#328 Public or For-Profit Educational Institution. Which More Cost Effective for Specialized Training?

17 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Tech Tsunami

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution. Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.” One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog. Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.”

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. Here’s another aspect of public education that needs more discussion.

Entry # 327 outlined arguments why society would be better off banning for-profit universities, or FPU’s, from charging students for class material that should have been taught as part of their secondary, and in some cases, primary education. Why should students who learn at a different rate, or learn in ways outside the standard teaching method, be penalized and required to “pay twice” for the same classroom material?

But what about course material not taught in public schools? Or course material taught in technical schools? Why burden the taxpayers with such cost? Why not use for-profit universities for such training?

If someone wants to become a licensed cosmetologist, why should the public have to subsidize such training? Same with say someone who wants to become a licensed auto mechanic. Why should the public support such training?

Such an argument is a valid one. At the same time, society needs to consider the role of public education beyond high school. If North Carolina’s Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) is representative, there are numerous classes and training programs aimed at some very narrow occupational fields. In some cases at CPCC, classes are designed specifically for types of companies. Based on a cursory review of CPCC website, students have an opportunity to prepare for licenses, earn certificates, or an Associate degrees in a wide range of occupations. Yet all these classes, including those for the companies, are subsidized by the public.

Some key benefits to having such specialized classes taught using the public education system include:

Control over quality of the course material. There is more oversight over relevancy and quality of course material at accredited universities than at for-profit universities.
Ability to integrate other learning material into the course. For example, courses could include basic class material as well as additional information about how to integrate emerging advanced technology such as artificial intelligence. Having this opportunity to broaden the student’s perspective, would help the student understand how to use emerging technologies.
Using a community college for specialized training is less costly to the student and to the public. Because the infrastructure and administrative overhead are already in place, the incremental cost to add specialized classes is less at a public university than the cost at a standalone for-profit education institution. As a result of using public-education facilities, the student can be trained and begin working with fewer outstanding loans and ideally no loans. The reduced financial burden increases the likelihood the student will quickly migrate to becoming a full-time worker and taxpayer.

Some will ask, “Is subsidizing the cost of specialized training yet another aspect of more socialism? Another harebrained giveaway by liberal Democrats?”

Clearly, or maybe not so clearly, there is a point beyond which the public should not pay for specialized education. Such training should be the responsibility of the individual or the company where the individual is employed.

The beginning of the “no-more-subsidized-training” line will vary by geographic area. Community colleges in urban areas will have a different course mix than community colleges in rural areas. I think most everyone can agree that local communities should make that choice of what courses should be subsidized rather than letting the federal or even state government do so.

“Isn’t subsidizing specialized education a slippery slope? I mean, should the public be subsidizing someone who wants to learn basket weaving or how to make greeting cards? C’mon. What about those situations? We know someone will push for such classes and then claim discrimination if the classes aren’t offered. Why create all the hassle. Let them all go to the for-profit teaching institutions.”

The “slippery slope” argument is often cited…and probably occasionally valid. But always justifying not doing something because of a slippery slope would negate most societal norms and laws we have today. Laws and behavioral norms are based on actions of a “reasonable man” (or woman). In many cases there is no clear line between reasonable and unreasonable. Focusing on how the extremes, or outliers, might be affected is a path to stagnation and not a path to progress and Improvement. For those classes or technical programs that fall outside the norm and could be considered unusual or extreme, then maybe a for-profit university or a collection of private tutors is a better choice for such training.

The default, seems to me, whether for general education content or for specialized content, should be through a public institution. If the public education path cannot work, then consider a for-profit institution. Public institutions afford greater opportunity to control content quality and greater opportunity to control cost for the student…and public.

#327 Do For-Profit Universities Help Prepare for Coming Technology Tsunami – Yes, No?

10 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Do for-profit universities help prepare students for the coming technology tsunami? My view? No. First, let’s define for-profit universities, or FPU`s. These are institutions with a primary purpose of making a profit for investors. In an FPU, education happens to be the product. The product to generate a profit could just as easily be processing waste – e.g., Waste Management Incorporated – or selling coffee – e.g., Starbucks.

While doubtlessly some FPU’s are well-intentioned and focus on educating students, let’s not forget the primary purpose of any for-profit company. Duh, sell a product/service, make a profit and return money to investors.

But you ask, “What about private colleges and universities? Aren’t they in business to make a profit? I mean, Harvard has a huge endowment — maybe $10 billion or something?”

Harvard’s endowment is more like $35-40 billion.

“Alright, lots more endowment than I thought. I’m confused. What’s really the difference between Harvard or MIT and say Trump University? Maybe Trump University is a bad example, but what about say University of Phoenix? It’s for profit and from what I can tell, University of Phoenix does more public good for lower-income people than either Harvard or MIT. University of Phoenix educates a lot of people who otherwise could not attend college. Your argument against for-profit universities sounds elitist.”

Agreed that University of Phoenix seems a lot more affordable than many private education institutions. But such an argument creates a false equivalency. Realistically, 99.9% of the students attending University of Phoenix could not qualify academically to attend the top-end academic institutions in the US. Not being qualified academically does not mean these students are dumb; they lack demonstrated skills in key areas.

Maybe the better question about public good is, “When all the costs are taken into account, is there a less costly and more effective alternative to teach basic skills than such places as University of Phoenix?” Let’s also be honest about education and skills. Not everyone has the same skills or can even acquire the same skills. My crayon jungle drawing from grammar school might have won 2^nd place prize at the county fair, but no amount of training is going to make me a successful professional artist.

From a public good perspective, how can we… the proverbial societal “we”…make sure all students have an opportunity to learn basic skills that will enable them to secure and retain a reasonably well-paying job? While everyone in the US is supposed to have access to free public education through high school, a remarkable percentage of students do not complete high school.

As of 2016, the high school drop-out rate was 25% or more in some states. (When reviewing the data by state, reported graduation rates in some states seems highly inflated…or the standards to graduate in those states are exceedingly low.) Lots of reasons for not finishing, including recognizing that not all students learn at the same rate or the same way. In addition, some families have such limited income that children must work to help support the family as soon as possible, even if it means dropping out of high school.

While the reasons may vary for dropping out, should society ask these students to pay to finish their education, especially through for-profit institutions? Asking them to pay a very high price just to finish their high-school education is a disincentive to complete the degree. Plus the cost of attending remedial classes at a for-profit institution creates an excessive financial burden on someone who’s likely to be earning low wages and have little or no savings.

