Beyond the Classroom

Column for week of February 17, 2014                        

     Learning is as old as the human race.  Without
knowledge and skills survival is impossible.  Without learning
we would have no knowledge or skills.  Learning is as natural as
breathing.  It isn't even imaginable that a living, conscious
individual will not learn.

     The best education is the one that provides the individual
with the knowledge and skills he needs most.  Only the
individual can decide what knowledge and skills are the most
valuable to him.

     The knowledge and skills that best serve the achievement
of the individual's goals are the most valuable to him.   Every
person endlessly seeks to increase his satisfaction.  Each needs
to acquire the knowledge and skills that best further that goal.

     Experience tells us that some methods provide education
more effectively and efficiently than others.  That which is
effective for one may be nearly useless for another.  One size
fits all well serves almost no one.

     So, why is our school system built around one size fits
all classrooms?  Does anyone doubt that individual tutors
focusing on the needs of each student would provide the best
formal education?  There is one simple reason why our ancestors
turned to classroom education.  They couldn't afford individual
tutors.

     Classroom lock step education sacrifices quality to reduce
the cost.  Up to a point a clumsy, inefficient formal education is
better than no formal education, at least for some students. 
Those who have the motivation and ability to seek out
knowledge and learn on their own, would be better off if they
never saw a classroom.

     Usually, even in the classroom the teacher isn't the
primary source of knowledge.  Other people have accumulated
far more knowledge than can one classroom teacher.   Those
others write books, make videos, etc. from which the students
learn most knowledge taught.  The classroom teacher's biggest
jobs are to motivate, evaluate, and provide direction.  In my
experience they usually mostly rehashed the text books.

     To maximize the quality of learning we must replace
classroom education.  We now have the tools to move beyond
the classroom.  We can essentially provide almost every student
with the equivalent of a private tutor who leads each student up
a learning path tailor made for that student.

     Government is the most conservative of institutions.  It
clings tenaciously to the past.  To break out of the classroom
mold and soar into the future we must break the unholy alliance
of politicians, traditional administrators, classroom teachers, and
unions.  They will fight to the death (either ours or theirs) to
retain their vested interests in keeping us under the grip of
nineteenth century schools.  The most they want to do is put
bells and whistles on the antiquated classroom horse and buggy.

     Computers only do what we tell them to do.  The
"magic" of computes is that they do what they do with incredible
speed and for an incredibly low cost.

     Computers can endlessly record and analyze the progress
of each student and tailor the student's assignments to cover only
that which the student needs to learn and hasn't.  This will mean
the end of useless, boring, busy work that mostly covers what
the student already knows.  It will also mean the end of students
being left behind because they aren't keeping up with the rest of
the class.   "No child left behind" could become a reality, rather
than just the name of a counter productive law.

     The core of the teaching will come from a few excellent
teachers who provide the input for the computerized teaching. 
Everyone can have complete access to the world's best teachers
who will provide personalized teaching that even the best of
tutors couldn't provide with the old technology.

       And, for whatever it is worth, those excellent teachers will
serve millions of students and be paid like movie stars and 
athletes.  Still, each student will be able to purchase their 
services for a few dollars. Education will be far better and cost 
less.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Silly Do They Get?

Column for week of February 10, 2014

     It is a bit early to be thinking about the "Silly Idea of the
Year" award.   Even in the second month of the new year this
one jumped up and down screaming "Pick me."  I never pick
any idea as the dumbest.  There are far too many worthy
candidates to choose only one.  Besides, if I pick one it will
only be a challenge for someone to beat.  Sill, I'm confident that
come December this idea will remain on the short list.

     The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Food Companies Cut 6.4 Trillion Calories."  My first though
was "That's a lot of calories."  My second though was "Those
food companies must be losing a whole bunch of weight."  The
rest of this column is about my third thought.

     The article goes on to explain that the food companies
had cut the calories in their products by 6.4 trillion.  Supposedly
that works out to 78 calories per day for the entire U.S.
population.  I'll take their word for it.  I really don't care.

     If everyone consumed 78 fewer calories per day, they
would each lose about a pound every 45 days.  That would be
about 8 pounds per year.  In 30 years or so the entire population
would waste away and vanish.   The overweight problem, and a
whole bunch of other problems, solved.  Among other things,
Obama care would cease to be a problem.  There would be no
one left to run the insurance exchanges or enroll in them,  Well,
no one besides Chris Christie anyway.

