Michael Braun's Blog

In the final part of this series, I finish critiquing Prof. Mark C. Taylor’s recommendations for overhauling the US university system (read the op-ed here) and offer a conclusion.

5. Expand the range of professional options for graduate students. Who could argue against this being a good idea? It’s obviously important for graduate students to have many options when completing their education. But graduate school is nothing like high school, and we graduate students don’t need people holding our hands. I decide what level of degree I want to pursue, and I dictate the experience that I get in my studies. Yes, maybe it would be good for the university to seek opportunities for me outside of academia. But in the end, that’s my responsibility. Graduate school is a risk, not a sure bet for your future. If it wasn’t, then a master’s degree wouldn’t mean anything to employers.

Prof. Taylor argues that this is important because most graduate students won’t get jobs in higher education. Thus it is important to focus on real-world skills. Sir, real world skills are for technical colleges and job training centers. A college degree serves as a proxy for intelligence, good writing and critical thinking skills, and elitism. As bachelor’s degrees become more common, master’s degrees begin to take their place. If graduate students need hand-holding, then you must feel terribly guilty when you send your undergraduates out into the job market. They must be like crabs attempting to find a new shell – unprotected in a harsh environment and vulnerable to predators.

6. Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure. At this point in time, I’m exhausted in critiquing these points. My defenses are down, and I’m not sure how to argue against tenure. Except this: professors, compared to similarly educated peers, make very little money. In the field of communication science, if you get a Ph.D., you can teach or you can go into consulting. You work longer hours in consulting and make a LOT more money. The tenure system serves as an insurance policy for a university and for a professor. The university gets professors to strive to bring the university fame and money; the professors gets insurance that their hard work will pay off with job security.

Additionally, the tenure system helps protect minority viewpoints. Professors can feel free to pursue research interests that might have otherwise been frowned upon. They can write critiques of their peers’ work without fear of political reprisal ending their career. They can be lazy too, but Prof. Taylor surely started working harder after he received tenure. I suspect this is true of the best professors, and it is these professors most likely to get tenure.

In conclusion, Prof. Taylor’s piece reads as though he first wrote that he had six recommendations, and only then started to think of what those recommendations would be. I do that all the time when I write, so I don’t begrudge him the style. Instead, I think it’s his perspective that caused these silly recommendations. He’s in the religion department, an area without a lot of demand from outside employers. He’s the head of the department, so he sees a lot of bad professors and misled graduate students. He’s well-respected, so his opinion matters on university policy. And he’s at a private school, where expenses may loom large in graduate students’ minds.

So, Prof. Taylor, I hereby invite you to come to the University of Wisconsin and visit with our communication science area. Here, you will see graduate students working hard and being compensated, with few misperceptions of the outside world. You’ll see hard-working professors merging fields and dealing with real-world issues. And you’ll see a fine research area collaborating across campus and with universities around the world. But that’s just how we do it here in the Midwest.

Here’s some key text from the online profile of a former co-worker of mine. I found him to be, in general, ineffective, irritating, frustrating, and a jerk. But that’s not what this bio would have you believe!

He began his career at [company] in its Technical Services division. As a Technical Coordinator for the [organization], he coordinated a technical team to resolve over 150 software problems with a 100% rate of success.

I wasn’t aware that this company tracked success rates. Usually, you just worked on a problem until it was solved. This was customer service, not some sort of freeform software puzzle challenge league.

In 2005, he moved to the Implementation Services division to improve his leadership and strategic thinking skills. As an Application Coordinator for the [organization], he modeled clinical workflows and helped the client’s support staff successfully adopt new functionality without help from an implementation team. In recognition of his outstanding long-term effort, he was promoted to the Application Manager position in 2006.

No, there are no promotions at this company. Once you work as an AC, you then move to an AM. If you don’t move up, then it’s likely you are doing something wrong. And he told me that he changed roles because he was bored doing technical stuff. I guess he didn’t want to brag that it was actually to improve his leadership. Probably because when I worked with him, he still had a lot of improvement to go.

As an Application Manager for the [yet another organization, the one that I also worked with], [he] reviewed an aggressive clinical software implementation strategy and executed it successfully, leading a cross-functional team and going live in 6 months, half the expected duration. Following the completion of this project, he was promoted to the Implementation Coordinator position in 2007.

Yes, we went up in 6 months, with one person using the software. Further rollout for this client was barely started when I left the company over a year and a half later. He also fails to mention that he left the company in the middle of this project, leaving the rest of us scrambling. And once he returned, he was put on a new project, with slightly increased responsibilities – not unusual for returning employees. He barely worked at all on the new project, tortured those working under him, kept the project on hold for weeks, often wasn’t even in the city, and then lied about it to those trying to meet with him. I guess that’s not important enough to mention, however.