Wouldn’t society be better off to pay for their education? Paying to complete high school would provide those who didn’t finish a better opportunity to secure higher-paying jobs and, with those jobs, pay more taxes for their entire life. Providing an opportunity to complete high school and maybe two years additional education at no cost could likely help reduce crime and the cost of incarceration.

As noted in Entry #326, the estimated cost of incarceration per prisoner per year ranges from roughly $30,000 to $60,000. Based on the analysis described in Entry #326, paying for prisoners to secure a technical degree or college degree while incarcerated resulted in a return on investment to taxpayers of 400-700%, and possibly higher.

“OK, I’ll buy your logic but what’s wrong with using for-profit universities to offer such some education? Besides, the private sector is always more cost-effective than government.”

Why use public education rather than private for-profit institutions?

No additional facilities required to host classes. The remedial, technical and early college classes could be held in the evening and/or weekends using existing high school, junior college or some government buildings. Virtually all of these buildings are used more during the day and have surplus capacity in the evening and on weekends.
Alternative teaching methods in place. Virtually all public school systems have implemented alternative teaching methods, which could be adopted for older students who learn differently.
Public education does not add additional financial burden on the student. University of Phoenix, for example, charges about $1,200 per course. For student needing say ten classes to complete high school (equivalent about one year), the cost using the University of Phoenix rate would be at least $12,000. What may be even more of a problem for these students is the course material for what is usually a semester course – say 3-4 months – is crammed into five (5) weeks. Cramming material into five weeks leaves virtually no time for course material to “sink in.” Think of drinking out of a fire house. If a student does not fully grasp the idea when presented, the student is immediately behind. For institution like Phoenix, this approach can lead to the same person attending yet again…and another tuition payment.
Class content can be tailored to help prepare students to continue their education in community college programs, whether technical training or prep for college.

The question posed in the title of this Entry, “Do for-profit universities help prepare for the coming technology tsunami?” I continue to say, “No, these institutions do not.” As frustrated as we sometimes are with the public education system, the system is designed for the public good…and not to generate a profit and provide (some believe maximize) a return to investors.

The US needs to prepare for the oncoming technology tsunami. One key component of preparation is to increase the number of qualified workers. Much like educating prisoners, providing classes/remedial training to those who have not completed high school is in the public interest by increasing at very low-cost, the pool of skilled workers. A larger pool of skilled workers is essential for the US to maintain production of goods and services and remain competitive worldwide.

What about for-profit institutions designed to train people to become technicians, designers, hairdressers and a host of other occupations? Don’t these for profits offer a benefit to the public? Possibly but maybe a more cost-effective approach is to the scope of public education to include such training. (The question is a bit off-line from the more serious issue of preparing for the technology tsunami. I might offer a few thoughts in one of the next couple of entries.)

#325 Charter Schools Destroy the Fabric that Made America Great. Ban Charter Schools. (2of2)

24 Sunday Feb 2019

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author. Many entries are formatted as conversations. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution. Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.” One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog. Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.”

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. The first entry about schools described some reasons why I believe charter schools should be banned.

Two key points were: (i) charter schools erode trust in public education, which has been the cornerstone to America’s innovation and economic prosperity. If you want to make America great again, then why destroy the foundation that helped make it great; (ii) additional cost to taxpayers for charter schools. Much of the cost is due to a parallel system of overhead required to support the charter-school system. As noted in the entry, costs for education are not directly linked to the number of students. Major costs continue even if enrollment declines.

A third item referenced, but not addressed in detail, was the effectiveness of charter schools in having students achieve certain performance standards. Based on a number of studies, the efficacy of charter schools is mixed. Students at some charter schools perform better than when in public schools, some about the same and a surprisingly high percentage of students do not perform as well. (There are numerous studies comparing student performance. Results vary widely by locations.)

With such mixed results, why should there be charter schools? Why should taxpayers allow funds to be diverted from public schools to privately run schools where student performance is more often than not no better than public schools? And why divert taxpayer funds to charter schools where oversight of the organization and how taxpayer dollars are spent is less than for funds spent in public schools? Would you let someone manage your 401k whose investment performance was iffy at best and over whom you had little control over investment decisions? If you answered yes…i.e., support lack of accountability of charter schools…then I’ve got a bridge looking for a buyer.

So the question, “Why not take all the time and energy devoted to diverting funds to charter schools and instead, work on improving public schools? We know one reason for charter schools is the obvious effort by the political far right to privatize as many government functions as possible. More importantly, in my view, charter schools are the lazy-man’s solution to educating the populace. Educating people with different skills and different levels of motivation is a difficult task. Charter schools supporters are saying, in effect, “Send students to our schools who meet a certain criteria because we, as charter schools, are for profit, and don’t want anyone to negatively impact our profit.”

Charter schools, however, legitimately appeal to certain parents and/or students. Some reasons cited by parents and/or students for wanting to attend charter schools:

Affordable option to private schools
Option to enroll outside one’s district
Children of all backgrounds eligible
Teaching approach innovative
Find school to cater to child’s needs
Schools managed by organizations or groups of people

Satisfying these and other reasons can be accomplished in the public school system. OK, let’s agree that certain basics need to be in place for all schools – building in good repair, up-to-date textbooks, easy access to the internet; adequate number of teachers and support staff. Within a community all the essentials should be in place for all schools. If not, then the deficiencies need to be addressed…and addressed before any charter schools are discussed or provided additional payments.

Then what are the underlying reasons for the variation in performance scores among the schools? I believe the first reason is lack of commitment within the community for adequate public education for all students. I understand you cannot mandate commitment, much like you can’t lead a horse to water and make it drink. However, as a society we have to provide emotional and financial support for the education of students of the entire community.

Charter schools address some symptoms of what needs to be fixed in the community and the public school system. While charter schools address the symptoms, charter schools are also destroying the very fabric of public education. Charter schools are making the ability of a community to offer effective public education worse, not better. Charter schools are like turning up the sound on your car radio to drown out a bad noise coming from the engine. Duh, turning up the radio does not solve the problem. You’ve got to fix the problem in the engine.

By allowing students to opt out of the public-school system, we…societal we…are actually making the problem worse for students who remain in the public-school system. Many remaining students are likely to have less support at home. As more students leave the public-school system, the performance of remaining students will continue to deteriorate. As a result, then what have charter schools done to help improve the overall education level of society? The answer is nothing.

Here’s a non-school example to illustrate the point. Think of a container of mixed nuts – walnuts, almonds, cashews, etc. If you grab a handful of nuts, usually you end up with most, if not all, the different type of nuts. When you take a bit you get an interesting mix of flavors. Then, someone goes through the container and eats all of a certain type of nut – say cashews. What’s left is a different mix. The next time you grab a handful, all the cashews are missing and the flavor has changed.

