Welcome Morons & Moronettes

I had no idea that OregonMuse would link to my bloglet this morning.  Welcome AOS visitors!

This past summer, our family left the clogged freeways of California to live on a small farm of dubious character.  My husband suggested throwing together a post "How to convert a nice home into a chicken coop."  Unfortunately, any pictures would not do the smell justice. 

I teach political science and practice California law remotely (very remotely).  My husband is the handyman and farm proprietor.  Please leave comments as you feel the spirit move. 

More posts soon!

Twilight: The Gateway to a 50 Shades Relationship?

What do vampires have in common with kinky BDSM?  Apparently, the best-seller 50 Shades of Grey was conceived as Twilight fan fiction.  Although Twilight lacks the explicit themes of 50 Shades, it romanticizes a similarly dangerous relationship.

To summarize (for those who spent the past decade under a rock), Twilight is a romance between Bella, a 17-year-old girl, and her classmate Edward, who happens to be a vampire.  I read Twilight several years ago while on vacation.  The story was engrossing.  But as I was reading, something about the relationship between Bella and Edward kept bugging me.  And it wasn’t the fact that Edward happened to be a vampire.  Everyone knows vampires are pretend!  (right. . . ?) 

No, what bothered me were the parallels between Bella’s story and real-world, dangerous relationships.

1.  Edward had a definite dark side.  He had a bad temper AND he struggled with blood lust.   At the beginning of the relationship, he treated Bella with cruel hostility.  (Was it excusable simply because he was trying to control the impulse to drain her veins?) During key points in their relationship, Edward had Bella walking on eggshells.  Just by being herself, Bella would accidentally trigger Edward’s darker nature. 

2.  Edward was very controlling.  During their “get to know you” conversations, Edward drilled Bella like the Spanish inquisition.  Edward changed his schedule so that they were taking all their classes together.  Edward insisted on chauffering Bella to school, both ways.  He would make fun of her car and refuse to let her drive.  He would take her places against her will (i.e., the prom) even though Bella strongly protested and said she did not want to go.

3.  Edward was extremely jealous and would become angry when he saw other boys becoming close to Bella.  Bella expressed relief that she had not had any former boyfriends, so that she would not have to tell Edward about them.

4.  Edward was a stalker.  He entered Bella’s house without permission.  Using his heightened sense of hearing, he listened in on Bella’s conversations.  He followed her without her knowledge.

5.  Edward held unequal power in the relationship.  He was a beautiful immortal, with super-human strength and speed.  He had unlimited funds.  He had special senses that enabled him to read others’ thoughts.  Bella, on the other hand, was awkward and insecure.  She had just moved to live with her dad and had no close friendships.  Edward would take Bella to remote locations, where she had no means of returning home by herself.  She was totally dependent on Edward.

To his credit, Edward warned Bella that he was not good for her.  Bella’s friends who knew Edward’s identity begged her to stay away from him.  Bella knew that Edward was dangerous, yet she consciously chose to stay with him.  She didn’t care about her human friends, she didn’t even care about her own human life.  She was stubbornly confident that the “love” she shared with Edward would make everything OK.

Putting aside the vampire factor, anyone see a problem with this relationship??  Yet Twilight boldly celebrates the fantasy love between Edward and Bella.  Judging by the sales of books, movies, DVDs – and wildly popular fan fiction spin-offs! -- the continuing Twilight story has captivated millions of girls, and women.

In just a few short years, the young woman’s obsession with Twilight has become the older woman’s obsession with 50 Shades of Grey.  Mothers, grandmothers, teachers, sisters and friends – we need to talk!  We must recognize and teach the signs of a dangerous relationship.  We must not let vampire romance and its fan fiction cloud our judgment. 

Because, in real life, a dangerous relationship is unlikely to resolve in a happy ending.

 

Free Community College (Continued)

In my previous post, I gave four reasons we should oppose "free" community college.  Here are 5 more.

5.  Free Community College Is Not a Universal Solution.  President Obama stated as his goal, “that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”  (emphasis added).    However, not every job requires higher education, and not every student will benefit from community college.  To support his policy, President Obama claims that, “By the end of this decade, two in three job openings will require some higher education.”  Even assuming this figure is accurate, this means that one-third or more of job openings require NO higher education whatsoever.

6.  Free Community College Excuses Poor Performing High Schools.  Even today, many students use community college as an extension of high school.  They take remedial math and English classes that should have been mastered well before college.  These classes generally do not count toward a college degree.  Would free community college relieve all pressure for our high schools to perform at acceptable levels?  Or perhaps free community college is an admission that our high schools are already inconsistent at preparing students for adult life.

7.  Free Community College Dilutes All Degrees.  We discussed President Obama’s plan for free community college in my political science class.  The students agreed that free stuff is valued less.  They worried that, if a community college degree was "free," would that dilute the value of their degrees?  Will an AA degree become the minimum requirement for entry-level jobs, as high school is today?

8.  Free Community College Encourages Irresponsibility.  My students were concerned that potential employers would not value “free” community college.  I wondered the same thing about the students themselves.  We all know – parents especially – that people appreciate things more when they work for them.   As an example, 20-year-old Joe works in retail, lives in a crappy apartment with 4 other guys, and goes to community college at night.  Joe is paying his own way, perhaps with the help of scholarships and loans.  You can bet that Joe will choose his classes carefully, show up, and study enough to safely pass.  On the other hand, you have 19-year-old Sam.  Sam’s mom expects him to attend community college and pays his tuition.  Since Sam likes living at home (free wi-fi), he reluctantly enrolls.  He picks classes like “History of Rock and Roll” and ceramics.  He sleeps through the lectures, and if he does pass, it is because his professor felt sorry for him.

