing on getting that done, so I may end up finding a way to finance further coaching (and it’s not something you become dependant on, after about 3-months, you enough about the coaching structure to apply it to anything), because I know I’m likely to lose site of what is a dream for me of having my writing published without that added focus.

Topic: economics and social security question

OK…this is a 2-part question.  1) is the question itself, and 2) is if anyone has advice on how to learn more about this topic, links, books, etc.

Bush wants to change the way our social security system works.  Problem is, i don’t know much about the system now, or the one he wants to change it to.  Here’s my very basic understanding of it, with certain parts still needing clarity:

(Note…i’ve updated this post during the day as i’ve found more info)

Social Security Scenario 1

Person makes $100

Pays Taxes $20, which pays for gov’t bonds

$20 of tax money held and invested in social security trust, trust used to fund retirees social security money

Person left w/ $80

Gov’t gains $20 of cash flow, to be used for current gov’t programs.  The $20 of bonds issued by the gov’t is allocated specifically to the Social Security trust fund, therefore, if the budget goes up or down, all we need to worry about for the sake of social security, is how is the Social Security trust fund doing.  Apparently, there’s a decent surplus now that won’t dry up till maybe 2050 (different economists cite different dates). Apparently, Bush is telling people that the trust is drying up, although, it would only dry up by his own doing through cutting individuals’ payroll taxes that have contributed to the Social Security trust surplus (actually, it could dry up through an increase in retirees, the baby boomers).  So it seems, Bush wants to squander, or at least create fear of a squandering, of the social security trust surplus, instead of protecting the surplus (the alternative is to further raise payroll taxes, or to cut back on paying social security, and there is some justification to Bush’s claims beyond simply making this a sinister partisan issue.)  And, why would Bush want to do this???  Because, this re-framing of the issue would allow Bush to push forth his vision of “privatizing” Social Security.  (actually…What is his vision?

And, the $20 of cash flow is invested by the government in ???

Social Security Scenario 2

Same person makes the same $100

Instead of paying taxes, they purchase $20 of stock

Still left w/ $80

Gov’t still gets $20 of cash flow, to be used for paying for gov’t policies

$20 invested in stock market, instead of purchasing gov’t bonds. 

  And…there appears to be this idea that we must destroy the current social security system, by which people pay taxes to support the elderly (the way the current system works, taxes pay for today’s elderly, instead of people paying for their own aging).  We must destroy this system, in favor of the privatization system (again, this is a partisan way of addressing the issue, saying we are destroying something benevolent in favor of something evil…that’s how partisan issues get framed today)  The goals should be the same, to ensure people receive some form of financial befnefits when they’re older and not working.  So, the question is, if the current system works, why change it? (the current system does not pay very well…in addition, many would say the current system doesn’t work at all.  If you’re poor, high payroll taxes means you don’t have money to invest privately like the rich do, therefor, you rely solely on social security when you’re retired, and, since social security pays out 1-2%, odds are you’re going to live in poverty when you’re older)  And second, since it’s the Republicans that want to change the system, and the dems. who want to keep it (that’s my understanding) what are the overt underlying politics behind Social Security? (the republicans believe you should own your wealth, not the gov’t…i guess the dems. are more about having the gov’t protect the people.  I think both parties simply have different approaches to social security, but both would like to see people having wealth when they’re retired) Is there any evidence, so we’re not just speculating, that would lead one to conclude that the Republicans want to change the system to benefit the rich, and benefit the Wall Street traders, and to not really worry about the elderly?  While a 3rd party is in no position it appears to challenge policy, would most side w/ the current system, or do they find fault in it also?

Perhaps, this statement by Paul Krugman in the Times makes me wonder the most about social security, economoics, and politics:

“There’s no honest way anyone can hold both these positions (the position that there is no social security surplus, because social security is part of the federal budget, as well as that we need to change social security because as something individual from the federal budget, it’s running out of money), but very little about the privatizers’ position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren’t sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they’re disturbed by the system’s historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people’s lives better and more secure. And that’s why the right wants to destroy it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

So…now I found a site in response to Krugman.  I’m not sure if it’s non-partisan, or if such a thing exists, it’s merely different.   Krugman leaves you thinking, the right would love to see social security fail, and to see retirees fall into poverty?  In affect, Krugman is using the same scare tactics that he criticizes supporters of privatization of using.  He says “they come to bury social security, not to save it.”  Shit…he made a believer of me, until I started to learn a bit more about social security.  And then he writes, “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people’s lives better and more secure.” That’s a highly debateable statement.  How many poor people will say that social security works for them? How many believe that they’re being taxed modestly, or believe that raising taxes to save social security as the number of retirees increases, is the solution.

I went from buying Krugman’s argument, to doubting it, not only because there is a counter-argument, but because Krugman’s bias is so overt.  And…I’m further concerned by the NYT in general, since I usually glance at the op/eds daily, and am now seeing how overtly partisan they are.  I agree, it’s difficult to show both sides of every issue, and I think it’s ok to bash Bush, as long as you’re bashing his policies alone, and not the man (unless you’re arguing against character, which, in fact, may play in to your argument of his policies).  That’s why I still support Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11.  The reason the film is so biased and belittling of Bush as a person, is because who Bush is a person ties directly into his handling of the country and the war on terror.   