Think of your own example – there are many. The point is the character of the container of nuts is different without the cashews, just as the character of the school is different when a certain type of student transfers to a charter school.

The change in the mix of students is not merely a “so what?” We…again societal we…are creating two classes of students and therefore two classes of citizens – those who seem to learn within a structured system and those who are not inspired or motivated by a more structured education system.

Why should we hold back students who want to learn more? That idea seems incredibly stupid. Therefore we need charter schools!!

The idea of throttling back students who want to learn is incredibly stupid. But there is nothing about the public-school system that prevents students from learning more. Public schools can accommodate those students who want to learn more as well as provide a positive and encouraging environment for those student who are not as inspired.

Assuming that all students learn the same way and at the same pace is foolhardy. That kind of thinking is about as foolhardy as assuming all who play golf are capable of shooting par over 18 holes. What is not foolhardy is ensuring that students are reminded constantly of the opportunity to learn…and encouraged constantly to try to learn.

When the discussion turns to how students learn at different rates, I am reminded of my freshman year in college. My first test of any kind was in accounting. After handing in the exam, I was confident of a very good score. The grade? A solid “D”. Oops. Maybe I wasn’t so smart after all.

Sometime between the first and second test, I had an “ah ha” moment and began to understand the principles of accounting. On the next test and on the final, grades were solid “A’s”.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have their “ah ha” moment so early in the semester…or even so early in life. Because some “ah ha” moments are later, we need to provide an education environment where everyone is exposed to an opportunity to learn and encouraged to learn.

Charter schools, and magnet schools to an extent, take away from the public schools a substantial portion of the inspiration to learn and the encouragement to learn – not from the students attending the charter schools but from the students not attending. Put someone else’s shoes on your feet. After higher-performing students leave for charter schools, who’s left in your public school to inspire you to learn?

Teachers are facilitators and ideally mentors. What if you’re a student who is more comfortable seeking help from peers before seeking help from teachers? Now, with many student-helpers gone, where do you turn? Or, do you just get discouraged and eventually give up?

The reasons parents and students give for wanting to attend charter schools make perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is why society needs to “destroy” the public school system in order to achieve what the students and parents want. The public school system helped make America the innovation and manufacturing marvel of the world for the last 150 years.

If a portion of society wants to spend more taxpayer dollars and have charter schools, why not leverage the dollars and educate even more students? Inspiration for education is not driven by new buildings, good sports teams and the like. Inspiration for education is driven by desire.

Charter schools create a death spiral for public education, which in turn, leads to increased inequities in society and makes it more difficult for people to move up the economic ladder. And, ignore the rubbish that more public education is some kind of socialism. If you want the democracy to survive, you best have an educated public with a wide-spread belief of reasonable economic opportunity.

The community needs to work together to help create a desire for all students to learn, to explore, to try something new…and even to fail. Yes, failing can be a great lesson as long as failing is framed as a learning experience. Not all students learn at the same pace or learn the same way. But all students can learn. We…societal we…have an obligation to encourage students of all ages to learn more and provide those students a fair venue in which to learn.

(Next entry: why not more education in prisons?)

#320 Personal Experience Developing AI and Implications for Skills and Employment

08 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution. Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.” One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog. Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments” as well as “Tech Tsunami”, which has more articles about how technology might affect US…and add a dimension to the Revenge Revolution.

Background to Technology Tsunami series focuses on how implementation of technology may change the family earnings structure in the US.

In “Technology Tsunami” (Entry #319) I noted that with the increased use of artificial intelligence, many current workers will need to increase skills in order to remain employed. But just what is artificial intelligence? And how can it be used? To make AI more concrete and less abstract, thought it might be interesting to allocate the next couple of entries to describing some personal experience developing AI and what happened as a result.today

First, let’s go back to define just what constitutes artificial intelligence, or AI? (Readers, please keep in mind this is not an article for an academic journal. The article is aimed at trying to help the general populace understand more about what AI is and how it might affect the workforce.)

The term “artificial intelligence,” which was first used in the 1950’s, seems to be applied to an ever-increasing range of computer-based applications. Much of AI we hear about today has been developed by applying to very large data bases sophisticated multiple regressions (regressions look for an association between one action/word and another). The algorithms that result become the foundation for software to support an AI application. What has expanded the use of AI is the availability of very large databases and much more computing power. However, as demonstrated by this example, a useful and effective AI program can be developed without an overly large database and/or staff.

A question associated with AI, “When AI is implemented, will people be replaced?” Yes, but people have always been replaced with the introduction of new technology. Farm hands were replaced by tractors and mechanical harvesting equipment. The printing press replaced scribes. The telegraph replaced the Pony Express. Trains replaced stage coaches. Cars replaced buggies…and endless other examples.

In the current wave of AI, the jobs that seem most vulnerable in the near-term are ones that involve repetition. Jobs where running a software program or using robot could perform most or all of the task. Such jobs might be assembling parts, loading/unloading shelves, providing certain types of information (clerks, including law clerks could be replaced by a more sophisticated Siri, for example), completing forms or completing some basic analysis (proof reading, financial analysis, etc.), steering vehicles and similar jobs.

The list of vulnerable jobs is quite lengthy and includes a considerable number of white-collar positions. For example, when General Motors announced in fall 2018 the intent to close five plants in the US/Canada, more white-collar workers were affected than assembly workers.

OK, how about a real-world example. In 1980…yes, that was many moons ago…I transferred to headquarters of Buick Division of General Motors. One of the staffs I managed was responsible for forecasting sales – short and long-term. The short-term forecast – 180 days – was used to set production schedules at assembly plants and suppliers.

When I arrived, the accuracy of the forecast was abysmal. Even though Buick had been in business about 75 years, it was not uncommon for forecast sales for the current month to miss actual sales by 30-40%…sometimes 50%. Such a variance made it extremely difficult to manage inventory. The forecast/actual discrepancies also caused frustrations with Buick dealers because arrival dates for cars ordered varied widely from the original schedule, which in turn frustrated customers.

To increase the accuracy of the forecast, we developed an application of AI. The AI-based forecast consisted of three key estimates: (i) industry sales; (ii) mix of sales by category – % small cars, % mid-size cars, % full-size, % SUV’s, etc. – within the industry; (iii) Buick % share within the general categories.

Unlike today, at the time most assembly plants were limited to a few models with little variation in size. Further, changing the production mix at an assembly plant could be time consuming and costly.