     The great calorie reduction was achieved by reducing the
size of packages, making cookies smaller, etc.  In 2010 sixteen
companies took the pledge to cut other people's calories.  We are
already three years into the golden era of weight loss.  Haven't
you noticed the difference?  Haven't you wondered, Where are
all those skinny people coming from?

     I am asking a different question.  Who, besides former
mayor Blomberg actually believes people are going to eat less
merely because food comes in smaller packages?  We might see
the reverse effect.  If an eight-ounce soda doesn't satisfy as well
as a 12-ounce one, Will the thirsty one then drink another eight
ounces?  If cookies are smaller, I eat more of them.  I suspect
that a couple of other people do too.

     Most people eat and drink to satisfy their hunger, thirst
and cravings.  They don't wake up in the morning with a plan to
consume no more than 17 containers of food and beverages
before day's end.

     This plan might work in a prison.  Or, it might not.  If
inmates can smuggle in drugs, Why not food?

     The article does admit the plan might be flawed.  "It is
also unclear how the reduction in calories translates into
consumers' diets.  When the companies made the pledge in 2010,
they said one way they would try and reduce calories would be
to change portion sizes in an attempt to persuade consumers to
eat less.  The companies also said that they would develop new
lower-calorie options and change existing products so they have
fewer calories."

     Will this great plan persuade people to eat less, or only
persuade them to buy food and drinks made by companies that
provide more desirable products?  If the shrunken foods shrink
their makers' sales, How long will those companies keep their
pledges?  Their first tactic would likely be to pressure
government to force every company to sell less desirable food.

     This plan is an excellent example of why all social
engineering plans fail.  People know what they want.  Tricks and
threats don't stop them from pursuing what they want.  Trying to
use smaller packages to fool people is about as silly and futile as
it gets.  I shouldn't have said that.  Individuals somewhere are
already planning to prove me wrong.  I don't doubt that they will
succeed.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                       * * * * *
                        * * * *
                         * * *
                          * *
                           *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

What Will Bring Economic Recovery?

Column for week of February 3, 2014             

     The economy has been in the dumpster for going on six
years.  The minimal economic growth reflected in the
government numbers barely exceeds the rate of population
growth.  A large percent of new jobs are part time jobs and
government jobs that don't add much to production. 
Government's promises to borrow and spend our way to
prosperity fell flat on their faces.

     Before considering how to bring expanding production
and prosperity we must first know what it takes to build and
sustain a healthy, robust economy.  The economy is more
complex than a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.  Putting the puzzle
together requires all the pieces, and all in the right places.

     Consumers guide the economy.  The only reason for
producing is to consume.  Businesses buy resources and use
them to make products.  When consumers find the products to
be worth more than the resources used to produce them, the
consumers will pay more for the products than the cost of
production.  The surplus is the reward the business earns by
providing consumers something they want.

     If the consumers won't pay the business more than its
cost of production, the business loses.  The business must change
and please the consumers, or soon go out of business.

     Creating jobs that don't contribute to consumer
satisfaction wastes resources rather than producing additional
value.  Government can't come close to knowing which jobs will
do the best job of pleasing consumers.  Thus, government
subsidies and mandates invariably create wasteful jobs that must
be eliminated before there can be real economic recovery.

     Businesses create jobs by investing to add new
production.  Businesses are highly motivated to produce the
products consumers want and to do it in the least costly way.  
When a business makes a wrong call, it loses money.  Keep
making those mistakes and the business is soon gone. 
Businesses literally bet their lives when they choose how to
invest in producing products.

     Among other things, businesses must anticipate consumer
demand for their products, cost of production, and what the
competition will produce.  There are enough unavoidable,
uncertain variables to keep most people awake all night.  That is
part of why most people don't start businesses.

     No one can focus on the entire economic puzzle. 
Everyone can focus on his own little part.  Employees focus on
their part by developing the skills that promise the greatest
rewards.  A large part of that rewards is spelled w-a-g-e-s. 
When employees seek higher paying jobs, they are seeking more
productive jobs.  Those self serving employees do more to fine
tune the economy than do all the politicians and bureaucrats
lumped together.  Ummmm, what a tempting thought.

     When everyone takes care of his little piece of the
economic puzzle, the picture comes together and we prosper. 
When government manipulates the economy with subsides,
prohibitions, mandates, artificial interest rates, regulations, etc. it
can make it impossible for the real actors in the economy to fine
tune the millions of interactions essential to a vibrant, prosperous
economy.

