The Post-American World

If you watch Meet the Press on Sunday Morning you have probably heard of one of their panel regulars Fareed Zakaria. He is also host of CNN’s international affairs program, Editor at Large for TIME, and also writes for the Washington Post and the NY Times. He is on very very bright fellow and knows foreign policy as well as anyone I can think of.

I recently downloaded his book The Post-American World on my Kindle and I am blown away by it and his analysis. I highly recommend it! I’m only 28% through it (neat little facts you have when you have a Kindle.)

One of the things he is helping me understand is our debt problems. He points out that household debt has mushroomed from $680 billion in 1974 to $14 trillion in 2008 (this is a second and updated printing of this book.) He tells us the average household has 13 credit cards and owes $120,000 on their mortgage. All of small potatoes in comparison with the government which had a $3 trillion dollar debt in 1990 grew of over 10 trillion by then of 2008 and stands at just under $14 trillion at the end of 2010.

But that is all just background to his point that we are heading, fairly quickly to a Post-American world, meaning that in the future we will be just one of many countries of similar and greater size and economies compared to our own. And we need to know that and be prepared to live in such a world.

As I said, I’ve just over a quarter of the way through his book and he has hand this information out there for some time.

Again, let me recommend this book as must reading to better understand the world in which we live and the world in which we will live in the future.

Sam an Devan Smashing Party

Sam and Devan had a wonderful marriage celebration Party. Doreen and I repesented the northern contingent of the family. It was great and we expected it would be.

Here are a couple of my favorite pictures. There tons of them on the facebook website. And this proves you can get them off the website but it takes a bit of doing.

How The Pendulum Swings

This YouTube piece is absolutely fascinating. Hope you enjoy it. Got the link from my friend Lloyd.

http://youtu.be/yVkdfJ9PkRQ

Play Golf With A Philosopher

While I'm on my philosophical bent, I thought I'd share with the following bit that again may appeal only to a few, but I am one of them.

Have you ever wondered why no one wants to join you, a philosopher, for a round of golf? The fact of the matter is that, on the golf course, philosophers are a truly tedious lot--always have been!!

No one ever wanted to play with Kant since he was such a stickler about following the rules. He claimed that it was Imperative to do so. Kropotkin, on the other hand, never adhered to any rule. Stories abound about how he teed off from the seventh green, taking aim toward the fourteenth hole. Most golfers considered Kropotkin positively dangerous.

Hearing Thales lament about his lastest round was tiresome. One would think that every hole was nothing but water. Admittedly, Hegel had a more positive frame of mind, but that was no better. He kept claiming that everybody�s game was constantly improving, approaching an Absolute Ideal. Marx got so tired of hearing this that he turned Hegel on his head.

Sartre was positively annoying . He would pontificate about how a person is only a bad golfer because that is what he chooses to be. That never sat well with anyone who had just finished a bad round.Berkeley was a bit more subtle, but just as damning. He would claim that the game was entirely mental. That sent Malebranch into despair. He felt that it would take an act of God for your mind to be able to control your body. d�Holbach, on the other hand, would attribute his bad rounds on the pre-existing conditions in the universe; he swore that there was nothing one could do to change the outcome.

Philosophers have also managed to take the fun out of any tournament. Hume was skeptical about any reported score. He wanted proof, but would never accept any of the presented evidence as sufficient.Diogenes was just as Cynical, claiming that he had scoured the world looking for an honest golfer. Meanwhile Paley would go around showing everybody this watch he found.

One had to wait endlessly in the clubhouse for Zeno to get started; it seemed like he could never reach the first hole. Abelard was the only one who didn't seem to mind; he was content to sit in the bar and moon over Heloise.

Strangely, though, the philosopher everyone hated the most was Plato. It is not that he ever did anything wrong. In fact, he had perfect Form. People just couldn't stand the fact that he never shot anything but Par.

[consc.net/misc/golf]

The Philosophy of Kissing

The following responses were carefully researching by philosophers representing many different fields upon the subject of kissing. Who says you can't find important information on the internet. Any any rate I find them hilarious. And after reading them some of you may well say, "He would."

Aristotelian kiss a kiss performed using techniques gained solely from theoretical speculation untainted by any experiential data by one who feels that the latter is irrelevant anyway. Hegelian kiss dialiptical technique in which the kiss incorporates its own antithikiss, forming a synthekiss. Wittgensteinian kiss the important thing about this type of kiss is that it refers only to the symbol (our internal mental representation we associate with the experience of the kiss--which must necessarilly also be differentiated from the act itself for obvious reasons and which need not be by any means the same or even similar for the different people experiencing the act) rather than the act itself and, as such, one must be careful not to make unwarranted generalizations about the act itself or the experience thereof based merely on our manipulation of the symbology therefor. Godelian kiss a kiss that takes an extraordinarilly long time, yet leaves you unable to decide whether you've been kissed or not.

Socratic kiss really a Platonic kiss, but it's claimed to be the Socratic technique so it'll sound more authoritative; however, compared to most strictly Platonic kisses, Socratic kisses wander around a lot more and cover more ground. Kantian kiss a kiss that, eschewing inferior "phenomenal" contact, is performed entirely on the superior "noumenal" plane; though you don't actually feel it at all, you are, nonetheless, free to declare it the best kiss you've ever given or received. Kafkaesque kiss a kiss that starts out feeling like it's about to transform you but ends up just bugging you. Sartrean kiss a kiss that you worry yourself to death about even though it really doesn't matter anyway. Russell-Whiteheadian kiss a formal kiss in which each lip and tongue movement is rigorously and completely defined, even though it ends up seeming incomplete somehow. Hertzsprung-Russellian kiss Oh, Be A Fine Girl/Guy, Kiss Me. Pythagorean kiss a kiss given by someone who has developed some new and wonderful techniques but refuses to use them on anyone for fear that others would find out about them and copy them. Cartesian kiss a particularly well-planned and coordinated movement: "I think, therefore, I aim." In general, a kiss does not count as Cartesian unless it is applied with enough force to remove all doubt that one has been kissed. (cf. Polar kiss, a more well-rounded movement involving greater nose-to-nose contact, but colder overall.) Heisenbergian kiss a hard-to-define kiss--the more it moves you, the less sure you are of where the kiss was; the more energy it has, the more trouble you have figuring out how long it lasted. Extreme versions of this type of kiss are known as "virtual kisses" because the level of uncertainty is so high that you're not quite sure if you were kissed or not. Virtual kisses have the advantage, however, that you need not have anyone else in the room with you to enjoy them. Nietzscheian kiss "she/he who does not kiss you, makes your lust stronger." Epimenidian kiss a kiss given by someone who does not kiss. Grouchoic kiss a kiss given by someone who will only kiss those who would not kiss him or her. Harpoic kiss shut up and kiss me. Zenoian kiss your lips approach, closer and closer, but never actually touch. Procrustean kiss suffice it to say that it is a technique that, once you've experienced it, you'll never forget it, especially when applied to areas of the anatomy other than the lips.

Higher (Cost) Education

In my last facetious piece I spoke about how some were paying for the high cost of higher education. I’d like to follow this with a more serious article on how the cost of tuition has considered outraced our income over the years.  For instance my tuition at Iowa State University in 1960 was $125/per quarter or $375/yr. That year I remember my total expenditures for everything, room, board, tuition, cigarettes, everything was just over $1,000. Most of you are aware of the current college costs.

Following is some data I collected this morning.

47% colleges cost less than $9,000/yr

Private college at $35,000/yr

Two year colleges $2,713/yr

Public 4 yr colleges average $7,605/yr

Private non-profit college average $27,293/yr

Public 2 yr colleges average $2,713/yr

[collegeboard.com]

Online colleges range from $23,868 to $30,975 for a two year program ranging in hours for competition from 36 to 53 hrs for an associates degree.  [elearningpundit.com] (I’m not sure we are comparing apples to apples here.) I had a great deal of difficulty finding out about B.A. degrees from Phoenix. I refer you to Sami.

(I believe regular colleges require about 16 hrs/ semester or 128 hours for graduation.)

In the 1940’s the average tuition cost per year was under $100.

In the 1960’s it rose to $300 to $3,300/yr depending where you went.