Buick’s solution to this dilemma (and common in the industry) was to “force” the dealers to take the mix of cars produced. Further, there was little recognition of differences in consumer preference by region of the country. Dealers in New England, where smaller cars were preferred, would end up with mix of small/large cars very similar to the dealers in say Texas, where larger cars were preferred. “Encouraging” dealers to take the production mix required the field staff to spend considerable time with the dealer and often involved some type of costly incentive – free financing, extra cash per car, etc. Dealers would then have to try to steer customers to these “unwanted” cars.

The solution to fixing the problem was conceptually simple: (i) a more accurate forecast; (ii) allowing dealers to order what cars they wanted. Improving the accuracy of the forecast was the critical first step. Doing so required building a math model that would predict more accurately upcoming changes in demand.

Previous sales forecasts had been based on changes in the rate of actual sales. Basing the forecast on “lagging indicators” – sales the past few months – is akin to trying to drive a car by looking only in the rearview mirror. Doing so reduces one’s speed and increases the chance of making a serious error. The previous method of forecasting was always “catching up” to changes in demand rather than being ahead of the curve.

Developing the AI model was remarkably easy – or so it seems now. We ran regressions of historical sales data for the industry as well as Buick. Fortunately, the auto companies had been reporting monthly sales for many years, so the data base was credible. The results of the regressions yielded useful, seasonal patterns. We also analyzed the shift in mix of sales over time. This helped determine if sales of smaller cars were increasing faster or slower than say mid-size or luxury cars. Another task was estimating how many people were switching from cars to what were then early-version SUV’s.

Finally, we had to determine Buick’s likely share of each category. At the time the overall car market was shifting to smaller cars. While Buick had competitive smaller car entries, it was more successful in larger cars. The effect of the shift in consumer preference was profound. Even though in a given month Buick could gain in market share in every major industry category compared to the previous year, that same month could show Buick’s overall share had declined compared to a year ago. That phenomenon was always fun to try to explain. “Yes, we gained market share in every category…but, no we lost market share overall.”

Within about one year of starting the AI model, the US industry experienced a major economic downturn and vehicle sales took a nosedive. The AI model helped Buick management begin to make more informed decisions about setting production schedules and marketing plans. With the implementation of the AI-model, the accuracy of the forecast improved markedly. Rather than a variance of 30-40% between actual and forecast for a given month, the variance fell to less than 5%. The improvement helped smooth production schedules, reduce short-term layoffs and/or overtime at Buick and suppliers and made lead-times for deliveries to dealers much more accurate.

The increased forecast accuracy allowed Buick to migrate to what is called a “free-expression” forecast and production schedule. Dealers were allowed much more freedom to order the number and model of cars they wanted.

The decision to migrate to “free-expression” forecast/production caused great angst among staff members tied to the old “dealers-will-order-what-we-tell-them” system. In the end, however, most everyone became a convert because the overall production volume and mix were about what the dealers wanted.

Other benefits of the AI forecast model? The field staff was able to spend more time helping dealers with marketing programs, working on customer satisfaction and finding ways to improve profitability. The dealers then started to order more cars from Buick because the turnover rate improved. In the three-year period following implementation of the AI model, Buick increased market share more than any other manufacturer, domestic or foreign. While not all the gain in market share can be attributed to the AI model, the number of new products Buick introduced during the same period was limited, so most of the gain in market share came from “non-product” activities.

What happened to employment? Buick reduced the number of field offices from 26 to 20. Buick also started a call center to increase contact with dealers located outside urban areas. The non-urban dealers still received some personal visits, but less frequently.

Use of AI also changed the skills required of the office staff. To be effective in the new environment, staff members needed more skills in math, statistics, economics and marketing. If today’s computing power were available then, we could have cut the staff in half, possibly more. Even skills of and the number of senior managers would have been affected. At the retirement party of a key sales executive, who’d grown up in the days of gut-feel and seat-of-the-pants forecasts, the retiring executive told me – after several drinks – “I never understood what you were talking about, but I trusted you.” I appreciated the compliment but was a bit taken aback by the admission.

Does this example help us look ahead for what might happen when more AI is implemented? I think so. What did this rather simple application of artificial intelligence help Buick accomplish?

+ Increased sales
+ Increased market share
+ Increased profits
+ Increased customer satisfaction (dealer and buyer)
– Reduced employment
– Higher skills required of employees

If you’re a shareholder and/or your compensation is tied to profits, you will view the results of implementing the AI program as positive. If you’re an employee whose job was eliminated and/or you were unable to learn the additional skills required, you will view the AI program as negative. The inherent conflict between perspectives, unless we quickly start to manage more effectively, will likely be another contributing factor to the Revenge Revolution.

(In the next entry, another real-world example of using AI – an early application of consumer profiling. While the profiling was not as sophisticated as done today by Google, Facebook, Amazon and many others, the effort allowed Buick to spend marketing dollars more effectively. We’ll also address why it is important that the output of AI programs is understood and trusted. )

#313 “I’m So Proud of My Son. He Lies, Cheats, Steals and Discriminates.”

03 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. Most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.

Occasionally I do a “sense check.” Auditing one’s own work is problematic but I try to be objective. Entries #300 and #301 are the most recent standard “sense checks.” The last four entries, including this one, break from the conversation format. Characters will return soon.

What a proud moment for any parent. Being able to proclaim, “I’m so proud of my son. He lies cheats, steals, and discriminates. Exactly what I wanted him to be.”

If you’re a parent, or have a brother or sister, wouldn’t you be proud to be able to make such a proclamation? Well, you can make such a proclamation if you support Donald Trump and his Republican enablers.

Put aside your political party and look at the behavior. Do you want your child or sibling to be known for lying, cheating, stealing and discriminating?

If you said “yes” unequivocally or said “yes” but included a list of caveats in your answer – such as “You need to look at what Trump has accomplished” – then read no farther. You are someone who is willing to let the ends justify the means, no matter how unethical the means and no matter how questionable the ends.

If you’re religious…if not pretend you are for a few minutes…then show me where in your religion is a list of basic tenets indicating acceptable behavior includes lying, cheating, stealing, discriminating. Even if your religion “forgives” such behavior, doesn’t the person being forgiven need to stop such behavior first?

Trump has not stopped lying, cheating, stealing or discriminating. So why do you support him? (If you think Trump doesn’t steal, dig deeper into how Trump and family have repeatedly cheated on income taxes due. His cheating, by the way, means you are paying more in taxes.)

Let’s put religion aside and talk instead about the oath of office taken by the president. The oath, which is part of the US Constitution, reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Notice the oath includes “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So, why do you support someone who thinks he has the power to change the Constitution at will — such as the 14^th Amendment?

We know Trump didn’t attend civics classes and certainly has never read the Constitution. But if you’re a Trump supporters who made it past 6^th grade, then you should know the way to modify the Constitution is not some half-assed Executive Order but ratification by 2/3 (67%) of the House and Senate, then ratification by 3/4 (75%) of the states.

Gee, you say, don’t be so picky. Its election time. Everyone distorts the truth. Quit being such an elitist liberal.

No, I won’t get over it…and neither should you. By latest count, Trump has been lying at least 30 times a day with the rate of lies increasing with each day closer to the mid-term elections. And those 30 lies per day are the ones known to the public. How many more lies does he tell inside the White House? Trump supporters – would you tolerate your child lying 30 times a day?

Fellow Americans, like it or not, the president’s words and actions matter. The president’s words and actions help set the tone of behavior and dialogue for the country. Think of the president having the same type influence on many people as a parent’s behavior influences a child.

If you think behavior does not matter, look at families where one or both parents is abusive and/or lies constantly and/or steals and/or discriminates. How does such a toxic atmosphere affect the behavior of children? Compare the long-term behavior and success of children raised in such a toxic environment to children raised in more stable environment where parental behavior is open, honest and encouraging. Which atmosphere do you want your children or grandchildren to be raised in?

Trumpsters, forget brining up examples of people who end up thriving despite a toxic home environment as a child. Such individuals should be praised for their success…but they are outliers, the exceptions. For every one who has been able to overcome the effects of a toxic environment, there are probably 100 who, unfortunately, have not.

Voting Line Making a choice about what type behavior you want from the president and other political leaders is not difficult. Do you want someone leading the country and/or representing you who lies, cheats, steals, and discriminates? If you would be proud of such behavior by your child or sibling, then Trump and his gang of enablers are for you.

Just keep in mind continuing to support such unethical behavior by Trump is a sure-fire path to having the Revenge Revolution sooner than later…and a sure-fire path to making the Revenge Revolution more intense. Trumpsters, it’s your call.

#309 Can We Talk Economics? Do Tariffs Really Work…or Does the Working Stiff Get Screwed Again? (#2 in Series)

06 Saturday Oct 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Education Issues, Gov't Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. Most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.

Occasionally I break from the normal formatting and do a “sense check.” Auditing one’s own work is problematic but I try to be objective. Entries #300 and #301 are the most recent “sense checks.” Your thoughts are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments, please.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC, start of workday. “Can We Talk about Economics” conversation began Entry #308.

Gelly: “Professor Jordan, now that you’ve had a break, ready to explain more economics?”

Jordan: “Professor, hardly, but yes, let’s continue. Any topic in particular?”

Gelly: “I’d like to know more about tariffs. I think I understand the concept but not sure how effective tariffs really are, especially for worker bees.”

Jordan: “OK, tell me your understanding of tariffs. Why would a country implement a tariff?”

Shaking Hands Gelly: “First, let me make sure I understand the idea of trade between two countries. I get the part where one country might have stuff the other country needs, or makes some product more efficiently than the other country. That all seems logical. What also seems logical is that trade should be fair. Maybe I’m being naïve but shouldn’t trade between countries be like what we were all supposed to learn as kids…you know, treat your neighbor as you want to be treated?”

Jordan: “Gelly, how do you boil complex issues down to such basic ideas? You’re right, trade should be fair to both sides.”

Gelly: “Like most any relationship, sometimes trade probably gets out of whack and one country has an advantage that needs to be adjusted. Is that what tariffs are supposed to do? Provide a balance? Or maybe protect some industry or set of products?”

Jordan: “Yes, that’s the theory. However, for trade to work long-term, the industries being protected should be considered ‘critical’ for some legiimate strategic reason.”

Coffee Bean Guy Gelly: “Critical such as growing and exporting coffee beans might be critical to the economy and welfare of the people of say Costa Rica? Coffee’s probably a big deal to Costa Rica but hardly of any importance to the US…other than maybe Hawaii.”

Jordan: “Right. Because coffee has such a major impact on its economy, Costa Rica could add tariffs to any coffee imported from say Brazil or Columbia in order to protect its economy.”

Gelly: “I get that part. Then what impact would a tariff have on exports from Costa Rica? People in Costa Rica can’t drink all the coffee grown there. If Costa Rica added tariffs to products imported from other countries…and those countries then added tariffs to Costa Rican coffee…wouldn’t that hurt exports? Tariffs seem like a two-edged sword to me.”

Poker Players Jordan: “For countries with only a few products to export and where those products do not have much competition, tariffs might work. But, for most countries, tariffs are a high-risk poker game. While coffee can’t be grown in every country, in can be grown in many countries. Unless your country is a real big dog for that product or commodity, the country adding tariffs runs the risk of losing exports.”

Gelly: “For countries with lots of different kinds of products – Germany, Canada, China, the US – tariffs seem a lot more complicated.”

Jordan: “I said earlier you were becoming an economist. Keep talking.”

Gelly: “Isn’t trade between countries also affected by currency rates?”

Jordan: “Yes, but put currency rates aside for a few minutes. We’ll cover that later.”

Gelly: “OK, so if the US say claimed China was selling steel at too low a price, the US might put a tariff on steel made in China or goods produced with steel made in China. But what really happens after the tariff is implemented?”

Corn Jordan: “Well, for one thing, China can then decide to add tariffs to some goods imported in China from the US – say corn or soybeans, which is exactly what they did after Trump put tariffs on Chinese steel.”

Gelly: “Those tit-for-tat tariffs can go on for a long time. And what do they accomplish?”

Jordan: “Good question. To answer your questions let’s look at what happened after Trump put tariffs on raw steel and aluminum from China…and Canada, of all places.”

Gelly: “Did the price of Chinese steel increase after the tariffs?”

Jordan: “Yes.”

Gelly: “Did American companies start selling more steel?”

Jordan: “Some but the US steel companies did what often happens in the US when tariffs are implemented – the US companies immediately raised prices.”

Gelly: “C’mon, how much could that increase really cost a company? Couldn’t have been that much, could it?”

Jordan: “Soon after the tariffs were announced, Ford said tariffs on steel and aluminum would increase their cost at least $1,000,000,000 per year. And that’s the cost to just one company.”

Gelly: “This might sound dumb but if a company’s costs keep going up, wouldn’t the company raise prices? For Ford, they would have to increase prices of cars and trucks, right?”