As an Implementation Coordinator for the [yet another organization], [he] analyzed the client’s practice management and clinical software needs, conceptualized an enterprise implementation strategy, and persuaded the client to adopt it. He directed stakeholder discussions, prioritized objectives, outlined next steps, and delegated projects to a 15-person cross-functional team, while also managing the implementation budget.

There are so many buzzwords in there, it’s hilarious. He demonstrates the use of language to baffle, mislead, and intimidate. So there you have it, a perfect model of self-inflation.

Continuing on with my critique of Prof. Mark C. Taylor’s recommendations for overhauling the university system, I arrive at his points 2, 3, and 4.

2. “Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs.” Essentially, Prof. Taylor would like to create areas of study focused on contemporary problems and areas of study. For example, he suggests a program centered around water that would unite areas of study across campus (from engineering to English) to deal with issues of water.

This point is so illogical that I feel bad even criticizing it. I will offer three basic points. A) Hydro Engineers have little interest in water imagery in contemporary literature. English majors have little interest in the fundamentals of hydro-electric power. Why would students be motivated to truly engage these issues, when they are far outside their realm of interest? B) Students at a university are owed a reasonable expectation that their degree will help prepare them for a job. A major in “Water Studies” is unlikely to excite any employer. C) Established areas of study exist because of a demand. Departments without enough interest are eventually abolished. Prof. Taylor suggests reevaluating each area of study every seven years (rather arbitrary, don’t you think) and determining which areas should be continued and which should be canceled. This takes supply and demand out of the academic world and puts it into the hands of administrators. What proof do we have that they will do a better job determining what is and is not important to study?

3. “Increase collaboration among institutions.” This is a great idea, in theory. But Prof. Taylor’s suggested method leaves much to be desired. While this suggestion might work great in large cities, where multiple universities are just minutes from each other, it will work less well over great distances. He suggests using the internet and video conferencing; while this might work, it also defeats the purpose of having a university with a physical location. If we can have all classes taught over the internet, by the best instructors at the best universities, then why should students go away to school? College has a lot more to offer than classroom instruction.

To illustrate, he argues that this would allow one college to have a great German department and another to have a great French department. Two points. A) For undergraduate education, what standards make up a great language department? The only truly relevant factor is the quality of instruction and the depth of classes. There is no reason that any university shouldn’t be able to retain several great language teachers (even if they don’t have doctorates). B) The quality of a department, for most professors, centers around its scholars. In this way, department quality is largely measured by the popularity of its graduate programs. There is no reason that a university must offer video conferencing services for graduate students at another institution. If these students want to go to a program with great scholars, then they should apply at the quality school. In short, this type of investment makes little sense, as quality education is relatively easy to provide for undergraduates and is not nearly as important for graduate students.

4. “Transform the traditional dissertation.” This seems reasonable, right? Not once you start reading Prof. Taylor’s actual suggestions. His main driving reason for the change is that, in the arts and humanities, no book publisher wants to put out a dissertation that no one will buy. So maybe we need to stop worrying about getting a dissertation actually published. Maybe it’s the standard that is wrong, not the method.

He goes on to say, “For many years, I have taught undergraduate courses in which students do not write traditional papers but develop analytic treatments in formats from hypertext and Web sites to films and video games.” Yes, this is perfect, because no employers today are looking for people who can write. Except for the CEO of Delta, Richard Anderson (read an interview with him here). Anderson says in the interview that he doesn’t care about making a PowerPoint; he wants people who can speak and write well. So, sorry Prof. Taylor, you may be innovating, but that doesn’t mean you are providing your students with relevant skills.

More tomorrow, so stay tuned!

First, read this op-ed in the New York Times. In it, Prof. Mark C. Taylor, chair of Columbia’s Religion department, offers a critique of America’s university system. He says that departments have become too specialized and fractured, reducing our university system’s ability to tackle real world issues and combine intelligence and background to produce the best from America’s brightest minds. He also offers six specific recommendations for the overhaul. I will now critique these recommendations.

1. “Restructure the curriculum, beginning with graduate programs and proceeding as quickly as possible to undergraduate programs.” He cites anecdotal evidence for this needed overhaul by referencing a meeting of political scientists he went to where they discussed why religion has never been a part of International Relations Theory. Sounds like exactly what Jonathan Fox wrote about in 2001 (read his full article here).

Prof. Taylor attempts to use this as evidence that our stratified university system can’t possible work together. But the synthesis of fields has always been important in most lines of university studies. An officemate of mine is getting her doctorate in Rhetoric, but she writes about music. A recent presentation she did for her area involved her singing, as she also majored in music as an undergraduate. Yes, rhetorical studies and music are both humanities and not likely to help solve the world’s problems, but she is most definitely forging connections.