Of course, some students will be disciplined enough to take full advantage of their education, regardless of whether it is costly or free.   These students probably do not need additional taxpayer help to complete their degrees.

9.  Free Community College Detaches Students from Their Communities. 

As a third example, let’s say Jane enrolls in government-provided, “free” community college.  In some ways, her situation is even worse than Sam’s.  At least Sam has his mom to kick his butt, and perhaps kick him out (someday).  But Jane is not accountable to anyone.  If she picks ridiculous classes, or sleeps through lectures, she does not feel the pinch, and neither do her parents.

To reassure us that this scenario is unlikely, President Obama says, “Understand, you’ve got to earn it – you’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time.”  Sam’s mom probably tells him the same thing. But Sam’s mom has more tools at her disposal, both for encouraging Sam and for making his life miserable.  Sam’s mom loves him, and prays for him, and mobilizes other family and friends to support him.  In contrast, the government cares nothing for Jane personally.  It allows Jane to believe that she is independent, slowly eroding her support system.  If Jane fails, her funding ends.  How is Jane better off then? 

Better for Jane to learn responsibility early, by paying as she goes along.  Better for Jane to be depending on family and friends that love her, until she can stand on her own two feet. 

To summarize:  better for Jane and her peers, better for our colleges, better for our high schools, better for our employers, better for our communities, better for our taxpayers and better for our freedoms that community college is NOT free.

Free Community College?

In President Obama’s state of the union address, he said, “… I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college — to zero.”  I am a big believer in community college.  In community college, savvy students save substantial sums on their journey to an advanced degree.  Older adults can build second and third careers, and high school goof-offs can get a fresh start.  (My husband rocked all three categories.)

So free community college is a great idea, right?  According to President Obama, “too many bright, striving Americans are priced out of the education they need.  It’s not fair to them, and it’s not smart for our future.”  Who could argue with that?

… Well, me.  Precisely because I believe in community college, I do not believe the cost should be – or could be – “zero.”

1.  Free Community College Is Unnecessary.  Community college tuition is already affordable.  It is easy to find a community college within commuting distance, so you can continue to live at home.  And, if your funds fall short, you can apply for financial aid, student loans and merit scholarships.  With all of the help available, it is hard to imagine any “bright, striving American” actually priced out of community college. 

Some time ago I oversaw a scholarship fund specifically for community college students.  The scholarship had few requirements, and yet we only found one interested student.  Finding money for community college is so simple that the scholarship was almost superfluous.

2.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Money).  Someone still has to pay for community college, even if it is “free” for students.  There are only three possibilities for the federal government to finance community college: (1) higher taxes; (2) cutbacks in other areas; or (3) more deficit spending.  None of those are very appealing.

3.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Our Liberties).  There is an English proverb along the lines of “He who takes the king's shilling becomes the king's man.”  Grants from the federal government to the states always come with strings attached.  If the federal government pays for community college, you can bet they will regulate who teaches, what is taught, and perhaps even who can enroll.  Common Core for College, anyone?  State and local governments will have less power to tailor their institutions to the needs of the specific community.

4.  Free Community College Is Not Efficient.  When the government pays for something, it takes away free market incentives toward efficiency.  If a student (or her parent) pays for college, they will seek the best value for their dollar.  Colleges know that if they do not provide the best value, the student (or her parent) will take their dollars elsewhere.   This fast and simple feedback between business and consumer drives up quality and efficiency.  Government money breaks this direct line of communication.  Community college would no longer be accountable to the student (or her parent).   An impersonal bureaucracy would make the decisions, motivated by political objectives opaque to the actual students and educators.

To Be Continued...

 

Trading Freedom for Security

In my political science class, we often talk about the role of government in helping people.  To what extent should we depend upon the government to provide goods, services and protection from the harsh corners of life?  This is the heart of today’s political debate.

John Locke, the British doctor and Enlightenment philosopher, did a “thought experiment” about life before government.  I call it a thought experiment, because no one really knows what life before government would be like.  But Locke used his imagination to create a hypothetical scenario where everyone is free and equal, and no one has any authority over anyone else.  He called it the “State of Nature.”

Free and equal sounds great, doesn’t it?  But the state of nature, at least in Locke’s thought world, is inherently unsafe.  It is insecure.  Every person enforces the law as they see fit, and there is no one to protect the interests of the weak impartially.  For this reason, people voluntarily leave the state of nature, and they create government.

When you create government, you give up some of your freedom.   You expect other people to obey the will of the majority, even when they don’t like the result, and likewise they expect you to obey the will of the majority, even when you don’t like the result.  So you are less free.  Nonetheless, you are willing to give up some of your freedom for security.

This is the great trade-off with government:  We give up our freedom, and the government gives us security.  In reality, without at least minimal security, our freedoms are worthless anyway.  If you are in constant danger of being robbed, or being assaulted, how free are you?  Not very.

As government grows, it may promise us more and more security.  It may promise us food when we are poor.  It may promise us income when we are old.  It may promise us healthcare, a cleaner environment, protection from false advertising.  These are lofty and noble goals.  At the same time, it is very important to understand that none of these things are “free,” whether the government provides them, or whether we provide them for ourselves. 

In fact, each and every time we allow the government to provide for us, we give up some of our freedom.   Therefore, if we value our freedom, in each and every instance, we must ask ourselves, what is the value of the trade?  What freedoms am I giving up (they may be hidden), and what am I receiving in return?  Can the government actually deliver on its promises, and even if it can, is it worth the trade?



Trading Freedom for Security.  Is the apple crisp and juicy?  Or is it mealy with worms?