Jordan: “You got it.”

Gelly: “Then, unless I’m missing something, the tariffs really end up being a tax on consumers. The government might collect revenue from the tariffs but the consumer – the working stiffs – are the ones who gets screwed.”

Jordan: “Now, remember what happened to the corn and soybean farmer after Trump put tariffs on Chinese steel and then China retaliated?”

Gelly: “The Chinese didn’t stop consuming corn and soybeans…but the Chinese began buying corn and soybeans from other countries. So the tariffs caused US farmers to lose exports to a major market…and the same farmers ended up paying more for their tractor and pick-up truck. So why do tariffs like the ones Trump imposed seem so stupid?”

Confused Clip Art Jordan: “A lot Trump’s tariffs were head scratchers. In fairness, sometimes trade between countries does get out of whack. And tariffs can help resolve the issue. But tariffs are like a Band-Aid, for small wounds and to help only temporarily. There’s a better way to solve issues when trade gets out of whack…and a better way to manage trade.”

Gelly: “You mean like trade agreements? Agreements such as Nafta or whatever Trump tried to rename it?”

Turtleneck Jordan: “Yes, trade agreements. The agreements usually include what you might call a trade court. That court helps revolve issues and avoids tariffs.”

Gelly: “I’m interested in learning more but need to put this conversation on hold, please. I’ve got a conference call in a few minutes and need to get ready. Let’s continue later, OK?”

Jordan: “Deal.”

(Continued)

#297 Making America Great Again #7: Presidential Candidates Must Pass 8th-Grade EOY Exams

10 Sunday Jun 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Note: most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters (see link at top of page). You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

Greenie: “When we were talking about using the rules of golf as a guide to personal and professional behavior, I was reminded how little Trump followed the rules of golf…and then asked myself, ‘Did he really know the rules?’…and, ‘What else didn’t he know?'”

JC: “Know about what? He played a lot of golf so he must have known some rules. You have something else in mind?”

Greenie: “Yes. Did Trump even know what most any 8th grader knows.”

JC: “Don’t make me laugh? Not know what an 8th grader know? Still not sure what you’re talking about.”

Greenie: “Remember when Trump held that so-called ‘Patriotic Ceremony” after the Super-Bowl champs Philadelphia Eagles refused to go to the White House?”

JC: “Oh, you mean the ceremony when the Marine Corps Band played ‘God Bless America’ and it was clear to the world that Trump did not know the words?”

Greenie: “Some patriot, huh? Bone-spur and all.”

JC: “Now I think I see where you’re headed. What about Trump implying…or at least asking…if Canada burned down the White House in 1812? No that was the British. Gee, Donald, in case you didn’t know Canada has been a long-time friendly neighbor. Canada is north of the continental US, except for one area near Detroit, and a major trading partner until you tried to ruin the relationship.”

Greenie: “How long was the list of stuff he didn’t know that virtually every 8th-grader would know?”

JC: “Like the Department of Justice is supposed to enforce the laws made by Congress and not be the personal defense attorney for the president’s wrong doing?”

Turtleneck Jordan: “So, Greenie, exactly what are you proposing?”

Greenie: “I’m embarrassed the idea sounds so…well, so imbecilic. But an idea for Making America Great Again is to make sure the presidential candidates…no, make that all candidates for Federal office and all Cabinet nominees…can pass the end-of-year exams given to 8th graders.”

JC: “Exams given to 8th graders? That sounds absurd…but a good idea. How do we test for stuff like knowing the words to ‘God Bless America’?”

Student Exam Greenie: “I don’t know how we’d test for some things but by forcing candidates for Federal office and Cabinet nominees to take 8th-grade end-of-year exams, you can assume that those who pass at least paid some attention to teachers along the way. And anyone who failed…”

JC: “…Such as the Donald, who very likely would have failed?”

Greenie: “Yes, like the Donald and some of his merry band of munchkins, would be ineligible to run or hold office.”

Jordan: “You really think we should propose something so basic – passing an 8th-grade exam?”

JC: “I’m with Greenie. Before Trump became president, anyone who made such a proposal would have been sent off to the funny farm. But now the idea seems reasonable.”

Jordan: “How do we frame the idea so it does not seem so, as you said Greenie, imbecilic?”

Greenie: “Why not be straightforward? No reason to sugarcoat. I think we give some examples of basic information that Trump and the Cabinet members did not know. There are lots of examples where it looked as if they hadn’t graduated from 8th grade and/or should have been wearing dunce caps. It was embarrassing for the country.”

Jordan: “Now that we’ve had the Revenge Revolution, is putting forth passing the 8th-grade exam idea opening old wounds with the Trumpsters? I know most of the Trumpsters lost and we have many new members of Congress but the idea seems a bit petty.”

Greenie: “I hear you and point well taken. I also know, as a country, we can’t ignore the lessons of history. The idea of passing a test given to 8th graders might get ignored. However, I think we should at least put the idea on the table and generate some discussion.”

JC: “What about testing candidates for Federal office, at least presidential candidates, for mental stability and maybe a test for early stage Alzheimer’s? Throw in Cabinet members as well.”

Jordan: “That idea will be more controversial and more complicated to get implemented. Might be worth discussing more…but let’s take a break first.”

(Continued)

#294: Making America Great Again #4, Ban Charter Schools…and Busing.

19 Saturday May 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

Greenie: “Before the break, I said I thought at first Jordan’s idea of reinstating conscription was stupid. Then I came around and supported it.”

JC: “And…?

Greenie: “Well, here’s an idea that you guys might think falls in the category of stupid. I think we should ban charter schools.”

JC: “What’s your logic? Something wrong with charter schools?”

Jordan: “Supporters claim charter schools are more effective than public schools at educating students. So what’s wrong with their argument?”

Greenie: “My view is charter schools are band-aides, not solutions. Charter schools are an excuse to divert money from public schools to the private sector. Or even worse, charter schools are part of a plan toward eliminating public schools altogether. But charter schools don’t solve any real problems.”

JC: “Not that I disagree with you but why do you think charter schools are a band-aide?”

Greenie: “Because charter schools address symptoms and not causes. Let’s not be naïve, a certain percentage of public schools have real problems. And those problems need to be fixed.”

Jordan: “You’re saying that charter schools don’t fix the problems. Why not? Aren’t students better off moving from public schools to charter schools?”

Greenie: “Some students, probably, but not all. What about the kids who don’t go to charter schools and remain in public schools? Many are worse off than before the other kids left…plus there’s less funding for the public schools because taxpayers must fund the charter schools.”