     The result is wrong education, wrong investment, and
wrong products.  The bad investments must be liquidated and
redirected to bring prosperity.  Bailing out and propping up the
bad investments only compounds the problem.

     The worst comes when government adds so much
uncertainty that businesses are afraid to invest.  Without
investment there can be no new production and no new
productive jobs.  This is why the depression of the 1930s and
1940s lasted so long.  Government made the future so uncertain
that businesses were afraid to invest.  Misdirected government
spending is no substitute for sound business investments.

     We are in the same trap again.  The only way out is for
government to back off and clear the air so that businesses can
see the future clearly enough to return to investing.  Bribing and
tricking businesses to make more bad investments isn't the
answer.  That is how we got where we are now.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Dumb Does It Get?

Column for week of January 27, 2014

     Imagine two sports leagues whose teams never compete
with each other.  Perhaps they even play different sports.  How
can anyone compare a team in one league with a team in the
other and decide which is best, or worst?  There isn't a yard
stick that measures both teams.

     Likewise, how can we possibly pick the dumbest idea
ever?  Dumb ideas also often compete in different leagues rather
than facing off against each other.   The Environmental
Protection Agency has its share of dumb ideas.  It is trying to
eliminate coal as an energy source.  Perhaps coal could still be
used to make jewelry.

     Years ago when I was involved in buying coal a
representative of a coal company had a briefcase full of jewelry
made from coal.  It was quite impressive, and clean.  Coal
jewelry won't contribute much to our energy supply.

     The Federal Reserve has its own stable of dumb ideas. 
One of those ideas is to create trillions of new dollars that if
ever spent can only steal value from the dollars we have now. 
Increasing the money supply doesn't increase the wealth money
can buy.  It only divvies the wealth up among more pieces of
money making each worth less.

     Which idea is the dumbest?   I won't even try to answer
that question.  Take a shot at it if you want to.  There are many
big league dumb ideas.  Certainly Obama care has to be on the
list.

     What about minor league dumb ideas?  Can a small idea
be dumber than big one?  Can the dumbness of an idea be
measured by the amount of damage it does?  Can we even
measure the damage to compare the ideas?

     Today I want to shine the spotlight on some minor league
dumb ideas.  These ideas may be minor league, but ounce for
ounce they contain high concentrations of dumb.

     I first encountered one of them years ago when the native
goose population in southern Michigan was growing unchecked. 
People were actually spending money to trap geese and ship
them to places such as Alabama.  Let the geese be someone
else's problem.  They were usually spending someone else's
money.

     It isn't dumb to catch nuisance geese and ship them.  The
dumbness lies in shipping them so far and making them
someone else's problem.  It would be much more efficient and
effective to ship the geese to a nearby dinner table.  Let them be
useful.

     The next step was to recruit people to find geese nests
and replace the goose eggs with plastic fakes to fool the geese
into setting on plastic.  The next steep was probably to find
psychiatrists to treat the disappointed geese for mental anguish. 
Must I include a disclaimer that as far as I know the last step
hasn't been taken, yet?

     That brings us to the dumb idea that triggered this
column.  I'm not about to say it is the dumbest idea ever, even
in its own league.  If you want to collect a couple of buckets of
dumb, it would be a good place to start squeezing.

     Over population of deer is a problem in many urban
areas.  Best I can see, any deer in urban areas is over population. 
Local governments are spending $1,200 per deer to catch them,
sterilize them, and return them to the urban wilds from which
they came.  Is the driver who collides with a sterile deer pleased
that it is sterile?

     This makes shipping geese to Alabama look almost
smart.  It also makes paying $300 a piece to have deer shot look
like a bargain.  To make all these ideas look as dumb as they
are, keep in mind there are people who would gladly pay for the
opportunity to remove the geese, deer and other destructive
critters.  Whatever perils we face, lack of dumb isn't one of
them.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

A Bridge too Far?

Column for week of January 20, 2014                                 

     New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's bridge scandal may
seem insignificant compared to the IRS targeting opponents of
Obama.  It certainly doesn't stack up against the NSA spying on
everyone.  In some respects the bridge scandal points to a more
alarming problem than all of the other scandals.

     Newsmax reported as follows regarding statements by
former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani about the bridge
scandal; "'Politically stupid things, political pranks that turn bad,
happen in every administration,' Giuliani said Thursday on
CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360.'  'Don't tell me this doesn't
happen in the Obama administration, in the Clinton
administration, the Bush administration.'"