In the 1980’s  the national average for tuition room and board was $5,000 to $6,000/yr (University of Colorado Boulder

In other words the cost of education has increased far more than inflation, which is beginning to price students out of college and/or causing them to incur incredible debt. [see nader.org Monday May 27, 1985]

Brigham Young University report the tuition costs in 1960 at $130/semester rising to a current $2,210/semester in 2011. They are heavily subsidized by the church.

Comparing median incomes from 1975 to 2009 [davemanuel.com] the nominal (median) income in 1975 was $11,800 (adjusting that figure for inflation it would be $42,936). In 1909 that changes to $49,777 (no inflation need be reflected.) So, for adjust incomes that means an increase of a little less than $7,000 gained in income over those years.

Tuition at public colleges in 1975 were $599/yr and $2,614/yr at private college. In 2005 public tuition was $10,800 and private tuition was $19,400. [insideout.wbur.org] Citing the same source the median income in 1955 was $4,418 in 1955, $13,719 in 1975 and $56,194 in 2005. (These are not inflation adjusted figures.

One of the reasons for these higher costs is that there are many more students attending college than they did in my day. But shouldn’t that make the cost per student go down rather than up? In industry that’s usually they way it works. The more widgets you make the more efficient you become and the cost per widget goes down.

I heard Garrison Keillor speaking on radio about this, that in his day anyone could go to college if they want and they could work their way through without incurring any debt at all.

Perhaps in those days we just better understood the importance of higher education for our society. And those with degrees were regarded with more respect that today. Who knows?

I have all too frequently heard folk running for office on a board of education whose sole reason for running was to lower costs for taxpayers. Everyone needs to get the best bang for the buck for the educational dollar, but shouldn’t the reason for what to be on an educational board be to ensure good education for our children? And now we have a governor who wipes out the bargaining power of teachers, calling that being fiscally responsible while at the same time he gave away an almost equal amount in tax breaks for businesses.

The costs of education have risen dramatically over the years along with everything else. But our educational systems are becoming less and less competitive with other educational systems in developed countries. We can complain about teacher’s salaries while remaining silent about the obscene salaries of upper management in corporation and a banking system that bets against those they lend to.

Given their value to society I think it almost impossible to overpay teachers. But in a society that has become increasing short sighted we have devalued education and have turned many colleges into trade schools. (but that’s another subject to address another day.) But it is reflective on an increasingly materialistic society where economic values outweigh all other values. The common ethic of today is expediency, not whether some is right or wrong.

This is one of the important issues of our society which get lost in the political rhetoric of today. Think about it my friends.

The Whee Party: How to lower the National Debt

In a recent Huffington Post article there was a story about a young woman college student who found a “sugar daddy” via the web and met with him to have sex as a means of paying part of her sizeable college debt. Apparently such arrangements are becoming more common given the high cost of education now days. The average debt of a college student graduating this year will be about $27,000 dollars. The meeting site has over 110,126 women and 25,363 men listed on it. The websites are considered legal. [Huffington Post Blog 7/31/11]

So here’s the idea. We start a movement to only elect young women and some young men (gigolo types) to congress. Of course we will have to change the age limits for legislators from over to under 30 for senators and from over 25 to under 25 for house members. Where their job description would be to have sex with very rich sugar daddies and some sugar mommies and the money would go towards reduced the national debt. It is your basic progressive tax deal with a new slant. The gratuities would obviously be quite high. Imagine the bragging rights of sleeping with members of congress; admittedly not a new concept, but this would have a higher appeal in terms of public servanthood. And, think how it might enhance international relationships. Can’t you see the oil rich middle easterns just lining up for such a tryst. It boggles the mind. It give a whole new meaning to the peace corp.

Admittedly there might be some moral objections to this proposal, but how different is it that the current lobby system we are using now. All those fundamentalist preachers and politicians of all sorts that have been caught with their pants down could now claim it as a public service. Here’s to the entrepreneurial spirit. I’m sure that colleges will have to increase the size of the political science departments thus creating a wiser voting public. Terms limits for congress would become automatic.

The possibilities fairly boggle the minds with various ramifications. Fare thee well Tea Party, here comes the Whee Party.