Bag of Money JC: “We need to get more specific about the issues. Besides we know that merely throwing money at schools does not necessarily make schools better.”

Greenie: “You want specifics? Start with quality of teachers. I know we all grew up in a different era – some probably liken it to the Stone Age by today’s standards. But think about the quality of teachers we had from first grade through high school…and especially high school.”

Diagramed Sentence JC: “I agree that many were top-notch, especially those teaching math and English. To think we were so motivated we used to diagram sentences for fun!”

Jordan: “Why do you think the teachers were so good?”

Greenie: “Party because women had fewer career opportunities than today.”

JC: “True, but we had some great male teachers as well.”

Black School Teacher Jordan: “What about teacher pay?”

Greenie: “Much better proportionately than pay today but still less money than the private sector.”

JC: “What about respect? In an earlier era, teachers seemed to be respected by almost everyone…including politicians.”

Jordan: “Good point. I really get frustrated with some politicians in North Carolina. Republicans have let teacher pay lag behind the rate of inflation. What’s even worse, when teachers marched on Raleigh recently for higher pay and more support for students, a long-term, high-profile Republican called them thugs.”

JC: “Nice, huh? Calling your teachers thugs. What an a-hole.”

Greenie: “See why I said charter schools were a band-aide? Charter schools do nothing to address some of the fundamental problems of public education.”

Why Jordan: “OK, I’ll be the bad guy. Why do we need free public education? What percent of the public thinks education should be privately provided and not publicly provided…forget who pays for it?”

JC: “That kind of question makes my head hurt. Jordan, you know as well as I that what made this country great was not a bunch of open land, not a bunch of resources…not even a great constitution. None of those mattered unless you had one thing…”

Greenie: “…an educated populous. And how did the US populous become educated? Not just an education for the elite but an education for everyone, including immigrants, many of whom arrived here illiterate. They were educated through a free public education.”

Jordan: “So your premise is until the country sets a goal of free, quality public education for everyone…and then begins to make that happen again…we’ll not make real progress toward making America great again. Right?”

Greenie: “You got it. Allowing charter schools avoids forcing society toward restoring free, quality public education for all.”

School Bus No JC: “While we’re throwing out ideas about education, what about banning busing? Busing seems like a waste of time and money.”

Greenie: “Busing is a waste. I agree the goal should be to eliminate almost all busing.”

Jordan: “Ok, what’s the first step in making this plan work?”

Greenie: “Simple. Commitment. If people commit to free, quality, public education for all, then the problem is more than half solved. With such a commitment, all the other issues can start to be addressed rationally.”

JC: “What about support from politicians?”

fife-drum%201 Greenie: “Tell me how a politician is going to campaign against free, quality public education for all? That type campaign, especially in this post-Revenge Revolution environment would be suicide.”

Jordan: “Greenie, I really like your idea. Simple and easy to understand.”

JC: “You got my vote too. And now I’m the one who needs a break.”

(Continued)

#291 Quit Whining, Already. How Do We Turn Around This Ship?

22 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Lessons of Revolution, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

JC: “I agree that Paul Ryan could have set an example of leadership for generations to come. But, what did he do?”

bully-clip-art Greenie: “He retired from the House. I guess you call it retired if not seeking in November 2018 qualifies as retiring.”

JC: “Whatever you want to call it, he bailed out. Seems like Ryan ran away from the bully Trump. Not what you call a good example for future generations, and not what you call a good ending to your political career.”

Jordan: “Enough of Ryan and McConnell. I’ve got an idea.”

Greenie: “You’ve got an idea? JC, did you hear that? Jordan has an idea.”

Jordan: “Why do I hang out with you guys? Such abuse.”

JC: “C’mon, you love it. Now what’s the idea?”

Jordan: “Looking in the rearview mirror and analyzing the past with a critical eye is important, but as we’ve talked about before, it’s hard to drive very fast by always looking in the rearview mirror.”

JC: “Tell that to some of the cable news talking heads. A lot of them can’t stop driving fast and looking backwards at the same time.”

Greenie: “Let’s keep in mind the past does provide some guidance to the future. You do agree with that, don’t you, Jordan?”

Jordan: “Very much so. And that’s the foundation for the idea. I think we should provide to the post-Revenge Revolution members of Congress a list of suggestions.”

JC: “What kind of suggestions?”

Jordan: “For lack of a better phrase, because I hate to say it, credible suggestions for really how to make America great again.”

Greenie: “I agree with the idea, but please, we need a different slogan. I mean, we don’t need to reincarnate the Donald.”

JC: “You guys serious? What makes us qualified to suggest anything to Congress? Granted none of us is the dullest crayon in the box but what gives us special insight?”

Turtleneck Jordan: “For one, Greenie’s articles about the Revenge Revolution. We might have more understanding about the causes of the Revenge Revolution than anyone in Congress, especially incoming members or staffers.”

Greenie: “I vote, yes, let’s make a list of suggestions. If nothing else making the list will be cathartic…and will make us seem smarter at parties.”

Jordan: “JC, you, in?”

JC: “OK. How do you want to start?”

Greenie: “Why not have a brainstorming session? You know, just blurt out ideas and write them down. We can sort the list later.”

Number List (Following is the list from the brainstorming session about how to really make America great again. Over the coming blog entries, a number of these ideas will be discussed in more detail.)

True leadership starts at the top.
Congress needs to work as a unit and with independence from the Executive Branch. Not everyone in Congress will agree, nor should they agree, on every issue but Congress must function separately from the Executive Branch.
Relationship building is critical. Presidents and administrations that reach out, listen and act for the good of the people are far more effective.
Re-establish the independence of the judicial system. The White House and Congress need to respect the system, the law and quit trying to influence cases.
Public’s confidence and other countries’ confidence in the White House will take several administrations to rebuild – probably 15-20 years.
Adults with demonstrated skills should be selected as cabinet members.
Time devoted in teaching civics needs to increase in grammar, middle and high schools.
Conscription should be reinstituted. An alternative to military service would be a civilian corps.
Widespread infrastructure programs need to be initiated – think WPA approach.
Increase research and development sponsored by Federal government, with particular emphasis on pure research.
Reinstitute environmental and financial regulations…judiciously. Companies and industries have proved repeatedly an in ability to manage themselves.
Increase tax rates across all quintiles with the highest rate increases on upper incomes. Use part of revenue to fund infrastructure and part to help offset the negative long-term effects of Trump tax cut.
Make all elections for Federal office publicly funded with no private contributions. allowed.

Jordan: “OK, let’s take a break. When we get back, we can clarify the wording of some of the ideas, maybe add a few others. We also can start digging a little deeper on these ideas.”

(Continued)

#282 Seeking Clarity from Chaos (Part 1)

17 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues

≈ 1 Comment

Commentary: This week’s entry is a bit different — a personal dialogue. No characters. No scenes in coffee shops or in the office. Just personal dialogue.

What can anyone say to help clarify the chaos we’re living in? While nothing seems appropriate or triuly meaningful, let me provide some perspective on a couple of issues.

I skipped an entry last week to work on two proposals: (i) help improve air quality by reducing emissions from aircraft; (ii) complete development of a remarkably simple micro-utility system that can help provide clean water and electricity to people worldwide. I had drafted comments about Trump’s stupid idea to have a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue but decided the comments were far less important than the proposals that could offer society some potential benefit.

abraham_lincoln_clip_art_15515 Then came the week of February 12, 2018. The week started with some people celebrating the birth of a truly great president…Abraham Lincoln. The rest of the week, however, was mind-numbing blur of events…at least mind-numbing by pre-Trump standards.

The least mind-numbing was that Trump paid…excuse me, Trump’s lawyer paid an adult film star $130,000 to keep quiet about an affair with the Donald. Just stop and think about the lawyer’s admission. The to-be president had an affair with a porn star. The affair started just after the current First Lady gave birth. OK, so it’s not the first time a president has stepped out on his wife…but stepped out with a well-known a porn star? I mean really. The Donald must have been seeking professional advice about sex that also included frequent practice sessions.

And why did the lawyer claim that he paid the porn star out of his own pocket with no reimbursement from Trump? C’mon, such bologna. The lawyer probably squawked because the Donald didn’t pay him back.

Rosenstein The week ended with indictments of 13 Russians and a couple of Russian-run companies for meddling in the 2016 elections. So when the indictments were announced, how did the White House respond? Praise for the Justice Department? Condemnation of Russian interference in the elections? Nope. Only a claim there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians since the indictments indicated the meddling started before Trump formally declared his candidacy.

If the White House only were staffed with people who had graduated from eight grade rather than just kindergarten. Did anyone in the White House with half a brain listen to what Rob Rosenstein said? The indictment was specific to a certain segment of Russian interference in the elections. There was a strong implication in Rosenstein’s remarks of other indictments to come and those indictments would include a different set of characters.

Gallows The Donald and his incompetents club are not close to being off the hook. Truth is Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump but tightened the noose a notch or two.

Either event – porn star or the indictments – could have toppled an administration in “normal” times. But life in Washington and America after Trump – aka, AT – is anything but normal. (And the new “not-normal”-normal is why the country is headed for its fifth revolution, the Revenge Revolution.)

What’s most disappointing in the AT era is not the behavior of the Donald. Anyone mildly familiar with his past knew he was boorish, childish and incredibly insecure…although maybe not to the extremes of today. To understand Trump, all one had to do was visit Trump Tower on 5th Avenue. A perfect reflection of his personality.

So what’s most disappointing then is the behavior of Republicans in Congress. And if you’re a hard-core Republican reading this, please no attempted counters that the Democrats are at fault. Pal, Republicans control the House, Senate and the White House. What more do you want? Yet, the Republicans seem clueless…and have stopped thinking. Did Trump suck out your brains so you can no longer think…and then take your morals along with the brains?

The lack of brains and morals was vividly displayed this week following the killing of 17 students and teachers in Broward County, FL. Look, I know the president is supposed to try to console the nation in times of such tragedies. That’s not going to happen with the Donald.

So the job falls to those next in the line of succession. Starting with the first in line, VP Mike Pence. Did I miss something or did Pence seem to find some place to hide after his gigantic diplomatic faux pas at the Olympics. Hey, Mike, if you can shake hands and support some real a-hole dictators elsewhere in the world, you can at least shake hands with the sister of a guy who has nuclear weapons and might be willing to use them on his neighbors and the US. In case you don’t know it, talking to an enemy doesn’t cause people to die. War is ugly and costly.

Fart Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was talking out of his you-know-what, babbling incoherently about the usual Republican talking points – enforce the gun laws on the books, help the mentally ill and oh, yes, the Second Amendment is sacred. Oops, I almost forgot, we need to pray for the families of the people killed. While not next in line, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated the meaningless drivel.

So, Republicans, where’s your spine…and your brains? Here’s how the real world works. Guns kill people. Understand? It’s not complicated. One more time – guns kill people.

AR-15 Guns are designed for one purpose…and one purpose only – to kill. What’s more, weapons designed for the military – AR-15-like weapons – are designed to kills lots of people quickly.

For those gun supporters who have never been in the military, I suggest you watch a demonstration of the fire power that can be laid down by weapons carried by soldiers in a light-infantry unit. The amount of firepower is breathtaking.

After you’ve been wowed by the demonstration, imagine yourself on the receiving end of all that firepower. Yes, imagine yourself trying to get away and survive or even return the fire. Let me tell you, if you’re up against anyone with a limited amount of military training in the light infantry, you don’t have a chance. And having a bunch of people around with concealed weapons will make little difference…and could make your chances of survival much worse.

The more concealed weapons with the public, the more the shooter will position himself like the shooter in Las Vegas – barricaded and protected against return fire. Argue all you want that more guns in the public’s hands actually save lives…but your arguments Airplane don’t hold water. As awful and frightful as this sounds…and it is…I could go to a gun show and buy weapons that allow me to shoot down a commercial airliner. What’s even worse, at most major airports I could position myself outside the perimeter of airport security and still be able to take down the airliner. Scary isn’t it.

So what’s the solution? (Continued)

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Education Issues

#328 Public or For-Profit Educational Institution. Which More Cost Effective for Specialized Training?

#327 Do For-Profit Universities Help Prepare for Coming Technology Tsunami – Yes, No?

#325 Charter Schools Destroy the Fabric that Made America Great. Ban Charter Schools. (2of2)

#320 Personal Experience Developing AI and Implications for Skills and Employment

#313 “I’m So Proud of My Son. He Lies, Cheats, Steals and Discriminates.”

#309 Can We Talk Economics? Do Tariffs Really Work…or Does the Working Stiff Get Screwed Again? (#2 in Series)

#297 Making America Great Again #7: Presidential Candidates Must Pass 8th-Grade EOY Exams

#294: Making America Great Again #4, Ban Charter Schools…and Busing.

#291 Quit Whining, Already. How Do We Turn Around This Ship?

#282 Seeking Clarity from Chaos (Part 1)