     Giuliani seems to imply that snarling traffic for days,
risking lives, and inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of
drivers is just boys being boys.  Is it comforting that those who
call themselves public servants laughingly pull off such a stunt
merely to get revenge against a rival politician?  It isn't even
clear how the stunt harmed the rival.  It is quite clear how it
harmed hundreds of thousands of the people the political hacks
pretend to serve.

     I don't doubt that such stunts are common place.  They
are part of the lifestyle of power hungry, arrogant, egomaniacs. 
Neither do I doubt that murders are common place in large
cities.  That murder is common doesn't excuse or justify murder. 
Neither does commonness justify destructive political pranks. 
Something that is common is a far greater threat than something
that is rare.

     The Watergate burglary that brought down Nixon is a
better example of a prank gone wrong than is the lane closings. 
Watergate was just one political party spying on another like
they have been doing forever.  Even a president lying about it
was nothing new or unusual.  Also, Watergate didn't inflict
collateral damage on hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

     I find it interesting that Nixon was cashiered for spying
on the opposition, while the Obama administration spies on
everyone and Obama still stands tall.  Perhaps, though, not as
tall as he used to stand.

     The people who orchestrated the lane closings are petty,
vindictive, and immature.  They are unfit to serve in government
in any capacity other than as prison inmates.

     Governor Christie denies any prior knowledge of the
"prank."  His denial certainly made him sound presidential.  I
could hear echoes of past presidents in the background.  There
was Bill Clinton proclaiming "I didn't have sex with that
woman."  Richard Nixon asserting "I am not a crook."  More
recently Barrack Obama denying any knowledge of the
shenanigans at the IRS.

     I'm not a fan of zero tolerance.  Here though we may be
close to something that warrants zero tolerance.  We should at
least have minimum tolerance for politicians and their minions
who flippantly inflict harm on innocent people for reasons as
trivial as petty revenge on another politician.  There does seem
to be some dispute about which politician was the target, and
why.  Does it really matter?

     I don't know how much Christie knew in advance.  I
don't know if he tried to orchestrate a cover up.  I do find it
suspicious that it took him nearly four months to acknowledge
what happened.

     Some things are clear.  A number of his underling
appointees were up to their ears in the "prank."  Appointing that
many arrogant, vindictive and immature minions is by itself
enough to destroy any claim that Governor Christie is fit to be
president.  He isn't even fit to be governor, or dog catcher. 
Governor Christie has gone a bridge too far to ever be president.

     If Christie is the best the Republican Party can offer as a
presidential candidate, it is long past time for the Republican
Party to join the Whigs in that great, smoke filled caucus room
in the sky.  And, I'm not so sure that smoke filled caucus room
won't lie in the opposite direction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
 Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

What Is a Polar Vortex?

Column for week of January 13, 2014             

     Anyone following the weather news during the early
January cold wave was nearly beaten to death by the term "polar
vortex."  Probably most never heard the term before.  The polar
vortex got the blame for what was commonly called deadly cold
weather.

     Most people probably had little memory of the last
"deadly" cold wave.  "Polar vortex" instantly became a
frightening new kind of deadly weather.   I wasn't familiar with
the term either.  I did remember cold waves past and saw
nothing unusual about the latest edition.

     I did a few minutes of research to learn about the scary
new beast.   The polar vortexes are high altitude winds that
circle the poles.  Both poles have one.  In the northern
hemisphere we are mainly affected by the one circling the north
pole.

     Cold polar air stays on the pole side of the polar vortex. 
Occasionally the polar winds weaken and the vortex bulges to
the south.  Cold polar air fills the bulge.   That bulge can extend
as far south as Florida.

     I suspect that most are familiar with the cold waves that
occur when the jet stream dips to the far south.   That dipping of
the jet stream is what periodically freezes the oranges in Florida. 
When I was in Florida in 1990, the Everglades were dotted with
dead trees killed by a severe freeze earlier in the year.

     That cold wave was the product of the same phenomenon
that brought the recent cold wave.  It was just as much a "polar
ortex" as was this year's cold wave.  Few, if any, people called
it a polar vortex.

     There was nothing new about the recent cold wave. 
Someone merely conjured up a new name for it.  The same
weather phenomenon took place last year.  What, you don't
remember it?  That probably means you weren't in Europe last
winter.  Last winter the Europeans and some North Africans got
what we got this January.  I don't know what they called their
cold wave.