This is the most troubling line of Krugman’s article: “[supporters of privatizaton] aren’t sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they’re disturbed by the system’s historic success.”  Where’s the evidence of that?  Where’s the evidence that we should oppose privatization, not solely on economic principles, but because those who support privatization have sinister motives? 

I am aware that there is a good possibility that there are sinister motives behind privatization, and that they are able to mask them by benevolance.  This is just like the war in Iraq.  The benevolance we are trying to be sold, “the spreading of democracy,” is masking the historic likelihood that this was a war influenced by economics.  Like war, social security should be about morals above economics…therefor, the real question about whether or not we should privatize social security, is a) what are the historical motives that can help us understand today’s motives and b) economically, is this a policy that will harm or benefit the poor and middle class?   

When I speak of motives, I am interested in whether supporters of privatization are in reality concerned merely with limiting gov’t. programs like social security as an ends to itself, as opposed to concern for the economic well-being of the poor and middle-class? There is a whole other topic to discuss here, but i’ll just say it’s my belief that in some instances, we do need gov’t programs as a means to assist those who slip through the cracks of society in terms of education, health, housing, retirement, etc.

Another site explains the currenty system as pay-as-you go.  You’re taxed your whole life, which pays for the retirees of today.  Then, when you retire, you live off the taxes of workers, just as your taxes paid for other reitres.  If we switch to privatization, we no longer have the tax money to pay today’s retirees, so we may owe several trillion dollars today that we don’t have.  So…along w/ arguing the pros and cons of both systems, we must also recognize the additional debt that needs to be undertaken to pay today’s retirees. I’m still looking into how we would pay for that debt.

And…i’ve found the pro-privatization side

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html

here’s my new thinking…first, privatization means you own your own retirement money.  So…if you die before 65, the money you’ve saved your whole life gets passed down to your family.  In the current system, the money you’ve been taxed on gets squandered.  Second, the Social Security trust fund is made up of gov’t bonds.  You pay payroll taxes today (FICA i think it is), the gov’t uses the cash flow to fund today’s gov’t programs, and the gov’t issue bonds into the trust fund.  So…the trust fund isn’t real money, but money that the gov’t owes., along with interest payments.  This website states, according to the 2003 report of the Social Security system’s Board of Trustees, in 2018, just 14 years from now, the Social Security system will begin to run a deficit. That is, it will begin to spend more on benefits than it brings in through taxes. Krugman, who I’ve assumed to be a trushworthy economist without any evidence, would lable this guy as a far-right-winger because of the data he uses.  I don’t know what to believe.  Is this guy just trying to push some sinister agenda?  From his site, it seems he’s trying to actually help people, by allowing them to invest their money, which in the long term should yield more than the 1-2% that the current social security system pays out. 

Topic: ups and downs

Last night, i had a long talk with one of my best friends from college.  He’s my age, but graduated a year behind me, and is now at Berkeley School of Music in Boston.  Like myself, he had a less than desirable experience at Wash U., all he wanted to do was learn and play music, yet he was juggling a history major, and his music classes weren’t satisfying what he wanted to learn.  He dropped the history major, but still was stuck doing homework for his music classes that weren’t necessarily giving him the skills he was looking for. 

Now…he’s right where he wants to be, in a purely music focussed school.  However, even now he’s beginning to question whether he’s in the best place, or whether it’s worth the high tuition.  He’s in a band, but they can’t practice as much as he’d like because they’re doing homework for other classes.  And…the classes he wants to take are part of a sequence that takes 3 more years to go through.  All this and he’s ready to start living after 5 years in college.  There’s bands he sees out there just doing it, recording, touring, figuring it all out.  He knows that he’ll gain skill from staying in school, but, he realizes that making it as a musician requires more than skills.  He feels like Bob Dylan, whose book he’s reading.  Dylan lived in a small town, and it wasn’t until he got to New York that he was able to start making something of his passion and talent. 

Everytime my friend and I talk, we complain a lot.  We laugh a lot for sure, but we bitch about life.  For me, that’s changed, at least last year when I was in South Africa.  My friend is ready to stop bitching and start doing, and I may have convined him of that.  I talked about education, and what I’ve learned about homeschooling, and suddenly my friend decided, “I’d be so much better homeschooling myself about music.  Why pay a lot to not get what I need educationally, when I can do most of it myself, and freeing myself of the obligations to school will free me to practice, play with my band, and see what happens.”  Now…he needs to convince his parents since they’re supporting him, we’ll see.

Oh…and I just got this inspiring e-mail from someone in my office.  This woman who did Peace Corps in Turkey, lived there for 10+ years, married and had a kid there, recently went on vacation to Sri Lanka.  We talked yesturday and I felt that bond to a fellow traveller that is just an amazing feeling.