In reality, it’s easy to spot people who are working to bring different areas of study together. Even though International Relations Theory (which, as a side note, is unlikely to solve problems that face the world even with the inclusion of religion, despite Prof. Taylor’s lofty expectations) hadn’t bridged religion and politics, I bet there are other theories that do just that. In my own area of study (communication science), all we do is bridge areas: media effects, children’s emotional responses, decision making, advice giving. In some ways, it’s a flapping hose that is spraying in so many directions, merging so many fields, it’s hard to absorb it all. Maybe that means that the research area has different problems, but our biggest issue is certainly not doing research that doesn’t address but a tiny subset of interests and problems.

There’s a lot more to critique in this article. I’ll move on down his list of recommendations tomorrow.

Look at that man over there, bundled in a winter coat, when spring has finally arrived. He sits on the bus, just three seats in front of me, and has sneezed thrice in his coat sleeve. Why so bundled when the weather is so fair? And why the sneezes he carefully conceals? With illness spreading round, the bus bumps and rumbles. That man may carry disease!

Off the bus, see the woman looking pale. Her sallow skin and watery eyes serve as a harbinger of swine fueled demise! Stay clear from her, I wait at the light. She approaches, so I dash into traffic. This is nothing to take lightly, as cars swerve and honk around me. She’s sick; her stringy hair tells the story. That weathered face holds all the horrors, and she seems out to sicken me. She comes into the cafe and waits two places back. I leave the queue and flutter the door, glancing back.

Now in the classroom, sipping nothing, my lids hang heavy and my attention drifts. Then a draft comes from the doorway, as a student enters late. Sneezing, wheezing, a coughing fit – she’s a demon down with it. Her nose upturned, her cloven hooves, Satan’s no goat but a porky side of ribs, butchered and waiting to infect us all.

Shaken awake, I gather my things. The bell sounds and I flee. Surgical masks in the hallway from students with precaution aforethought. Where is my protection? Where is my composure? I spill someone’s books while spinning too quick, then trip and drop my own. Another sneeze I hear behind me, but I make it out the door.

The fresh air is no solace, as humid breezes blow. With deep foreboding, I avoid deep breathes and scrub my hands raw with pumice and bleach. The bus is unsafe, so I set out to walk, away from campus and the quarantine zone. But on the way, my nose feels a tickle. Try as I might, I sneeze too. Thus my fate has come and swine flu has poisoned me too. As pigs in their pen, they round us all up, and as pigs squeal, I cry out! Disease has wrought our doom again.

Three episodes into the season, I’ve been disappointed by NBC’s new sitcom Parks and Recreation. While the concept of an Office type show centered around small town local government seems like it could be really funny, the show has been quite flat. There’s plenty of time for it to turn around, find some humor in the plot, but as of right now, it feels like work to just keep tuning in. Lauren and I taped the episode on Thursday and didn’t watch it until today. Here are reasons why the show is a disappointment so far.

1. Too much focus on plot. The Office has just a basic conceit driving it: people working in a small regional company who waste their lives with office antics rather than moving on to something bigger and better. And it’s filming style is unique: as if a documentary is being shot about their lives. Characters drive the show, and while there are story arcs (the largest being the romance of Jim and Pam), many episodes focus simply on the realities (and absurdities) of the American workplace.

In Parks and Rec, however, we are immediately launched into the plot right from the pilot. Leslie (played by Amy Poehler) is going to try to turn an abandoned pit into a community park. All storylines in 3 episodes so far have focused around this task. What’s worse – the plot seems to be moving very quickly. If this is supposed to be about red tape and ridiculous bureaucracy, then the show has thus far been a complete flop. There’s still time for the process to become slow, but so far there’s been little focus on the absurdities of local government.

1. Character likeableness is completely flawed. I, like a lot of America, fell in love with Jim and Pam falling in love. To me, characters on The Office are like real people, even as they do ridiculous things. Even Michael Scott, played perfectly by Steve Carrell, is likeable. Not on Parks and Rec, however, where the show takes the Michael Scott character (Leslie) and forces her to be the main protagonist. Sitcoms where an irritating character takes the lead are doomed to fail! Leslie is unlikeable. And that’s because Amy Poehler has never proven herself to be capable in a leading role. Her list of recent roles includes a lot of supporting parts, but no leads. In her most recent film that I saw (Baby Mama), she was largely irritating and ridiculous.

We see that Leslie loves parks and wants to serve the community, but she idolizes Karl Rove and filibusters at her own meeting. She has a strong desire to promote herself, but does not appear to have ever had success. Indeed, we learn in the third episode that she only got her current job because of nepotism. Her strongest character touchstone is Michael from The Office; they are both equally ridiculous at times. But we know that Michael loves his company, was an exceptional salesperson (still is), and is now stuck in a role that doesn’t suit him. Maybe we’ll find out more about Leslie that will help form her into a real character, but thus far, I’m not hopeful.

3. No clear direction for humor or storyline. We knew what was driving The Office right from the get-go. Remember the episode opening where Dwight finds his office supplies encased in Jell-O? It was ridiculous and seemingly impossible, yet it also revealed a wealth of information about the characters. The show asked us not to believe that putting office supplies in Jell-O was possible, but rather to consider how long Jim must have spent to successfully pull off the prank. This would have required him to stay late to raid Dwight’s desk, spend hours at home making the molds successful, and then arrive early to place back the supplies. All this work, rather than searching for a different job or working harder at his current one; it tells you a lot about Jim. All jokes in the show seem to serve this purpose. There is nothing comparable on Parks and Rec.

There have been laughs in all three episodes thus far, but too few overall. And with nothing to hope for or be excited about, it’s hard to justify adding this show into regular viewing. Chances are that, for subsequent episodes, Lauren and I will again tune in over the weekend, rather than on Thursday nights. There’s still a chance that the show can turn itself around, but it’s an unusual show that starts bad and goes on to get really good. I guess I’m willing to stick it out for now.

I joined Twitter about 6 months ago. In 2 days, I attracted 2 followers, neither of whom I knew. A bit disturbed by this, I deactivated my account. But with all the buzz around the site, and with a recent string of successful self-promotion attempts, I decided to give it another try. I signed up again and have been a Twit for around a week.

Before our department’s colloquium, I told to my advisor that I had not been able to find her Twitter account, which she had mentioned to me a few days previous. This prompted two fellow graduate students to mention how they were on Twitter. They had joined to follow a friend. Two other grad students joined in, and before you knew it, we were all discussing Twitter.

That’s not that surprising, as Twitter has been growing by leaps and bounds lately. Here’s what is surprising. Of the six of us who admitted being Twitter members, no one said they liked the site. Further, none of us found any pleasure or interest in following someone else’s twits. Further, the overwhelming opinion was not one of disinterest (“It’s just not for me”), but rather of disgust (“It’s such a stupid site”).

The media has been all abuzz about Twitter. After all, it’s a text-based information sharing portal that allows anyone to post short twits about anything. It’s perfect for an organization like CNN. They’ve been moving their reporting toward a twit-based model for years. But for your average citizen, these twits offer very little value. And for investors, it seems unlikely Twitter will ever make money. There aren’t even advertisements on the site.

Finally, as an example of how worthless Twitter is, I give you the unedited last few twits of a former high school classmate of mine. Based on communication like this, Twitter expects to build a global brand and a successful business. It’s not going to happen.

Waiting for za ch so i can take him to school. Probably just now getting ready.
about 2 hours ago from txt

@zmonfils i will do that. was gonna say something…but eph can see this. lol
about 12 hours ago from web in reply to zmonfils

@zmonfils listen here little boy…you should just love me for who i am.
about 13 hours ago from web in reply to zmonfils

@savinggreen lol….like that. you listen to disturbed. zach is trying to be more like you everyday. he should try to be more like me though
about 16 hours ago from web in reply to savinggreen

@zmonfils does this mean we will be listening to eph music when we close. lol. love you!!!!
about 19 hours ago from web in reply to zmonfils

chilling at home by myself….since noone wants to hang out with me today :(
about 19 hours ago from web

tagging along on chloe’s field trip to the hospital. better warm up in the next two hours or it is going to be a cold walk.
6:36 AM Apr 23rd from web

Washing clothes and wondering why the mexicans need to take charge of both T.V.s. They are on the same chanel and the volume is all the …
8:45 PM Apr 22nd from txt

Awesome day!!!! Everything went great with my mom and shaun is going back to work at packerland after 2 months and 6 days!!!!!
1:51 PM Apr 22nd from txt

Forget the old Soviet Union; Charter Communications is the great Satan in my book. It’s no wonder that they declared bankruptcy earlier this year. In a recent survey of consumer opinions, Charter (and other cable companies) were ranked at the absolute bottom on items like Ease of Use and Enjoyability (read more here).

I’ve never, ever liked Charter. But, as I don’t want to go through the difficulty of having satellite television, and because they provide fast internet service, I’m stuck. I’m currently investigating AT&T services, but their prices for internet and television are not competitive, unless you want many more channels than we currently get.

What brought on this most recent loathing? Our internet stopped working. Worse still, I’ve had repeated conflicting advice from technicians. Calling for help is a struggle in itself, as you have to deal with an automated help computer. I’ve been dumb enough to stick with the computer only to find (repeatedly) that the steps it suggests are steps I’ve already done. Talking to a real person is seldom more helpful, however. Last time our internet stopped working (same problem we’re having now), I was told it was because my modem was broken. So I drove all the way to the East Side to the Charter office. Now that the same problem is happening, less than 6 months later, I can’t help but think I spent an hour in the car for nothing.

Charter is apparently sending out a technician to our apartment today between 3 and 5. Maybe the person is already there. In the meantime, I’m contemplating canceling everything. I can never get a reasonable rate from Charter for longer than 6 months before they jack up the price. For the last 3 years, I’ve paid the same amount on my cell phone bill. Yet, I haven’t paid the same Charter bill for longer than 3 months before they start increasing this fee or that tax, and then finally raising the rates through the roof. The most recent increase was 66%. UNBELIEVABLE.

So, go burn in hell, Charter Communications. You are one of the worst companies on earth. I loathe you. You make me sick. You are the great Satan.

Some news you may have missed last week: a Texas state legislator, Republican Betty Brown, commented that she thought people with Asian (or otherwise foreign) names should change them to sound more American. Her reasoning was that the names were unfamiliar and thus inherently bad (and caused more difficulty for government workers, at polls and other places). Needless to say, she took a lot of heat for this comment, deservedly so. You can read more about this here.

What Ms. Brown may not have realized is that her comments fit right in with what the government of China is attempting to do (read more in this New York Times article). To make names more easy to be read by computer, and to aid government bureaucracy, the Chinese government is attempting to standardize the names of their 1.3 billion citizens. People with unique or uncommon names are being asked to change them to something more familiar.

No doubt Ms. Brown was unfamiliar with this, as she seems like the last person who would want to align herself with the likes of a communist dictatorship. And what both Ms. Brown and China seem to miss is that changing a name to aid the government seems to be the WORST possible reason to do so. Perhaps you have an uncommon name that is continually being butchered. Or perhaps you have the same name as someone on a terrorist watch list. Or perhaps your parents named you Wrigley Field and you hate baseball. All these would be much better reasons to change your name.

At least in China, the government can force people to change their names. For Ms. Brown, the only thing her comment can accomplish is exposing her as an unthinking, intolerant, conservative, no-nothing. Perhaps because her own name is so utterly boring, she doesn’t understand the power of a name. Even though my own name is exceptionally common, it still means a lot to me. Maybe if Ms. Brown saw those with Asian names as humans, she wouldn’t be such an idiot. It’s a stretch, but unless she wants to align herself with China, she’d straighten out quick.

Released last week were CIA and other governmental memos that authorized torture during the Bush Administration. They aren’t happy reads, and they don’t give me a lot of faith in our government. Imagining that torture would be the best way to extract information from high-profile terror suspects seems to fly in the face of years of wisdom from investigators, the Geneva Convention, and our own nation’s morals and values. We now know important details of the extent of the torture (read them here), which is vital to moving forward from this horrendous act.

In this process of progress, however, President Obama has stated that he does not support prosecution of these CIA agents who performed acts of torture against prisoners. This has irked critics of torture and of governmental policies under Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush. Obama has, in essence, given tacit approval for atrocities carried out in the past, even as he has declared that the United States does not use torture. That’s like saying 9/11 was legal because terrorists aren’t likely to use planes as weapons again.

Is this decision truly in the best interest of the nation? As horrendous as torture is, I think there’s room for nuance in analysis of the president’s decision. When operating under legal justification (as ridiculously flawed as that justification was), how much leeway should we grant those who performed the acts? If the War in Iraq is determined to be illegal, then would we prosecute soldiers who maimed and killed in the government’s name? For critics of Obama’s decision, the answer should be the same: YES. But for anyone capable of pragmatism, this action would seem ridiculous.

The CIA did absolutely engage in torture. Obama has never denied this. Indeed, with the release of the memos, largely free from redaction, Obama has openly admitted to the world that the US broke international law. In choosing not to prosecute, he has also stated that he believes the CIA is better able to protect the world from terrorism when it is not blamed for past decisions authorized by our past president. Essentially, Obama is both supporting the CIA and damning the Bush administration.

While the decision is unlikely to win Obama much favor with overly-idealistic organizations, nor win him supporters among conservatives, it does serve as a wise recognition about the power of authority. Did these CIA officers know what they were doing was wrong? On a gut level, they must have. But when ordered to do something by the president himself, and under the pretense of imminent attacks on the USA, it seems hard to believe that the behavior of the CIA agents was well thought-out and considerate. It was a crime of passion (in the moment) ordered by the most powerful man on earth. High crimes have seldom been committed with greater justification.

President Obama is visiting the CIA today, in order to set the tone for agents: the United States does not torture. Hopefully, the CIA will find itself empowered to uphold the highest standard and ignore misguided and misguiding legal memos on controversial subjects. Still, sans a chain of command, torture would be MORE common rather than less. If President Obama can do good with the same power that President Bush did evil, then the United States has seldom looked so strong, even if we have CIA criminals roaming free.

President Obama revealed plans this week for enhancing rail travel around the United States. Included on his list is the area around Chicago. If built, high-speed rail would connect Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and the Twin Cities. As someone who likes traveling by rail, is envious of the rail system in Europe, and enjoys visiting Chicago and the Twin Cities, I’m excited for the potential of this plan. Here are 3 things that the high-speed rail must accomplish for me to ride.

1. Prices must be reasonable.
If traveling from Madison to Chicago by rail costs less than I would spend to travel their by car, I’ll be over the moon. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is likely to happen. Whereas $20 roundtrip per person would be quite affordable, I think the price is more likely to be double or triple that amount. That means that it is cheaper for me to drive, especially as driving is so convenient. Even with expensive gas and pricey parking, travel to Chicago isn’t likely to cost more than $60-80 a trip. If the price is equivalent via high-speed rail for 2 people, I’d be much more likely to drive. Keeping prices reasonable should be priority number one for a rail system to work.

2. Routes must be connected.
I’m sure high-speed rail won’t zoom down Michigan Ave. Still, I expect to be able to get off the train from Madison and immediately hop on the L to get downtown. If I have to wait 45 minutes to find a ride into the city, or worse, take a cab or bus, then high-speed rail won’t be convenient. Similarly, it has to have good connection points here in Madison. Convenience and energy saving will be nil if I have to drive my car for 35 minutes to get to the airport because that’s where the train stops. Also, if I can take a high-speed train down to Chicago, then I would also like to be able to take a passenger train (high speed or not) onward east. I would like to be able to get to Washington D.C. or New York via rail. If we are investing in the system, we should go all the way. Let’s bring rail travel back in a meaningful way.

3. The trains must be convenient and comfortable.
This seems like the easiest of all requirements to fulfill; still, it’s very important. The high-speed trains must leave at convenient times and regularly. If there is only one train that leaves Chicago after 6 PM, then it would be hard to justify taking the train; the risk of getting stuck overnight would be too great. Similarly, once on the train, it has to be possible to read, use a computer, or socialize. If the train is too noisy, bouncy, uncomfortable, or just poorly constructed, then the time spent on the train will be as unproductive as driving.

The United States is a big country, and we are used to being spread out. Car ownership is ubiquitous and our highway and road system is second-to-none. Still, I think there is a place for train travel, especially as airlines become increasingly unreliable. An 8 hour drive is almost faster than taking a plane, when you factor in getting to the airport, parking, security, the flight, getting luggage, renting a car, et cetera. Thus, if train travel can become a reliable, comfortable, and affordable option, then people will ride the rails again. We’ve got a long time to wait before this becomes a reality, but I’m excited to see the plan take shape.

One thing is clear from Wednesday’s Tea-Bagging protests against government/Obama/socialism/grass roots movements/taxes/reason/logic: once again, conservative institutions are aiming to use taxes as a wedge issue. This mattered less in the Bush years, where social issues were used to “stir up the base;” but now with a Democratic president, it’s time to bring out the bag of old tricks. Yet these protests seem to miss some very fundamental points about taxes.

If it’s taxes that are bringing us down, then what is the relationship between taxes and standard of living? This requires a tea-bagger to agree that standard of living is a good measure of quality of life; they might prefer number of guns owned or number of people of color discriminated against. But I will press on with my argument nevertheless. If high taxes mean declines in standard of living (as the government is taking our money), then we should expect societies with higher tax rates to have lower standards of living. In fact, the opposite is true. Standards in Europe have been rising steadily and many European countries now enjoy a higher standard of living than the US. Their taxes are also significantly higher.

At the least, taxes have a more complicated relationship with standard of living than the simple negative correlation proposed by the tea-baggers. Some of their other arguments still warrant further attention, however. They also argue that taxes are the main barrier to freedom; that is, because the government takes our money, we are less free to live as we like. This argument is true in some ways: if the government took ALL our money, then we would be unable to live as we like. But if the government took none of our money, the same would be true. There must be a happy medium for maximal prosperity. Some taxes are necessary for the government to provide the services we need. Too many or too few taxes can have a detrimental impact on our prosperity.

Perhaps their arguments are more about taxes at this particular time in history: mainly, that borrowing so much now to stimulate the economy will lead to crippling taxes in the future. At last, a reasonable argument! Unfortunately, the tea-baggers fail in offering reasonable solutions for the present. Their solution for economic stimulation involves tax cuts now, accompanied by cuts in government spending.

First, President Obama made tax cuts part of his economic stimulus package. That means that most Americans receive more money in their paychecks than they did under President Bush. This is the kind of increase that economists believe will help stimulate the economy in a more fundamental way than one-time stimulus checks. Second, cuts in government spending mean that the government’s power to stimulate the economy is neutered. Remember – the economy is slowing because businesses perceive less earning potentials in the short term. Basically, they cut jobs because they don’t think they can make money. Unless the government steps in and demonstrates a need for commerce, manufacturing, and subsequent hiring, the economy will stay stagnant for much longer. If given a straight-forward choice between 25% unemployment for the next decade or greater national debt for the next decade, which do you think tea-baggers would choose?

Finally, tax cuts across the board do not mean greater spending power. Let’s take this back to basic economics. If the government were to give all Americans 10% more money, then it stands to reason that all prices would rise 10% (the symmetry would not be so exact, but suffice it to say, inflation would increase). If you have 10% more money that is now worth 10% less in buying power, what have you gained? If you now have a $1.10 for every dollar, but dollar items now cost $.10 more, then you have gained nothing.

Let’s face it – tea-baggers and rational thinkers alike: no one is happy about the economic crisis. No one is excited about rising unemployment, increased national debt, and holds on credit availability. But some of us see this as a time of national renewal; I am excited about the possibilities of road upgrades, high-speed rail lines, increased healthcare availability, and a restored sense of proactive government. Tea-baggers see this time as a reason to cling to guns and religion, to protest government as an institution, and to revert to failed economic logic that has never, NEVER proved its worth beyond the pages of economics textbooks.

Protests are good, but tea-baggers must first find a platform and real solutions before taking to the streets. The most effective protests are those that have a clear list of reasonable alternatives, not those born of Fox News shill marketing and astroturf roots.

I just read an article on CNET discussing valuation of Facebook. It wasn’t long ago that Microsoft bought a stake in Facebook. Their investment and percent ownership put Facebook’s value at $15 billion. Recent calculations put the site’s worth from $2-4 billion. That’s a lot, to be sure, but unless Facebook can radically change things, here’s why Facebook isn’t worth very much.

1. 200 million members doesn’t translate into cash.
More members on Facebook means Facebook’s public profile increases. It also means that their costs increase (providing that much data to that many people is, no doubt, very expensive) and that they can charge more for advertisements. But the number of members can be misleading. It doesn’t mean that 200 million people will take part in Facebook’s supposedly advanced ad targeting. Many users won’t agree to share data that advertisers want to use to increase revenue. Most users are not interested in sharing their purchasing history with their Facebook friends, especially as that friend-net expands to include parents, children, bosses, employees, and co-workers. Look at the ads that Facebook serves up; they can’t possible generate much revenue for their advertisers. Ads that target me lately include lots of bands that have similar music to artists I list on my profile. These are hardly uniquely targeted ads that Facebook needs to deliver if they want to prove themselves a different advertising space than other websites.

2. Facebook has no guaranteed money-making model.
Social networking sites are relatively new. And no site that has been around longer than Facebook has found a way to stay financially successful. Indeed, it seems that most sites that have been popular are usually doomed to grow out of favor in just a few short years. Remember Geocities? Remember Friendster? Remember Yahoo Chat? Even MySpace is not growing as fast as it once was, or as fast as Facebook is. Facebook will face these same challenges in the coming years and needs to find a guaranteed way to continue making the money it needs to survive.

3. Facebook lacks visionary leadership.
Mark Zuckerberg is a smart kid who made a great website. Since then, he’s been a bumbler. Facebook’s attempts to make money have been marred by poor calculations. Each and every change that Zuckerberg and company has rolled out for the past 5 years has been met with strong resistance from users. And each change has either failed to pan out (and produce revenue for the company) or has been scaled back for fear of angering users. Examples off the top of my head:
A. News Feeds. I removed all my data from Facebook when they rolled this out. While I put it back a few months later, I still hate their stupid feeds that supposedly tell me what my friends are doing. So while most users on the site have probably forgotten about this change, the worst part for Facebook is that it hasn’t helped them produce any revenue. Maybe it translates into more visitors, but it hasn’t produced any successful ad campaigns.
B. Beacon. This was Facebook’s attempt to link with other websites, so users could have their purchases put on their News Feeds. It caused mass uproar and the program never got off the ground.
C. Changes to their EULA. Facebook tried to change their End User License Agreement so that they would own all users’ data. Once again, users rebelled and Facebook dropped the changes.

I think Facebook has some value, but if I were a company looking for a purchase to make, I would be wary of Facebook. Unless they can find a consistently strong revenue source, and prove their staying power in the market, they seem like a very risky bet (though a good potential short-term investment). As for Facebook, I’m sure they don’t want to sell. They take themselves pretty seriously, as instant fame can do to a young man like Zuckerberg. He needs to remember fame is fickle and, more importantly, seldom brings in consistent return.

Alas, poor Fox News. Their pseudo-event for massive “tea parties” around the country (like the Boston Tea Party that helped spark the American Revolution) looked more like little girls with their stuffed animals than the rebellion for which they hoped. Oh the shame they must feel… if they had shame.

This time, the revolution was designed to be televised and made to generate ratings for Fox. But protests over taxes just don’t ring true anymore. Not when Obama made good on a campaign promise to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans. My paycheck was larger in April. Was yours? If yes, you can thank President Obama.

We’ve seen these protests over taxes before. It’s been a campaign issue for the Republicans for decades now. Only trouble – taxes for the rich are lower today than they were during the Reagan administration. Yes, the rich pay less of their fair share right now than they did during the height of anti-tax, anti-government fervor.

Furthermore, these tax protests, manufactured and run by Fox, also seem to target the acquisition of debt in order to stimulate the economy. No doubt, for those saps and shills who are protesting, there is also an undercurrent of anti-semitism (on the rise) against some sort of worldwide conspiracy of bankers. In this manner, protesters are clearly oblivious to the fact that government loans are nearly always paid back on time or early, with interest, and earn the government money. After all, the Federal Reserve is the only Federal agency specifically instructed to make a profit.

In the end, it’s hard to protest about taxes when yours have just dropped. And it’s hard to protest against bailouts if it seems the government will make money on their loans. And it’s hard to feel upset at Democrats if you’ve just lost your job. And it’s hard to be rational and watch Fox News. Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to buy into manufactured events run by corporate entities and sold as “grass roots,” especially if you are an ignorant, non-thinking boob.

As a side note, plans to dump tea bags in Lafayette Square were foiled when protesters found they did not have the right permits. Did that stop the original tea-partiers? What a bunch of clowns these Fox News lackeys are.

Glenn Beck has professed his love for Thomas Paine, a participant in the American Revolution and inspirational figure in the French Revolution as well. Specifically, his pamphlet Common Sense, which Beck seems to admire. But this love of Thomas Paine seems to contradict Beck’s own beliefs.

You can read Beck’s 9 principles and Tony’s analysis of them here. It’s not worth showing contradictions to Paine’s beliefs for each principle, as my knowledge of Paine is limited. But here are a few key points.

Unlike Glenn Beck, Thomas Paine was not a Christian. In fact, he wrote a book called The Age of Reason (published first in 1794) where he argued in favor of deism and the rejection of Christian principles. So we know that Paine believed in a god (that could be reasoned from observation of the natural world), but it wasn’t a Christian god and it sure as hell wasn’t Glenn Beck’s god. Thomas Paine was a founder of this country, yet he was far from Christian. Is this still a Christian nation, Glenn Beck? Even with the percentage of people identifying as Christian continues to decline (though remains frighteningly high)?

Glenn Beck also has a rather contradictory view on rebellion for the formation of the United States and rebellion to form an Islamic world. While Beck labels Muslims as terrorists, he advocates armed rebellion to stop bank bailouts and other actions that he claims are hijacking the USA. Thomas Paine advocated for exactly what Beck and terrorists advocate for – overthrowing governments to bring about a new world order. But Beck would never want to align himself with terrorists, would he?

Certainly, Beck could argue that the difference lies in the use of reason – that is, terrorists are driven by Islamic ideology, not reason, and that the American Revolution was the exact opposite. Yet Beck himself refuses to fight with logic, thus negating his argument that revolution is necessary. In the country, we have a clear established path for a change of power. It’s called an election and Glenn Beck’s side lost. Overthrowing a monarchy is much different than overthrowing a democratically elected government. Armed rebellion against our current government is tantamount to rebellion against Paine himself, as the system Paine helped found is run by the same document today.

Thomas Paine was a radical, not a reactionary. While Glenn Beck seeks to restore “traditional” American values, Thomas Paine advocated for a socialist government before the word entered our vocabulary. In his Rights of Man, Part the Second, Combining Principle and Practice, published in 1792, he advocated for social programs to reduce poverty (i.e. welfare) through progressive tax measures. Yes, Thomas Paine, great American revolutionary, supported spreading the wealth. This goes against most everything that Glenn Beck supports.

Glenn Beck has called himself a rodeo clown, and that seems like an accurate characterization. But beneath that makeup and manic veneer, he’s a dangerous beast. He advocates the same positions as Timothy McVeigh and attempts to incite rebellion and violence. While I support Beck’s right to continue his rants, he doesn’t seem to recognize what he’s doing. Undermining his own credibility as a way to deny oversteps in his program (what happens when he calls for Obama’s assassination in a more direct way?), he appears the harmless entertainer. In reality, he’s tinder praying for a spark.