     Bulges in the polar vortex aren't uncommon.  They may
occur three or so times a year somewhere across North America,
Europe and Asia.

     Why do the good, or not so good, old-fashioned cold
waves suddenly have a new, scary name?  A meteorologist was
asked if global warming could have caused the polar vortex.  He
allowed as how it might have.  He was a bit short on the
explanation of how.

     Those who fanatically claim humans are heating up the
world with carbon dioxide are desperate after more than a
decade without any warming.  Their reputations and research
grants are in jeopardy.  Did they trot out the scary "polar vortex"
in a desperate attempt to save their sinking ship?   Grasping for
such a small straw would truly be an act of desperation.  Perhaps
they are that desperate.

     Why did the media grab the term and run with it?  
Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the
best.  What simpler explanation is there than that the news
media use scary stories and headlines to gain an audience?

     The cold wave set some record daily low temperatures. 
According to one weather site the old record low for Jackson on
January 6 was -4°.  That record plunged down to -16°.  That
sounds impressive until noticing that the old record for the next
day was -12°, and the record low for January is -20°.

     This is typical of record lows and highs.  They vary
substantially from day to day.   Records are easy to set, if the
weather picks the right day to get hot or cold.  Such records
don't mean there has been any general change in weather or
climate.

     Perhaps the main thing to note from all of this is that
"polar vortex" is merely a different name for the extreme cold
waves that have been flowing over the Northern Hemisphere
since long before any of us were here to "enjoy" them.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Bad Is Congress?

Column for week of January 6, 2014
                                   

     A survey found that the majority of people believe the
current congress is the worst ever.  This leads me to wonder if
that majority has the worst memories ever.  Perhaps they don't
remember anything prior to the last election.  If this is the case,
the current congress is always the worst.

     How can the current congress be the worst?  It didn't
enact Obama care, the Great Society, or the New Deal that are
bankrupting the nation.  The current Congress inherited a mess. 
No, mess isn't strong enough.  It inherited a disaster in progress.

     For longer than I can remember congresses past have
been working to create that disaster.  Who should bear the bulk
of the blame for the government disaster, all of the congresses
that created the disaster, or the latest one that didn't fix it?

     The current congress hasn't passed many new laws.  We
already have 200,000 pages of laws.  Lack of laws isn't the
problem.  At least this congress has done little to make the
disaster worse.  Should we be at least a little thankful for that?

     Congress's failure to enact laws isn't the result of its good
intentions.  We owe our good fortune to partisan bickering and
political maneuvering.  Don't look the gift horse in the mouth. 
Gridlock is our only friend in D.C.

     At the moment I can remember only one time since the
1940s that congress acted to significantly roll back the intrusions
and abuses of government.  Interestingly that was during the
much maligned administration of Jimmy Carter.  Congress
repealed much of the regulation of railroads, trucking and air
travel.  As a small bonus, congress also rolled back alcohol
prohibition a bit by legalizing home brewing.

     Unfortunately that congress couldn't quit while it was
ahead.  It created the Department of (Miss) Education.  Or,
perhaps the repeals were penance for saddling us with the
Department of Education.

     There is plenty to dislike about the current congress.  It is
fiddling while the nation burns.  This congress didn't start the
fire.  It only failed to use its fire extinguishers.  Firemen who
don't put out fires aren't to be highly praised.  They are a step
above firemen who start fires.

     I have no intention of praising most members of
congress.  They are failing big time.  I do condemn the
congresses past far more than congress present.

     I would gladly fire most congress critters and ban them
from even visiting D.C.  Let them back in and they will likely
become lobbyists.  There are a few congressmen I would keep. 
A one armed man could count them on his fingers.

     At least this congress has moved in the right direction by
not doing much to add to the disaster.  We should at least give
them a C- for that.  For now I would give congress an
"Incomplete."  It still has a year left to worsen the disaster.

     We can always hope that the next congress will continue
the trend and actually start cleaning up the disaster created by
past congresses.  This will happen only if the voters demand it. 
Unless voters get over the idea that passing more laws is a good
thing, the disaster will roll on.

     Passing more laws to fix the bad laws enacted by past
congresses only makes for a bigger disaster.  When, and if, some
congress actually starts repealing bad laws we will have
something to praise.  If the next congress goes back to patching
up and adding to the destructive laws already on the books, it
will  be time to take the "worst congress ever" trophy off the
shelf and polish it up.

     On second thought, why polish it?  What would be more
fitting than giving a corroded congress a tarnished trophy?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum